EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.

HC Deb 04 November 1902 vol 114 cc15-79

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee).

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

Clause 10:—

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

moved an Amendment providing that the Board of Education should "without unnecessary delay" determine in case of dispute whether a school was necessary or not. He said he had taken the words which he proposed to insert from the Scottish Education Act, but he might remind the Committee that in the English Act of 1870 the phrase used was "with due despatch."

SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

said that on the preceding night an Amendment to which some hon. Members attached great importance—it was one in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, and dealt with the question of time—was excluded from discussion by the application of the closure. He thought it very essential that the House should have an opportunity of discussing and dividing upon the question.

DR. MACNAMARA

said he had adopted the Scotch form, not because it was preferable, but because it seemed that anything in connection with the Scottish Act found greater favour in certain quarters.

Amendment proposed— In line 9, after the word 'shall' to insert the words 'without unnecessary delay.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)

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

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)

said that surely the Committee were not going to insert words in an Act of Parliament which would suggest that a Government Department could be guilty of unnecessary delay.

Several HON. MEMBERS

Government Departments are.

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE

said he would have thought the word "forthwith" would have been sufficient.

Question put and agreed to.

MR. M'KENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)

proposed to cancel all the words of the Clause after the statement that the Board of Education should, without unnecessary delay, determine in case of dispute whether a school was necessary or not. He said the Clause provided that the Board of Education should decide under such conditions that it was inconceivable that their decision should be other than favourable to the existing managers of schools or other persons, as against the I local education authority. It was difficult in dealing with the Bill not to believe that the want of good faith so frequently disclosed was intentional; of course he was ready to recognise that the conditions imposed on the Board of Education were not really understood at the time they were inserted in the Clause, but as he had said, it was difficult to believe it, because when they came to consider the conditions one by one, they found that the hands of the Board were absolutely tied in coming to a conclusion between the local education authority and the managers. The first condition was that the Board of Education should have regard to the interest of secular instruction. That looked fair, but as a matter of fact, although the local education authority might urge that the interests of secular instruction would be damaged by a new non-provided school, the denominational managers would be able to contend that secular instruction would not be damaged by their school, as the local education authority had absolute control of secular instruction, and it was, therefore, immaterial from the point of view of secular instruction whether the new school was a voluntary or provided school. This first condition was, therefore, the merest pretence, and no one could conceive that the Board would, in such a case as he had suggested, give its decision in favour of the local education authority. The second point was that regard was to be paid to the wishes of the parents, who were the parties who were to go before the Board of Education. On the one side, they would have ten parents from the district served by the school put forward, probably by some society who paid their expenses, but who would speak at any rate as parents living in the district; while, on the other side, there would be the local education authority, with its head offices possibly forty miles away from the locality, and very likely the representative of the district on the authority unable to attend. Would not the judgment of the Board of Education oil this point go in favour of the ten parents or the managers as against a local education authority whose contact with parish concerns, it could be argued, was less close, and who could not put forward any better argument than the general public convenience? The third and last condition alone was obviously sufficient to put the local education authority out of Court. It was that the Board was also to have regard to the economy of the rates. Once again, who were the parties to go before the Board of Education? On the one side, there was the local education authority which was to levy the rates for the building and maintenance of the school; on the other hand, the managers of the existing school, or ten parents who would come forward with the guarantee that they would find the building. It was clear that in that case there must be economy of rates, and the decision would go against the local authority. That was not all. The author of the Bill—and he could not believe that the First Lord of the Treasury had realised the fact—had put in a final sub-Section which still further limited the discretion of the Board of Education. It was to the effect that wherever a number of persons had built a school and got thirty children to attend it, the Board was bound to recognise the institution as a public elementary school, and the local education authority could not appeal against that, provided the school was actually in existence. The right of appeal was only given when the school building was not ready. The humour of the Clause did not end there. It would be observed that the subsequent Clause did not provide any penalty if the local education authority did not act in conformity with the orders of the Board of Education, and the managers or other persons were placed in this position: If they could build their school and get thirty children to attend it for the three months that were to elapse before any appeal was to be made to the Board of Education, the local education authority was at once put out of court. An Amendment had accordingly been put down giving the Board compulsory power in the matter as against the local education authority, but not, he complained, as against the managers of an existing school or other persons. In practice the proposals of the Government would be used in certain districts to prevent the local education authority from doing its duty by making provision for elementary education in its area, while on those who objected, the managers of existing schools or other persons, there would be no enforcable duty of making good the deficiency.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 10, to leave out the words from the word 'not' to the end of the Clause."—(Mr. M'Kenna.)

Question proposed, "That the words from the word 'not,' to the first word 'to,' in line 12, stand part of the Clause."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the hon. Gentleman suffered from the malady which he observed had attacked a great many of the critics of the Bill, who thought it was some marvellously subtle contrivance devised by wicked and unscrupulous persons, who, under the cover of very plain and apparently innocent provisions, were really bringing into operation a marvellous engine for the destruction of all that hon. Gentlemen opposite held dear. The disease appeared to have attacked a large number of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and was a very vigorous and apparently infectious malady, but he really could not see that it ought to find an exciting cause in the words to which the hon. Gentleman objected. The hon. Gentleman thought these three provisions in Clause 10 at once so plausible and so wicked that only a surgical operation which would leave nothing hut the first two lines of the Clause would satisfy him. They had laid down that the Board of Education, in determining a controversy as to whether a school was or was not necessary, should have regard to three conditions—the interest of secular instruction, the wishes of the parents as to the education of their children, and the economy of the rates. What other conditions could they possibly have put in? He was perfectly unable to understand the hon. Gentleman's point with regard to secular instruction. They heard yesterday speeches from many Hon. Gentlemen opposite complaining that the provisions of the Bill would tend to the multiplication of small schools, and that this would be injurious to the interests of secular education. Now they had put into Clause 10 a provision that the Board of Education should have regard to the interests of secular education, and they were at once denounced as unscrupulous Machiavelian legislators. It appeared to him that they had attempted to meet, and had met, the very objection of which they heard so much yesterday, and the hon. Gentleman, in common consistency, ought now to support the Government. Why were they to imagine that the Board of Education were incapable of discovering what the general views might be in the district where a new school was to be erected? Why were they to assume that the inspectors sent down by the Board of Education would be incapable of discovering the general views of the district and of corning to a rational conclusion on this not very recondite matter Then as to the provision that the Board of Education should have regard to the economy of the rates, he should have thought that was a condition that would have appealed to every hon. Gentleman on the other side. It was true it might be argued, with great and genuine force, that if the rates concerned were the rates of the whole area for which the local authority provided, that authority itself would be the best judge, until, at all events, a loan was asked for, and while the expenditure was merely out of the annual rates. But they were here concerned with a rate which fell, not on the education authority as a whole, and not on the whole area which the authority controlled, but probably with one that concerned only a relatively small portion of that area. It was quite fair, therefore, that the burden to be thrown on the ratepayers should be one of the considerations, though not the most important or vital, which ought not to be lost sight of by the Board of Education. It seemed to him that these conditions were not only desirable, but necessary. Their number certainly ought not to be diminished, for they covered the whole ground. The hon. Gentleman argued that, while a general power was given to the Education Department to compel the local authorities to do their duty under this. Act and the Act of 1870, there was no corresponding power to compel the managers of voluntary schools to do their duty. He quite agreed that it would be an abuse if persons, while saying they were ready to build a school, and that what was wanted in the district was a school suited in the main to those of their own denomination, should defer from month to month, or from year to year, under cover of that perhaps perfectly just contention, the carrying out of an obligation which the interests of the district required should be carried out without any undue delay. He thought, however, that a provision in regard to this matter need not be inserted in an Act, as power already existed in the Department. He therefore submitted that the Clause as it stood was not open to the strictures of the hon. Gentleman.

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

suggested that only the first two lines of the Clause, providing "that the Board of Education shall determine in case of dispute whether a school is necessary or not," were necessary; all the rest was verbiage. But it seemed to have been determined that the new education authority should have practically no voice in connection with any new schools. The County Councils, which were to conduct the education of the country, were being put into a position so contemptible and humiliating that he could not conceive any self-respecting body accepting the task upon such terms, and they could not be surprised if many of these bodies could not undertake the responsibility. Let the Committee look at the conditions in Clause 10. They had declared that the local education authority were to be supreme in respect of secular education. Supposing the local education authority said a new provided school was necessary for secular education, how were they to maintain secular education if that question was sent to the Board of Education to be determined against them? The same might be said of every one of these conditions. They would see that the local education authority were a miserable, subordinate body, who had to have the whole of their actions in secular education, in rates, and in everything else at the disposal of the Board of Education. His hon. and learned friend had taken some trouble to prove that these conditions would compel the Board of Education to determine against a provided school and in favour of a denominational school. He need not have been at that trouble. Those who had listened to the discussions and had seen the animus with which this Bill had been prepared might take it for granted that this matter would go to an arbitration in which the arbitrator had already decided. He confessed that the reference of this Section to the authors of the Bill, and those who would have to administer it, showed the way the decision was likely to go. The first thing was free secular education, and if there was any colour or pretence that the control of secular education was going to be given to the local education authority, the first condition must and ought to be that the decision as to new schools for secular education should be left to the local authority alone. It should not be over-ruled by any one who could say, "Our opinion is that denominational schools are better than provided schools for providing secular education." Consider the next condition, having regard to the wishes of the parents. One of the great merits of this Bill was that it was to be administered by the local authority. Who was the best judge of the wishes of the parents in a particular locality, the Board at Whitehall or the local authority? Who possessed the best means of judging? Why was the Board of Education at Whitehall to be a netter judge of the wishes of the parents in a particular locality than the local education authority or the County Council? The County Council was put into a most contemptible position. They might be challenged on every point. They were not to be the people who were to judge whether a school was necessary or not in their own district. What would be the value of an educational authority which was not capable of forming an opinion as to whether a school was necessary or not? Then, with regard to the question of rates. Was the Secretary to the Board of Education a better judge of the question of rates than the local County Council or local education authority? It would surprise some local County Council and Borough Councils to hear that. If the hon. Gentleman had to listen to two people, one of whom proposed to build a school without any charge to the rates and the other to build a school with a charge to the rates, he would of course always decide in favour of the school which was not to be a charge on the rates. If the hon. Gentleman had to go into the question of rates he could come to no other conclusion. The First Lord of the Treasury felt that somehow or other County Councils and Borough Councils had something to do with the rates. Whether that was a recent discovery on the part of the First Lord of the Treasury he did not know. The right hon. Gentleman had tried to get out of the stringency of that difficulty by saying that the charge on the rates for building the school would be a local charge; but that the charge for the maintenance of each of these schools would be a general charge; therefore his answer to that objection had utterly and entirely failed. Then, the last condition: A school actually in existence shall not be considered unnecessary in which the number of scholars in average attendance as computed by the Board of Education is not less than thirty. The Attorney General had interpreted that as meaning schools actually in existence at the time of the passing of the Act. But that was to include a school formed in the future. Anybody could get hold of a barn, which was what these schools were in old days, and get together thirty scholars.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)

said, first of all, sanction would have to be obtained under Clause 9, and after that, if the school was established, the attendance dwindled down to below thirty, it would be unnecessary.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Would it be a school actually in existence?

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said, as he understood, the right hon. Gentleman was alluding to schools established after the passing of the Act. They could only be established under the sanction provided by Clause, 9, and subject to inquiry, if demanded, by the Board of Education. If it passed that test, a school so set up would remain a necessary school so long as it contained thirty scholars.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said then "established" meant thirty scholars, and did not mean a school actually in existence. In future, when thirty scholars were got together there would be a power to compel County Councils and local education authorities to maintain the school. He did not know under the circumstances whether the powers placed in the County Councils under this Bill were such that they could conscientiously undertake to administer it. In the West Riding of Yorkshire the local authorities had had already stated that they did not consider, under the conditions of the Bill, that they could conduct the education of the county. The Attorney General looked forward, with the ardour of his profession, to the mandamus with which he would be charged under this Bill. But the question went further. Why not mandamus the other party? There was no answer at all to that. The only penalty put into the Act was to withdraw the grant, but that did not prevent the obligation to maintain the school. The proposal was that the rates should be withdrawn as well.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said if the conditions were not observed the right of maintenance ceased.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

asked how in the world were they going to mandamus one set of parties and not another? Were they not also persons who came under the law? Parliament ordered them to do a particular thing; if they did not do it the grant might be withdrawn. But if they were ordered to do a thing on these conditions, why were they not to be compelled to do it? It was not very important to labour the point, because he regarded the mandamus as a farce. If such powers were necessary the scheme of education would be at an end. He agreed with these Amendments. They were Amendments which determined the question of whether a school was necessary or not, and if the Government chose to say that a question of that kind should not be left with the education authority, then he ventured to say they would condemn the Bill, and that the education authority would be worthless for the purpose for which it was brought into being.

SIR JOSEPH LEESE (Lancashire, Accrington)

supported the Amendment, because the words it proposed to omit were, in his opinion, absolutely unnecessary. Not only would some of the conditions not work, but they placed upon the Board of Education something in the nature of a direction which surely was not necessary in a body to be vested with judicial authority. The Board were to have regard to the interests of secular instruction. But the Clause concerned new schools, and it already been provided that the local authority should have all control of secular instruction. What, then, was the use of repeating a provision already passed by the Committee? Then the Board were to have regard to the wishes of the parents. Where were they to find the parents of the children who might possibly attend a school not yet built? It was really ridiculous to make such a provision. As to having regard to the economy of the rates, who could tell better than the elected representatives of the ratepayers how money should be spent? And who, being elected by the ratepayers, would dare to waste the ratepayers' money? The best safeguard for the economy of the rates was the control of the ratepayers. The conditions were therefore absolutely unnecessary, and the desire of the Government would be secured by the words— The Board of Education should determine in case of dispute whether a school is necessary or not.

DR. MACNAMARA

desired to enter a last, but, he feared, a futile, protest against this new-fangled scheme of providing school accommodation. He was a constitutionalist, and was unable to accommodate himself to the rapid and enormous changes the present. "Constitutional Government" were making in this matter. In the past, the one ground on which additional accommodation had been provided was the existence of a deficiency of school places, and that was the only safe basis on which to go. The entirely new scheme now proposed was bound in the long run to he disastrous. The Board were to have regard to the interest of secular instruction. He did nut understand that at all. Was it suggested that in a village there were to he provided several kinds of secular instruction? No one in his senses would imagine that a great variety of forms of secular instruction could he provided to meet special needs. He imagined that this new provision was simply their old friend "necessary or not" in another form. But if that was the case, why not say so? Then, the Board were to have regard to the wishes of the parents. That was all moonshine. If they had regard to the wishes of a persistent, but he was glad to say a small, minority of the parents in the matter of school accommodation, the authority would never provide any school at all. It was impossible to have regard to the wishes of the parents in that way. All that could be done was, after the necessary accommodation had been provided, to meet the needs of the parents, if practicable, with regard to religious instruction—perhaps under the Scottish system. The whole purport of the provision under discussion was to provide separate schools in response to the demand for different classes of religious instruction. Such a scheme was financially disastrous and educationally grotesque. Small schools could not be organised, the money of the ratepayers would be wasted, and the children would not get the education which they could get if they attended a comparatively large school. The third point was as to the economy of the rates. He was not particularly anxious about the rates. He would like to put the rates and theology on one side, and get on with the question of education pure and simple. But he viewed with some cynicism this provision coming from the Board of Education in the Homeland of the great British Empire. The recent declaration of the Premier of West Australia that as long as they had a single penny in their coffers they would spend it on the education of their people was in sharp contrast with this overwhelming desire for the economy of the rates. What would be said of a Secretary of State for War who, on finding the Army furnished with obsolete guns, refused to remedy the defect on the ground that regard must be had to the economy of the taxes? That was a perfectly parallel position, as national education was as much a line of national defence as the Army. The policy of the Clause was extremely short-sighted. A clear incentive was given to the use of denominational buildings wherever they existed, in order to relieve the locality of the capital charges for the building of a new school. The religious bodies of the country, having such buildings, had only to get the necessary attendance and claim to be put on the rates, and there for all time would be a school with the fetters of denominationalism around the education of the children. The clear intention of this provision was to secure that being done, and he protested against it. Apart from the existing parochial buildings, which with slight alterations could be used for schools, there were about £800,000 a year in voluntary subscriptions. At a generous estimate the repairs mould cost £250,000, leaving over half a million of money at once applicable to the provision of buildings, which might be used for school purposes, and by instructing the Board to have regard to the economy of the rates, the Government were switching off education from the broad lines of nationalism to the narrow and devious ways of sectarianism. This new-fangled scheme of school accommodation being denominational rather than national, would be fatal to national progress and national education. The question of rate-aid, and popular control would settle itself, but this Clause fettered denominationalism of the narrowest kind around the education of the country, and therefore he strongly opposed it.

(3.27.) SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)

said that the last time the Board of Education, of which he was a member, had to decide this question they decided it in the very way which the hon. Member for North Camberwell had described as impossible. In a village on the outskirts of Leeds there was a deficiency of school accommodation which the vicar wished to supply by building an additional voluntary school, and the School Board of Leeds by building a board school. The parish was a rich one, the rector was an extremely able educationalist, and, as far as the interests of education were concerned, there was nothing to choose between the two proposals. The sole ground on which the matter was decided was the wishes of the parents who would be served by the school. There was no difficulty in finding those parents, because they lived in the houses of the village in which the school was to be built. Inquiry was made and it was easily ascertained that the people wished to have a board school. That being the general opinion of the parents, the decision of the Board of Education was that the deficiency should be supplied by the School Board of Leeds, and not by the vicar.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

said his strong objection to this proposal of the Government was that it tied the hands of the Department and hampered them in giving proper consideration as to whether a school ought to be provided or not. He gathered from the Prime Minister's speech that these three instructions were the obvious ones and exhausted all the instructions that could be given to the Department, and other matters could not arise. Surely all who had had experience of education questions knew that these three matters did not exhaust the instructions, and there were other matters which ought to be taken into consideration which would arise in the creation of a new school. The main question was whether the accommodation was required or not, and in taking that into account they should consider other things that might arise in connection with the matter. The right hon. Gentleman said the Opposition seemed to look upon these matters with grave suspicion, and for his own part he did look upon them with suspicion. None of the speeches from the other side had put forward any reason for leaving this matter to the discretion of the Department. The real reason for putting in this proviso was to give the Department an excuse for deciding in favour of denominational schools. The object of putting in these limitations seemed to be to hamper any future Government which might succeed the present Government in dealing with this question. He could not see any other grounds for this proposal and he strongly opposed it on the ground that in this matter the Education Department ought to have absolute and full discretion and should not be hampered in deciding what future accommodation ought to be provided.

MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

said that the one point of interest in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University was that he openly admitted that in the case he quoted the Department absolutely excluded the consideration of the economy of the rates, and had argued that, in this case, the Department had secured effectually a just solution of the wants of the locality by deciding the matter without taking that question into consideration. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was thus one of the very strongest arguments for leaving the Board of Education an absolutely free hand and not restricting them by this requirement. He had regarded this Bill from beginning to end with a profound conviction that it was intended to supply unlimited funds and unrestricted power to the clerical party to enable thorn to get and keep in their hands the educational machinery of the country. They were now reduced to the ridiculous position, that this omnipotent authority, which was to re-organise the education of the country was to set about its duty bound hand and foot; and not only were they to have an equal balance given to the denominational competitors in regard to the right to make provision of schools, but when they came to arbitrate as to whether this authority was really to be entitled to provide schools for the community—the local education authority, which any one with aspirations for a national system would wish to see given the fullest right to provide, or their private sectarian competitors — then they had the Board of Education launched upon them with its hands and feet tied and fettered and limited by the restrictions the very absence of which they now knew had enabled the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University to perform not long ago an act of justice. These two Clauses completely fettered and paralysed the education authority. Then, again, he wish to put this question. Part of Section 18 of the Act of 1870 was embodied in this Bill, and the words included were— That a School Board shall from time to time provide such additional school accommodation as is in their opinion necessary in order to supply a sufficient amount of public school accommodation for the district. Yesterday, the Chairman in ruling certain Amendments out of order drew attention to the last paragraph of the Third Schedule which provided:— The duty of a local education authority under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1902, to provide a sufficient amount of public school accommodation, shall include the duty to provide a sufficient amount of public school accommodation, without payment of fees, in every part of their area. He wished to ask whether the limitations of these Clauses which restricted the powers of the local authority and of the Board of Education were consistent or inconsistent with the provisions he had just quoted to the Committee? It seemed to him that those provisions gave unrestricted power for the provision of future accommodation to the local education authority, and constituted a duty on their part to provide from time to time such accommodation, and especially of free places, as in their opinion was sufficient and necessary. These restrictions which were placed upon the local education authority, and upon the freedom of the Board of Education in acting as arbiter, were an entire contradiction to the wording of the Bill. His hon. friend naturally took exception to the words at the end of the Clause, because there had been no explicit statement as to what sort of schools were contemplated. In a previous debate the Attorney General had said that a school must necessarily mean a public elementary school, but there was nothing in this Clause to justify that contention. It simply said, "a school actually in existence." It was perfectly essential that that point should be clearly defined before they could admit the justice of the right hon. Gentleman's contention. The Attorney General said that these schools must run the gauntlet of Clause 9.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

Yes, the new schools.

MR. CHANNING

Where was the difficulty in a rich company raising funds, and either using old buildings or building new schools, without giving any notice or applying to the local authority or the Board of Education and carrying those schools on for six months under the conditions laid down in the Act of 1870, for public elementary schools with a Conscience Clause time table and expressed willingness to receive an inspector, etc.? Where was there anything in the Act to prevent schools of that kind being run for a few months by private individuals or a company and then claiming to come in on the rates and compete with the schools of the local education authority? Such schools could come to the Education Department and say "We have an average attendance of more than thirty and we claim to be quartered permanently upon the rates and the grant list."

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

Under Clause 9, the Board of Education would have a controlling power as to whether such schools should be public elementary schools or not.

MR. CHANNING

contended that there was no difficulty in starting a school, for they could do this by inviting people to send thirty children. His point was that if any body of men were to do that, that school, according to the wording of this Clause, would be entitled to say, "We are a public elementary school." Therefore they had to face this evil in its most naked and outrageous form. Practically by this Clause the sectarian demand to start schools was placed on an absolute level in the first place with the local authority, and after they had restricted the rights of the local authority, the Board of Education were prevented from judging with a free hand between the two parties. Finally the bogus and mushroom schools started all over the country might set up claims for permanent support from the rates. It was a disgrace to education, and a disgrace to fair play as between one side and another in this matter.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

understood that the Government, in its allusion in this Clause to a "necessary school" only intended it to refer to a public elementary school, but according to the wording, it might equally refer to an unauthorised school. He was sure the Government did not wish the Clause to be ambiguous.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said there could be no harm in inserting "public elementary" before the word "school" but it was not necessary, because the only schools in regard to which that Clause had any force were public elementary schools.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

urged that the same thing occurred yesterday on a Clause. There was a misleading expression in that Clause, and he thought the Government would alter it, but when it came to the point they had no opportunity of amending it. The Committee should have a promise from the Government that they would introduce the words "public elementary."

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

thought the words were already quite unnecessary, and if they were introduced in one place in this Clause and not in another earlier in the Clause it might leave in doubt as to what the meaning of "school" in the first instance was. The Clause began by saying that the Board of Education should determine whether a school was necessary or not. There the word was "school" and the question could only arise in the case of public elementary schools.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said the word "school," at the beginning was not used in the same sense as at the end. At the beginning it was not a public elementary school that was referred to, and the Board of Education was deciding there whether a school should become a public elementary school.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

I do not agree with that.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said the Board of Education was to determine whether a school had become a public elementary school or not.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said that under Clause 8 the local education authority could say that a particular public elementary school was not necessary, and ensure that the word in Clause 10 related to the provision of new schools.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said the Attorney General had been good enough to refer to Clause 8. The first words of that Clause referred to a "public elementary school" and he thought it would be better that these words should be introduced here also. There was no kind of sliding scale in the considerations that were to determine the Board of Education in the decision of an appeal. Wishes of the parents, secular instruction, and economy of the rates—they were all placed on an equal footing. As to the last consideration, respecting the rates, there was no option. The decision must be in favour of the denominational school. As to the wishes of the parents, how were they going to be ascertained? Was there going to be a public inquiry, or was the clergyman to get up a petition and hand it in? The inspector who went down to inquire, as a rule, had preconceived notions with regard to these things. There were two different opinions with regard to education. One was, that the most important thing was secular instruction. The second was that of the gentleman who got up the petition; and they would say they did not want to give their children this dangerous weapon of reading and writing, as Canon Lyttleton had described it; what they wanted was to give them religious doctrine which taught them to be "humble and lowly to all their betters," and explained to them that their betters were the canons and prebendaries and curates of the Church. That was their opinion of education. A large number of these inspectors were clergymen themselves, and they were the very gentlemen who for years and years had tolerated insanitary dwellings, purely and simply in the interests of sectarian education. ["Oh, oh."] Was it not the case that those inspectors had the superintendence of the health and education of the children, and that they had done that in the interest of the denominational schools? [Cries of "Oh," and "Divide."] Hon. Members opposite were exceedingly impatient. When they were getting their Bill through at motor-car speed, surely they might tolerate a few regulations on the speed. Did they mean to say that the toleration of insanitary schools was not detrimental to education

and to the health of the children? Did the law of the land tolerate them now? If it did not, why was it then that those inspectors did not report the insanitary condition of the schools to the Board of Education? It was because they were what was called imbued with a friendly sympathy with the voluntary schools. Those inspectors, imbued with a friendly sympathy with the voluntary schools, would go down to make this inquiry. They would not visit the parents; they would see the managers and the clergyman, and their report would be that in the interest of education, the wishes of the parents, and the rights of the existing denominational schools, a rival school should not be set up.

(4.3.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 203; Noes. 109. (Division List No. 468.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Greville, Hon. Roland
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Colomb, Sir.John Charles Ready	Groves, James Grimble
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Hain, Edward
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Hall, Edward Marshall
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Cranborne, Viscount	Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Arrol, Sir William	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Crossley. Sir Servile	Hare, Thomas Leigh
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Harris, Frederick Leverton
Baird, John George Alexander	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.
Balcarres, Lord	Denny, Colonel	Heaton, John Henniker
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)	Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Helder, Augustus
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Dixon-Hartland SirFr'dDixon	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.
Balfour, Rt HnGeraldW (Leeds	Douglas, Rt. Hon A. Akers-	Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset,E.
Bartley, George C. T.	Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart	Hogg, Lindsay
Beckett, Ernest William	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside
Bignold, Arthur	Faber, George Denison (York)	Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsh'm
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Fardell, Sir P. George	Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)
Bond, Edward	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Mane'r	Hudson, George Bickersteth
Boulnois, Edmund	Finch, George H.	Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse
Brassey, Albert	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Johnstone, Heywood
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Fisher, William Hayes	Kemp, George
Brookfiled, Colonel Montagu	Fison, Frederick William	Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T (Denbigh)
Brown, Alexander H (Shropsh.	FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop
Brymer, William Ernest	Fitzroy ,Hon. EdwardAlgernon	Kimber, Henry
Bull, William James	Flannery, Sir Forteseue	Knowles, Lees
Campbell, Rt Hn J. A.(Glasgow	Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Carew, James Laurence	Flower, Ernest	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Forster, Henry William	Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Foster, Philips (Warwick, S.W.	Lee, ArthurH (Hants., Fareham
Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire	Galloway, William Johnson	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Garfit, William	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)	Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Gordon MajEvans-(T'rH'melts	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)	Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Chaplin. Rt. Hon. Henry	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Chapman, Edward	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Macdona, John Cumming
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Gosehen, Hon. Geroge Joachim	M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W
Cochrane Hon. Thos. H.A.E.	Goulding, Edward Alfred	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Malcolm, Ian
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Greene, SirEW(B'ryS,Edm'nds	Manners, Lord Cecil
Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE.(Wigt'n	Purvis, Robert	Tollemache, Henry James
Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire	Pym, C. Guy	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Randles, John S.	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Rankin, Sir James	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Valentia, Viscount
Morgan, David J(Walthamstow	Rattigan, Sir William Henry	Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Morrell, George Herbert	Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge	Walker, Col. William Hall
Morrison, James Archibald	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	Walrond, Rt. Hon Sir William H
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Mount, William Arthur	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Round, Rt. Hon. James	Welby, Lt-Col. A.C.E(Taunton
Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute)	Royds, Clement Molyneux	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-	Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd
Myers, William Henry	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander	Whiteley, H(Ashton-und.Lyne
Nicholson, William Graham	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)	Williams, RtHn J Powell-(Birm
Nicol, Donald Ninian	Simeon, Sir Barrington	Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)
Nolan, Col.John P.(Galway, N.	Skewes-Cox, Thomas	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.	Wodehouse,Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)
Parker, Sir Gilbert	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Pemberton, John S. G.	Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)	Wylie, Alexander
Percy, Earl	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M`Taggart	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Pierpoint, Robert	Strutt, Hon. Chas. Helley	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier	Younger, William
Plummer, Walter R.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUniv	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Pretyman, Ernest George	Thorburn, Sir Walter	Sir Alexander Acland-
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Thornton, Percy M.	Hoodand Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)	Harcourt,Rt. Hon. Sir William	Philipps, John Wynford
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud	Harwood, George	Rea, Russell
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Bell, Richard	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Brigg, John	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Runciman, Walter
Broadhurst, Henry	Holland, Sir William Henry	Schwann, Charles E.
Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West	Shackleton, David James
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Horniman, Frederick John	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Burt, Thomas	Jacoby, James Alfred	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Caine, William Sproston	Kearley, Hudson E.	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Caldwell, James	Kinloch, Sir John, George Smyth	Soares, Ernest, J.
Cameron, Robert	Lambert, George	Spencer , RtHn C. R. (Northants
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Langley, Batty	Stevenson, Francis S.
Causton, Richard Knight	Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington	Strachey, Sir Edward
Channing, Francis Allston	Leng, Sir John	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)
Dalziel, James Henry	Levy, Maurice	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Lewis, John Herbert	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Lloyd-George, David	Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Logan, John William	Thomas ,JA (Glamorgan, Gow'r
Dunn, Sir William	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Toulmin, George
Edwards, Frank	M'Kenna, Reginald	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T
Ellis, John Edward	M`Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin	Wason, Eugene
Emmott, Alfred	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Weir, James Galloway
Evans, Sir Francis H(Maidstone	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe	White, George (Norfolk)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Markham, Arthur Basil	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Fenwick, Charles	Mather, Sir William	Whitley, George(York, W. R.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund	Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Middlemore, John (Thr'gmort'n	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Fuller, J. M. F.	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.
Furness, Sir Christopher	Newnes, Sir George	Yoxall, James Henry
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Grant, Corrie	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)	Palmer, Sir Chas. M.(Durham)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Griffith, Ellis J.	Parthigton, Oswald	Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Mr. William M'Arthur.

(4.13.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause from the first word "to," in page 4, line 12, to the word "but," in line 14, both inclusive, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause from the first word "to," to page 4, line 12, to the word "but," in line 14, both

inclusive, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 213; Noes. 108. (Division List No. 469.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Fisher, William Hayes	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Fison, Frederick William	Morgan, David J(Walth'mstow
Arkwright, John Stanhope	FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Morrell, George Herbert
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon	Morrison, James Archibald
Arrol, Sir William	Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Mount, William Arthur
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Flower, Ernest	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Forster, Henry William	Murray, Rt Hn A.Graham(Bute
Baird, John George Alexander	Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Balcarres, Lord	Galloway, William Johnson	Myers, William Henry
Batfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manchr	Garfit, William	Nicholson, William Graham
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans	Nicol, Donold Ninian
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds	Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rHmlets	Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway,N.
Bartley, George C. T.	Gore, Hn G. R. C Ormsby-(Salop	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Beckett, Ernest William	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)	Parker, Sir Gilbert
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Pemberton, John S. G.
Bignold, Arthur	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim	Percy, Earl
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Pierpoint, Robert
Bond, Edward	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Greene, Sir EW(B'ryS.Edm'nds	Plummer, Walter R.
Boulnois, Edmund	Grevillle, Hon. Ronald	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex	Groves, James Grimble	Pretyman, Ernest George
Brassey, Albert	Hall, Edward Marshall	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.	Purvis, Robert
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Hambro, Charles Eric	Pym, C. Guy
Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Randles, John S.
Brymer, William Ernest	Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd	Rankin, Sir James
Bull, William James	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A(Glasgow	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Carew, James Laurence	Haslam, Sir Afred S.	Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybriage
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.	Heaton, John Henniker	Ritchie,Rt. Hon. Chas.Thomson
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Helder, Augustus	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Robinson, Brooke
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset,E.)	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hogg, Lindsay	Round, Rt. Hon. James
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Hope, JF.(Sheffield, Brightside	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.	Howard, John (Kent, Faversham	Rutherford, John
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Chapman, Edward	Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse
Cocbrane, Hon. Thomas H.A.E.	Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Johnstone, Heywood	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Kemp, George	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Kenyon,Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)	Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Kimber, Henry	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset
Cranborne, Viscount	Knowles, Lees	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley.
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Crossley, Sir Saville	Lee,ArthurH (Hants., Fareham	Talbot, RtHn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ
Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Thorburn, Sir Walter
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Thornton, Percy M.
Davenport, William Bromley-	Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham	Tollemache, Henry James
Denny, Colonel	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'dDixon	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Macdona John Cumming	Valentia, Viscount
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart	M'Iver, Sir Lewis(EdinburghW	Vincent, Col. Sir C E H. (Sheffield
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire)	Walker, Col. William Hall
Faber, George Denison (York)	Malcolm, Ian	Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.
Fardell, Sir T. George	Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E(Wigt'n	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Maxwell, W J H(Dumfriesshire	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Manc'r	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Welby, Lt-Col A.C.E.(Taunton
Finch, George H.	Middlemore, John Throgmort'n	Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.)
Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R. (Bath	Younger, William
Whiteley, H(Ashton-und. Lyne	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Williams, Rt Hn Powell-(Birm	Wylie, Alexander	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George	Sir Alexander Acland-
Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (York.)	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.	Hood, and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Allan, Sir William(Gateshead)	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Pickard, Benjamin
Allen, Charles P.(Gloue. Stroud	Harwood, George	Rea, Russell
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Hayne, Rt Hon. Charles Seale-	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Bell, Richard	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Brigg, John	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Runciman, Walter
Broadhurst, Henry	Holland, Sir William Henry	Schwann, Charles E.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West	Shackleton, David James
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Horniman, Frederick John	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Burt, Thomas	Jacoby, James Alfred	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Jones, David Bryrnmor (Swans'a	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Caine, William Sproston	Kearley, Hudson E.	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Caldwell, James	Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth	Soares, Ernest J.
Cameron, Robert	Lambert, George	Spencer, RtHn C. R. (Northants
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Langley, Batty	Stevenson, Francis S.
Causton, Richard Knight	Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington	Strachey, Sir Edward
Channing, Francis Allston	Leng, Sir John	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.
Dalziel, James Henry	Levy, Maurice	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Lewis, John Herbert	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Logan, John William	Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Thomas, J A(Glamorgan, Gower
Dunn, Sir William	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Toulmin, George
Edwards, Frank	M'Kenna, Reginald	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Ellis, John Edward	M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin	Wasen, Eugene
Emmott, Alfred	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Weir, James Galloway
Evans, Sir Francis H(Maidstone	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe	White, George (Norfolk)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Markham, ,Arthur Basil	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Fenwick, Charles	Mather, Sir William	Whiteley, George (York, W.R.
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund	Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Fuller, J. M. F.	Newnes, Sir George	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.
Furness, Sir Christopher	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Grant, Corrie	Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)	Partington, Oswald	Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Griffith, Ellis J.	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Mr. William M'Arthur.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Philipps, John Wynford

(4.28.) Question put accordingly.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 220; Noes, 107. (Division List No. 470.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Blundell, Colonel Henry	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Allhusen, Augustus H'nryEden	Bond, Edward	Chapman, Edward
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Clive, Captain Percy A.
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Boulnois, Edmund	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex	Coghill, Douglas Harry
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Brassey, Albert	Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Arrol, Sir William	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Brymer, William Ernest	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge
Baird, John George Alexander	Bull, William James	Cranborne, Viscount
Balcarres, Lord	Campbell, RtHn. J. A (Glasgow	Cripps, Charles Alfred
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r	Carew, James Laurence	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds	Carvil Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Crossley, Sir Savile
Banbury, Frederick George	Cavendish, V.C.W(Derbyshire	Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Bartley, George C. T.	Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Beckett, Ernest William	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Davenport, William Bromley-
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Denny, Colonel
Bignold, Arthur	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.	Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dix'n	Johnstone, Heywood	Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Kemp, George	Ridley, Hn. M.W. (Stalybridge)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Kimber, Henry	Robinson, Brooke
Faber, George Denison (York)	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Fardell, Sir T. George	Knowles, Lees	Round, Rt. Hon. James
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Rutherford, John
Finch, George H.	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Fisher, William Hayes	Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareh'm	Samul, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Fison, Frederick William	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Sharpe, William Edward T.
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol,S.	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lowe, Francis William	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)
Flower, Ernest	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Forster, Henry William	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)
Foster, Philip S.(Warwick,S.W	Macdona, John Cumming	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Galloway, William Johnson	M'Iver,SirLewis(EdinburghW	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Garfit, William	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)	Malcolm, Ian	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'ml'ts	Manners, Lord Cecil	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxfd'Univ.
Gore, HnG.R.C.Ormsby-(Salop	Maxwell, RtHn Sir H.E(Wigt'n	Thorburn, Sir Walter
Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)	Maxwell, W. J H(Dumfriesshire	Thornton, Percy M.
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Tollemache, Henry James
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim	Mildmay Francis Bingham	Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.
Goulding, Edward Alfred	More, Robt. Jasper (Shr[...]pshire)	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Morgan, David J(Walthamst'w	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Greene, Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds	Morrell, George Herbert	Valentia, Viscount
Greville, Hon. Roland	Morrison, James Archibald	Vincent, Col Sir C E H (Sheffield
Groves, James Grimble	Morton; Arthur H. Aylmer	Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Ha[...]l, Edward Marshall	Mount, William Arthur	Walker, Col. William Hall
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Walrond, Rt.Hn. Sir William H
Hambro, Charles Eric	Murray, RtHn A. Graham(Bute	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Ha[...] dy, Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd	Myers, William Henry	Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E(Taunton
Hare, Thomas Leigh	Nicholson, William Graham	Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.)
Harris, Frederick Leverton	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway,N.)	Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Haslett, Sir James Horner	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Williams, RtHnJ Powell-(Birm.
Heaton, John Henniker	Parker, Sir Gilbert	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Helder, Augustus	Pemberton, John S. G.	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Percy, Earl	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)
Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset,E.	Pierpoint, Robert	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Hogg, Lindsay	Plummer, Walter R.	Wylie, Alexander
Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Horner, Frederick William	Pretyman, Ernest George	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Howard, John(Kent,Faversh'm	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Younger, William
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)	Purvis, Robert
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil	Pym, C. Guy
Hudson, George Bickersteth	Randles, John S.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Rankin, Sir James	Sir Alexander Acland-
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Hood, and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)	Channing, Francis Allston	Goddard, Daniel Ford
Allen, Charles P (Glouc.,Stroud	Dalziel, James Henry	Grant, Corrie
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)
Bell, Richard	Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Griffith, Ellis J.
Brigg, John	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Broadhurst, Henry	Dunn, Sir William	Harwood, George
Brown, GeorgeM. (Edinburgh.)	Edwards, Frank	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Ellis, John Edward	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Emmott, Alfred	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.
Burt, Thomas	Evans, Sir Francis H(Maidstone	Holland. Sir William Henry
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Fenwiek, Charles	Hope, John Deans (Fife,West)
Caine, William Sproston	Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Horniman, Frederick John
Caldwell, James	Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.
Cameron, Robert	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Jacoby, James Alfred
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Fuller, J. M. F.	Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a
Causton, Richard Knight	Furness, Sir Christopher	Kearley, Hudson E.

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth	Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)
Lambert, George	Partington, Oswald	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)
Langley, Batty	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accringt'n	Philipps, John Wynford	Thomas, F.Freeman-(Hastings
Leng, Sir John	Pickard, Benjamin	Thomas, J A(Glamorgan, Gower
Levy, Maurice	Rea, Russell	Toulmin, George
Lewis, John Herbert	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Logan, John William	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Wason, Eugene
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)	Weir, James Galloway
M'Kenna, Reginald	Runciman, Walter	White, George (Norfolk)
M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin	Schwann, Charles E.	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Shackleton, David James	Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Markham, Arthur Basil	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Mather, Sir William	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William	Sloan, Thomas Henry	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Huddersf'd
Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Soares, Ernest J.
Newnes, Sir George	Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR(Northants	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Stevenson, Francis S.	Mr. Herbert Glad stone and
Nussey, Thomas Willans	Strachey, Sir Edward	Mr. William M'Arthur.

(4.40.) MR. CHANNING

said the Amendment he now proposed to move was, he thought, one which the Government would accept. It did not seem to him that the definitions in the Bill would cover the assumption that the schools in this Clause would be public elementary schools. The Attorney General had once or twice stated that it was the intention of the Government that they should be public elementary schools having the Conscience Clause, and a time-table which allowed the parents to withdraw their children during the hours of religious teaching. He was not able to gather from the hon. and learned Gentleman whether his Amendment would be accepted, but he invited the hon. and learned Gentleman to give it careful consideration.

Amendment proposed, "In page 4, line 14, after the word 'a' to insert the words 'public elementary.'"—(Mr. Channing.)

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

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

thought that there could be no objection to the insertion of these words if they were also inserted in the commencement of the Clause, but as they did not appear in the commencement they were quite unnecessary. They might have added the words in both cases, but they would only throw doubt on the construction of the Clause if the words were inserted in one place and not in the other. He hoped the hon. Member would rest content with that statement now. The matter might be brought up at a later stage.

MR. CHANNING

thought the difficulty might be obviated by inserting the words "public elementary" in both cases. He would be quite willing to withdraw his Amendment now if he understood that the words would be inserted by the Government in both places on the Report stage.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said he could not give any pledge as to the words being introduced. The matter would be considered, and he would be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would bring up the point on the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs),

in moving the substitution of "existing at the date of the passing of this Act" for "actually in existence," asked whether the words of the Clause meant in existence at the passing of the Act or existing at some time thereafter.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said the Clause would apply to every school existing at the time the question arose.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS

thought in that case that the word "actually" was very much out of place. The object of the Amendment was to do something to check the enormous and unnecessary multiplication of schools which would inevitably take place if the Clause remained in its present form. The amplest safeguards for the managers of voluntary schools and the ratepayers had been already provided, and he could not conceive why it should be deemed necessary to take a large number of small schools entirely out of the discretion of the local education authority and the Board of Education as was here proposed. The provision was as uneducational as it could possibly be. It would lead to the multiplication of small schools necessarily weak in their teaching staff. The proposal was simply denominationalism in excelsis, and he was surprised the Government should have given their sanction to it. By schools being multiplied, as they undoubtedly would be under this provision, the education of the country would be rendered less efficient and more costly. Owing to the principles which had, unfortunately, been adopted in the Bill, it might be found necessary in some places and for protective purposes to establish additional schools, but he ventured to think the Government could have devised a more statesmanlike method of meeting the difficulty. It was to the interests of education and the general social interests of the community that the boys and girls in elementary schools should, as far as possible, grow up together in those schools, and not be separated into small divisions. In that way they would learn to know and respect one another better, and much bitter sectarian strife would be prevented. It would, doubtless, be said that the proposal was made for the sake of towns like Chester or Southport, where Nonconformists had no adequate representation in the schools, but the Government seemed to have adopted the policy of the Chinaman who burned down his house to roast Ins pig—because they were attempting to meet that grievance by a method which would result in the infliction of far greater educational and financial grievances. He begged to move.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 14, to leave out the words 'actually in existence,' in order to insert the words 'existing at the date of the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Herbert Lewis.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'actually in existence' stand part of the Clause."

THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University)

said the Government could not possibly accept an Amendment, which would stereotype the conditions existing at the time when this measure became law. With the rapid growth of population and the possible changes of denominational conditions, it would not be desirable to provide that this portion of the Clause should apply only to schools in existence at the passing of the Act. He agreed with the hon. Member as to the disastrous effect of the multiplication of small schools. Such schools should not be multiplied more than was absolutely necessary for the protection of the interests and the satisfaction of the desires of the different denominations. It had to be borne in mind, however, that the Clause referred not to the creation of new schools but to the continuance of schools actually in existence. When the question of the creation of a new school came before the Board of Education it would have to be decided according to the conditions already debated and passed, but the provision under discussion dealt only with schools actually in existence at the time the question as to whether a school was necessary or not arose. Suppose that a locality changed its denominational character and became very largely Jewish or Roman Catholic. That denomination might come forward with a proposal to provide a denominational school. Under the circumstances, and having paid regard to the matters already dealt with, the Board of Education might sanction a school of a denominational character, and there might be a withdrawal of children from a school provided by the local authority. That school, though depleted, should be allowed to continue even though the numbers were but little over thirty. For that reason it was desirable that the words should be allowed to remain as they stood, because they would prevent any injustice arising from the shifting of population and the change in the denominational character of the population. The continuance of the provision of schools varying in character was still of very great importance and necessity to many parents and children in the locality. For those reasons, on behalf of the Government, he could not accept the Amendment of his hon. friend.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

said he failed entirely to agree with the arguments which his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education had used in reply to the Amendment of his hon. friend.

(5.5.) MR.ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)

said he could not agree with his hon. friend's defence of this Clause. The rule alluded to was in existence now, and it had not worked well at all. This proposal might mean one school entering into keen competition with another school, thus doing a great amount of injury to the education of the district What was the operation of this Clause? It tied the hands of the Board of Education. This was not a case of giving them larger powers and more [...]iscretion, for it was simply tying their hands behind their backs compelling them to say "Notwithstanding that we have declared for twelve months past that this school is absolutely unnecessary, that it is injurious, that it is not in the interests of secular education, and has no regard for the economy of the rates, yet, inasmuch as you have secured an average attendance of thirty scholars during a period of twelve months we have no option whatever." This might injure the education of the district and be wasteful; yet, notwithstanding this, the Education Department had to recognise that school and place it upon the grant list. Could any hon. Member say that this rule had worked well in the past? Had it not been the means of compelling the Board of Education to place schools upon the grant list which they had declared to be unnecessary. Take the illustration given by his hon. friend. He had perfect power to deal with a case of that kind. Take a case where there was a change of population. Take, for example, the town of Dover and its great harbour works. Through the introduction of a great alien population at Dover the necessity would arise for the erection of schools of various kinds. The Board of Education could admit a school of ten or exclude one of 500. The right hon. Gentleman proposed now to add not a new power but to place fetters upon them by saying that Parliament had laid down that this school, having scraped together for twelve months thirty children, was bound to be maintained by being placed upon the grant list, and so long as that school continued to give efficient education to thirty scholars they could not take it off the grant list. The right hon. Gentleman was throwing away his discretionary power in adopting those words. He begged the Government to reconsider the question of these small schools before the Report stage, and see if they could not leave the absolute unfettered discretion to the Board of Education and the local authorities, and not give away their powers by fettering themselves by an unnecessary Clause of this sort. He had supported the Government all through on these two Clauses, realising that until they reached this phrase the position of the Government was unassailable, hut here they were placing a direct premium upon the erection of these small schools. It had been argued that the interests of the rates were entirely in favour of religious denominations. If they had two schools in one district accommodating thirty scholars each, when one school would accommodate the sixty, that was not in the interest of the rates or of secular instruction. Let them suppose that a Nonconformist clergyman, dissatisfied with the teaching of Church schools, manages to erect a school for thirty children, and keeps them together for twelve months, and came to the Board of Education for recognition. The Board of Education were bound to take over that school.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

Not bound.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

They have to run the gauntlet of Clause 9.

MR. ERNEST GRAY

said that if at the end of twelve months such a school as he had described produced its register showing that thirty children had been in average attendance for twelve months it came within the terms of this Clause. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no!"] What was it then? Was there anything in the Bill which modified that procedure? Such a school would come up for an annual grant to be paid by the local authority, and as he read this Clause the Board of Education would then have no option whatever. They must take over that school of thirty scholars. He urged the Government to trust their, own Department and leave them unfettered by any rigid rule of this discription. Let them take over schools of ten children if they thought it was desirable. He could imagine places in the Welsh valleys and in Cumberland and Westmoreland, where it might be found convenient to have a small school to prevent children having to tramp four or five miles, but he thought it should be left to the Board of Education quite unfettered, and they should not be compelled to take over any school of thirty whether they liked it or not.

DR. MACNAMARA

desired to join in the appeal made by his hon. friend to the Government to accept this Amendment, or else to drop the last three or four lines of this Clause altogether. The Secretary to the Board of Education must recognise that this Bill was a great revolution in educational matters. Schools which were actually in existence should be dealt with fairly and honourably, but they should not allow denominationalists to come forward any time after the passing of this Bill, offering their buildings, and putting them upon the rates and grant list, thus forcing upon every locality for all time these denominational schools. Up to the present, the definition given them of an existing school had meant "a school in existence at the passing of the Act, "but now they understood that it meant any time. Their greatest difficulty would arise in the small villages. The Church of England had its school in every village, and that school was now to be placed entirely upon the rates and taxes. There was great irritation already throughout the country upon this question. The people in a village would be able to say "Here is a building which we have no particular use for; we can get an average attendance of thirty, and we can have it put upon the grant list. He thought the Government proposal was highly objectionable, for the reasons urged by his hon. friend the Member for North West Ham. The Secretary to the Board of thought this difficulty would not arise, but the fact that they had a Church school established in every village would cause Nonconformists to turn every stone possible to find some means of having their own schools. All they had got to do was to bring forward the building at any date, and the Board of Education had no alternative but to say that the school was necessary, and the result must be that in many villages in Wales, and in Nonconformist districts generally there would be two schools each half empty, neither properly organised, extravagant to the locality, and educationally absurd. He appealed to the Government to drop all the words of the Clause after the word "but." or if they would not do that it should be so amended as to apply only to schools actually in existence at the passing of the Bill.

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE

supported the appeal of his hon. friend the Member for North West Ham to omit the concluding words of the Clause. In the first place these words would impose a quite unnecessary restriction upon the Board of Education; secondly, it might very well be a hardship on the ratepayers and the local authority to maintain schools which were in fact unnecessary; thirdly, it might be a serious injury to the Board of Education to be compelled to maintain unnecessary schools; and fourthly, it might cause a false standard of necessity to be set up. Moreover, he thought that the language of the Clause they were discussing was by no means clear. If the Government thought it necessary to give protection to the small schools actually in existence, they ought to accept the Amendment.

MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)

said he had no idea that the Amendment was so important until he heard the speech was a direct invitation to every religious section of the community to try to obtain a little school with thirty scholars in it. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned two bodies not connected with the Church of England—Roman Catholics and the Jews. There were a dozen other Non-conformist bodies in this country; all of them, having regard to the invitation given them by the right hon. Gentleman, would undoubtedly set at once to try and provide their little schools. Schools of this size must be disastrous to educational efficiency and could only supply employment to teachers employed under Article 68. It would be impossible for schools of thirty scholars to engage and maintain an efficient teacher for so small a number of children. The Wesleyans had now raised a special fund of a million, and intended to devote a large portion of it to providing schools where necessary in order that the people of their faith might have a school in which their children should be taught their doctrines. If the Wesleyans in Lincolnshire, in Norfolk, in Cambridgeshire, in Cornwall, and in other counties where Wesleyanism was particularly strong, determined to have their denominational teaching at the public expense, and devoted a quarter of a million for the provision of the schools and their maintenance for one year, did the Prime Minister not see what the Clause would lead to? It would end disastrously to invite universal division in educational work. He should not have taken part in the debate but for the most alarming and revolutionary disastrous speech made by the right hon. Gentleman in his invitation. Swedenborgians, Plymouth Brethren, Congregationalists, Methodist Free Church, and a dozen other denominations would read his speech, and do their best to have their own little school and have it maintained out of public funds. It was only in the interests of sound and efficient education that the Amendment was moved.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he only rose to correct an extraordinary misapprehension which the hon. Member for North West Ham appeared to be under. He appeared to think that under this Clause it would be possible for persons or bodies in some surreptitious way to foist a school on the community, and then to call on the local education authority to say that it should not be considered unnecessary, and that therefore there should be a school maintained unnecessarily at the public expense. The hon. Member seemed to have entirely forgotten what had over and over again been pointed out by the Attorney General, that we were dealing in this Clause with public elementary schools, and that the whole of Clause 9 dealt with the conditions under which public elementary schools could be established. Under that Clause, if the local authority, or any other persons, proposed to provide a new public elementary school they must get permission to do so. Where was the possibility of a little school being started with ten, fifteen or twenty children, suddenly sprung on the ratepayers, and established in that condition of permanence such as the hon. Member feared? He did hope that hon. Members would not cherish the superstition that these schools spring up unobserved and would be suddenly thrown upon the ratepayers.

SIR EDWARD GREY (Northumberland, Berwick)

said the debate had clearly shown that either the Clause was not so readily intelligible as hon. Members who had spoken for the Government seemed to suppose, or some Members of the Committee on both sides of the House were more than usually stupid. The Parliamentary Secretary had been good enough to call them superstitious, but he thought that the Clause did really seem obscure. He frankly admitted that he had had considerable difficulty in understanding it. He did not realise that the word "school," where it was first used at the beginning of the Clause did not refer to a new school. He did not see why the Clause should not be made clear as it stood. He thought the best thing by far would be to trust the Board of Education, and to omit those lines altogether. It would not mean that the Government were giving up anything they were contending for. It would only be giving a little more discretion to the Board of Education. If the Government could not take that course, he would suggest that they should take the course suggested by his hon. friend, and, at any rate, prescribe to the Board of Education that those proposing to provide a new school should comply with certain regulations. But if the Government would not have either of these courses, he would ask them to make it clear in the Bill, so that people, not having the advantage of explanations from the Attorney General, could rightly understand the meaning. The hon. Member for North West Ham had expressed himself in doubt as to what a school "actually in existence" might mean. He understood the Government contention to be that a school recognised as necessary no wand receiving a grant should not be considered unnecessary in future if it had thirty scholars.

(5.28.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

thought it should not be difficult to understand the Clause. No new school could be called into existence without due notice, full inquiry, and the sanction of the Board of Education. Therefore, every school in existence would be a necessary school. Suppose a rate-provided school was established. For some reason or another the circumstances of the district slowly changed, and there was a strong desire for a denominational school. Permission was granted for that school, and it emptied the rate-provided school of pupils whose parents preferred denominational teaching. Precisely the same thing would happen in a converse case. Suppose there was a rate-provided school started in competition with, or in the neighbourhood of the denominational school, a large number of pupils might prefer the teaching of the denominational school, and it was quite clear that it would be a burden to maintain both schools. It was evident they could not deal with machinery below a certain point. They wished that every child should have the teaching which the parents would like to give it, but there were limits, and they could not consider all the claims of that kind even with existing schools. The point was at what particular number they were to fix the limit at which the school was to cease to have a claim to public support. How far were they going to allow the process of depletion to go on so as to beat a school out of the educational ground. The number thirty had been fixed upon—a number they found buried in the Act of 1870. There was, therefore, Parliamentary sanction for it, and it seemed a reasonable number; but let it he understood at what stage they were going to kill an existing school.

MR. ERNEST GRAY

said that the words were really not clear; they were incorporated from another document which had no reference to the case before the Committee now. But the Clause, as it stood, also covered the position already covered by the words of the Code. On the formation of a school, and its having obtained thirty scholars, was the Board of Education to recognise it or not? He was afraid they might all read a different interpretation of the words in the Clause. What was wanted was that the words should be made so clear that there would be only one interpretation.

SIR EDWARD GREY

said that that was the point which he strongly supported. The sort of change he wanted was to strike out the words "actually in existence" and to substitute the words "a school which has once been recognised as a public elementary school."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he would be quite prepared to accept that.

MR. DUKE (Plymouth)

thought the words "a school once already recognised" had no definite meaning, but there was a form of words which would get rid of the difficulty. He suggested "a school actually in existence at the passing of this Act, or hereafter to be provided under Section 9." [Cries of "No, no."]

MR. M'KENNA

said that Article 80 in the Code stated "A school is not to be deemed unnecessary if at the date of the application for an annual grant it is recognised as a certified efficient school and has an average attendance of thirty scholars." He thought the insertion of these two words, "certified efficient," before school would meet the difficulty.

MR. BRYCE

suggested that the words should be "a school once recognised as entitled to maintenance."

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he could not agree that the words of the Prime Minister fairly covered the case, and they should be subject to the most careful scrutiny.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the Committee would do well to get at the form of the Amendment; he proposed there- fore, to accept it in the following shape—"A school already recognised as a public elementary school." He said he did so subject to careful consideration as to the drafting. There could be no mistake as to the policy of the Government on the point of principle.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made— In page 4, line 14, by leaving out the words, 'actually in existence,' and inserting the words, 'already recogidsed as a public elementary school.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea, District)

said he did not wish to raise any lengthy discussion on his Amendment, to leave out the word "thirty" at the end of the Clause and insert "hundred." The Prime Minister had very justly observed that on any Clause of this kind arguments might be used either for increasing or diminishing the number, and he had indicated that the limitation of 30 occurred in the Code under the Act of 1870. But he submitted to the right hon. Gentleman that whatever might have been adopted with propriety in 1870 was too small a nullifier under a new administration. The First Lord had enlarged on the rights of parents, and had stated throughout that his object was, as far as possible, to secure equality by giving all parents the opportunity of getting a school in which the doctrines of their faith would be taught to their children. For himself he would have much preferred if the Bill had dealt with the new schools to be provided by the local education authority, without raising the question of existing voluntary schools. He maintained that 30 was much too limited a number and he did not propose 100 as better than 110, but because he thought it would be more convenient. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In pare 4, line 17, to leave out the word 'thirty,' and insert the words 'one hundred.'"—(Mr. Brynmor Jones.)

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

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said that the hon. Gentleman had put his argument very fairly. After all, however, the question was, what was a suitable number. He submitted that 100 was distinctly too large. If there .were 30 it showed that there was a sensible demand for a school. He would point out that the Clause did not say that 30 was a hard and fast limit. It was possible for a school already recognised to have a smaller number of scholars. But so long as it retained 30 it would not be struck off the list if it had once got on.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he understood that the limit of 30 had been adopted from the Code following the Act of 1870, but the circumstances now were very different from those when that Code was drawn up. He understood from the Attorney General that the Clause might be extended by the Board of Education to schools with only ten or twelve children.

MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)

appealed to the Government to give a little consideration to this matter. His hon. friend who moved the Amendment had, he thought, gone to the other extreme by fixing the limit at 100, but a school with only 30 children, or even less, meant necessarily a very inefficient school. It was impossible for one teacher to teach children from the age of three to the age of thirteen, and from Standard I. up to Standard VII. At an earlier stage he had made a suggestion which would get over the inefficiency of small schools. In America they had adopted a system of amalgamating small schools and providing public conveyances to carry the children to the consolidated school when it was at too great a distance for them to walk. The inspectors of the American Education Department had reported how very great was the increase of efficiency by adopting a system of that kind. If such a scheme were adopted here no obstinate body of managers who preferred their own school could block the way to educational reform in the small schools. He appealed, in the cause of good education, to the Secretary to the Education Department to give them some encouragement and, if the hon. Gentleman could not agree to fix the number at 100 to accept 50 or 60. He was sorry the right hon. Member for Cambridge University was not in the House, because he knew that that right hon. Gentleman held the same views as he did on this question and had often expressed them.

SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)

said it seemed that this question had been considerably altered by the change of language adopted by the Government, because they had accepted the words "already recognised." The number 30 had been accepted by Parliament in the Code for thirty years, and it would be, he thought, a hardship on many schools to alter it. The point he wished to emphasise was that these schools would not be recognised and receive the grants unless they were efficient. He himself was by no means a friend of the small schools, and he had visited many of them; but at the same time, in many thinly populated districts, the children could only receive education in small schools, and there they were necessary. He thought it would be an act of injustice to abolish these small schools.

MR. BRYCE

said that the argument of his hon. friend who had just sat down had been entirely nullified by the statement of the Attorney General, who had admitted that schools with only ten or twelve children ought to be maintained.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

In special circumstances.

Mr. BRYCE

Yes, in special circumstances. The reason why they objected to 30 was that that number would prove an obstacle to consolidation. Small schools might be efficient in the sense to he entitled to receive a grant, and yet they might be far less efficient and be far less able to serve a district effectively than one large, strong school, but the amour proper of the managers might induce them to resist consolidation of the weaker schools. If they were to fix a limit it should be much higher than 30, say 60 or 70. If his hon. friend persisted in his Amendment he ought to be supported.

MR. CHANNING

said that it had escaped the attention of hon. Members that sub-Section 2 of Clause 19 in the Act of 1870, which enabled State grants to be made to small schools where the number of children was smaller than that mentioned by the Attorney General, was not repealed by this Bill, and therefore the Board of Education would be enabled to authorise grants to these very small schools where they were necessary. He should leave the question of the limit of numbers to be absolutely elastic. He entered a protest against the insertion of any words in the Bill which would seem to raise unnecessary difficulties to the process of consolidation. He had paid many visits to the United States and had on every occasion studied the working of the school system there. The extraordinary thing was that in the most progressive State, Massachusetts, despite the great advances made by education, the total number of public elementary schools had actually diminished during the last ten years. That had been done by deliberate Act of the Legislature and the local authorities. The number of small and usually inefficient schools had been limited, and splendid buildings erected with many class-rooms, with the best possible staff and facilities for pupils being passed on to higher studies, a policy which enabled the children to obtain educational advantages which they could not have commanded in very small schools. He would much prefer if his hon. friend withdrew his Amendment limiting the number of children, or add to his Amendment words of a nature to convey what was in the minds of everyone who had considered this question, as, for instance, "or such other number as is, in the opinion of the Board of Education, consistent with efficiency of education in the district to be served." He hoped, in any case that in the administration of this Bill, if it passed into law, which he certainly hoped it would not, the hon. Gentleman who was now Secretary to the Board of Education would not encourage this fatal policy of multiplying small schools, or discourage in any way the consolidation of weak and inefficient schools into large, strong, and efficient schools.

MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)

said that so far the matter had been considered on the lines of rural schools. It was not alone a matter of rural schools, but a matter of how to deal with denominational schools in urban areas. In the area of Liverpool there were about twice as many voluntary schools as board schools, but less than half the children in that area were educated in them. The voluntary schools there were practically less than half the size of the board schools, school for school. In the parishes of a county city like Liverpool there would sure to be a school in connection with each parish church, and in areas of this character, where the parishes were close together and did not each occupy a large space, he thought where the two voluntary schools were in close proximity, one with a large building half empty and the other with a small building quite full, the local education authority should have power [...]o bring all the children to the large school and close the small one. In that case there would be one large school where education would be more economically and efficiently carried on. No harm

would be done to the denominations in the city, but there would be a great gain to education. If the proposal of the Clause as it was held good it would be in the power of the managers of a small school like this to insist upon their school remaining on the grant list and being maintained so long as there were thirty children in it. In rural areas the difficulties of distance and thinness of population no doubt justified the number of thirty, but in urban areas the number ought not to be maintained. Every Member of the House would feel that the question of putting new burdens on the ratepayers for denominational schools ought to be considered from an economical as well as a political point of view. At present it had not been considered from that point of view.

(6.3.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 230; Noes, 124. (Division List No. 471.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.	Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden	Chapman, Edward	Flower, Ernest
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Charrington, Spencer	Forster, Henry William
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Clive, Captain Percy A.	Foster, Philip S(Warwick, S.W.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Coclnane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Galloway, William Johnson
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Garfit, William
Arrol, Sir William	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St Albans)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Colomb, Sir JohnCharlesReady	Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'ml'ts
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)
Baird, John George Alexander	Compton, Lord Alwyne	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Balcarres, Lord	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Graham, Henry Robert
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds	Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Banbury, Frederick George	Crossley, Sir Savile	Greene, SirEW(B'rySEdm'nds
Bartley, George C. T.	Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Grenfell, William Henry
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Greville, Hon. Ronald
Bignold, Arthur	Davenport, W. Bromley-	Groves, James Grimble
Bill, Charles	Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham	Guthrie, Walter Murray
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Denny, Colonel	Hain, Edward
Bond, Edward	Dewar, Sir T.R.(TowerHamlets	Hall, Edward Marshall
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Boulnois, Edmund	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Hambro, Charles, Eric
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)	Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W m.
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Harby, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd
Brassey, Albert	Duke, Henry Edward	Hare, Thomas Leigh
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart	Harris, Frederick Leverton
Brown Alexander H. (Shropsh.)	Faber, George Denison (York)	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.
Brymer, William Ernest	Fardell, Sir T. George	Haslett, Sir James Horner
Bull, William James	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.
Butcher, John George	Fergusson, RtHn. Sir J.(Manc'r	Hay, Hon. Claude George
Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasgow	Finch, George H.	Heaton, John Henniker
Carew, James Lawrence	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyny	Helder, Augustus
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Fisher, William Hayes	Henderson, Sir Alexander
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Fison, Frederick William	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.
Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire	FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon	Hogg, Lindsay
Hope,. J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)	Seton-Karr, Henry
Houston, Robert Paterson	Morgan, David, J(Walthamst'w	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsh'm	Morrell, George Herbert	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Howard. J. (Midd, Tottenham)	Morrison, James Archibald	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)
Hudson, George Bickersteth	Mount, William Arthur	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Murray, RtHn A. Graham (Bute	Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Johnstone, Heywood	Myers, William Henry	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Kemp, George	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Talbot, RtHn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.
Kenyon, Hon Geo. T.(Denbigh)	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)	Thorburn, Sir Walter
Kenyon-Shiney, Col. W.(Salop.	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Thornton, Percy M.
Kimber. Henry	Percy, Earl	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
King, Sir Henry Seymour	Pierpoint, Robert	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Knowles, Lees	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Lambton, Hon. Frederick. Wm.	Plummer, Walter R.	Valentia, Viscount
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Lawrence, Sir, Joseph (Monm'th	Pretyrnan, Ernest George	Walker, Col. William Hall
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Walrond, Rt,Hn, Sir William H.
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Purvis, Robert	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Pym C. Guy	Webb, Colonel William George
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Quitter, Sir Cuthbert	Welby, Lt-Col. A.C.E (Taunton
Long, Co1. Charles W.(Evesham	Randles, John S.	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S	Rankin, Sir James	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Lowe, Francis William	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Rattigan, Sir William Henry	Williams, RtHn J Powell-(Birm
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth	Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks
Macdona, John Cumming	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (EdinburghW	Robinson, Brooke	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Sturt-
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter	Wylie, Alexander
Manners. Lord Cecil	Round, Rt. Hon. James	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Maxwell, RtHn Sir H. E (Wigt'n	Royds, Clement Molyneux	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire	Rutherford, John	Younger, William
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford-
Middlemore, John Throgmort'n	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Mildmav, Francis Bingham	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)	Sir Alexander Acland-
Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir FrederickG.	Saunderson, RtHn. Col. Edw. J.	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)	Fuller, J. M. F.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Allen, Charles P (Glone., Stroud	Furness, Sir Christopher	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. HerbertHenry	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbt. John	M'Kenna, Reginald
Atherley-Jones, L.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Grant, Corrie	Mansfield, Horace Rendall
Bell, Richard	Grey. Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Griffith, Ellis. J.	Markham, Arthur Basil
Brigg, John	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Mather, Sir William
Broadhurst, Henry	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Camarthen)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Harwood, George	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-	Moulton, John Fletcher
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir ArthurD.	Newnes, Sir George
Caine, William Sproston	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Caldwell, James	Holland, Sir Wm. Henry	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Cameron, Robert	Hope, John Deans (Fife,West)	Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham
Causton, Richard Knight	Horniman, Frederick John	Partington, Oswald
Cawley Frederick	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Channing, Francis Allston	Jacoby, James Alfred	Perks, Robert William
Cremer, William Randal	Kearley, Hudson E.	Philipps, John Wynford
Dalziel, James Henry	Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth	Pickard, Benjamin
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Kitson, Sir James	Priestley, Arthur
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Labouchere, Henry	Rea, Russell
Dunn, Sir William	Lambert, George	Reckitt, Harold James
Edwards, Frank	Langley, Batty	Rickett, J. Compton
Ellis, John Edward	Leese, Sir JosephF (Accrington)	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Emmott, Alfred	Leng, Sir John	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Levy, Maurice	Robson, William Snowdon
Fenwick, Charles	Lewis, John Herbert	Runcinman, Walter
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Lloyd-George, David	Schwann, Charles E.
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Logan, John William	Shackleton, David James
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lough, Thomas	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Shipman, Dr. John G.	Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)	Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Sloan, Thomas Henry	Toulmin, George	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Wallace, Robert	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Soares, Ernest J.	Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)	Woodhouse, SirJ T (Huddersf'd
Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants	Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.	Yoxall, James Henry
Stevenson, Francis S.	Wason, Eugene
Strachey, Sir Edward	Weir, James Galloway
Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	White, George (Norfolk)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	White, Luke (Yuck, E. R)	Mr. Brynmor Jones and
Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr	Whiteley, Geo. (York, W.R.)	Mr. Herbert Roberts.

(6.18.) Mr. A. J. BALFOUR

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question 'That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill' be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 224; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 472.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Hain, Edward
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Hall, Edward Marshall
Allhusen, AngustusH'nryEden	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton	Hambro, Charles Eric
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Crossley, Sir Savile	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Hare, Thomas Leigh
Arrol, Sir William	Davenport, William Bromley-	Harris, Frederick Leverton
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Davies, Sir HoratioD.(Chatham	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Denny, Colonel	Haslett, Sir James Horner
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Dewar, Sir T. R. (TowerHamlets	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.
Baird, John George Alexander	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Hay, Hon. Claude George
Balcarres, Lord	Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Heaton, John Henniker
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon	Helder, Augustus
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Henderson, Sir Alexander
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.
Banbury, Frederick George	Duke, Henry Edward	Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset, E.
Bartley, George C. T.	Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart	Hogg, Lindsay
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Faber, George Denison (York)	Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside
Bignold, Arthur	Fardell, Sir T. George	Houston, Robert Paterson
Bill, Charles	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Fergusson Rt HN Sir J. (Manc'r	Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham
Bond, Edward	Finch, George H.	Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Hudson, George Bickersteth
Boulnois, Edmund	Fisher, William Hayes	Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex	Fison, Frederick William	Johnstone, Hey wood
Brassey, Albert	FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Kemp, George
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon	Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh
Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.	Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop
Brymer, William Ernest	Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Kimber, Henry
Bull, William James	Flower, Ernest	King, Sir Henry Seymour
Butcher, John George	Forster, Henry William	Knowles, Lees
Campbell, Rt Hn. J.A. (Glasgow	Foster, Philip S (Warwick,S. W.	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Carew, James Laurence	Galloway, William Johnson	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.	Garfit, William	Lawrence, Sir. Joseph (Monm'th
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans	Lawrence, Wm F. (Liverpool)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh're	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets	Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Farebam
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.	Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Line.	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Chapman, Edward	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Charrington, Spencer	Goschen, Hon. (George Joachim	Long, Col. CharlesW. (Evesham
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Graham, Henry Robert	Lowe, Francis William
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Greene, Sir EW (Bry S Edm'nds	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Grenfell, William Henry	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Grevilie, Hon. Ronald	Macdona, John Cumming
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Groves, James Grimble	M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas	Guthrie, Walter Murray	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire
Malcolm, Ian	Quilter, Sir Cuthbert	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'dUniv.
Manners, Lord Cecil	Randles, John S.	Thorburn, Sir Walter
Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire	Rankin, Sir James	Thornton, Percy M.
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Middlemore, J'hn Throgmorton	Rattigan, Sir William Henry	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Ridley, Hon M.W. (Stalybridge	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.	Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green	Valentia, Viscount
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	Vincent, Col. SirCEH(Sheffield
More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Morgan, David J. (Walth'mst'w	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Walker, Col. William Hall
Morrell, George Herbert	Robinson, Brooke	Walrond, RtHonSirWilliam H.
Morrison, James Archibald	Rothschild, Hon.Lionel Walter	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Round, Rt. Hon. James	Webb, Colonel William George
Mount, William Arthur	Royds, Clement Molyneux	Welby, Lt-Col. A.C.E.(Taunton
Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute	Rutherford, John	Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Myers William Henry	Sadler Col. Samuel. Alexander	Whiteley, H. (Asht'n und.Lyne
Nicholson, William Graham	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)	Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm
Nieol, Donald Ninian	Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col Edw. J.	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Seton-Karr, Henry	Wodehouse,. Rt. Hn.E. R.(Bath
Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley	Sharpe, William Edward T.	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Pemberton, John S. G.	Simeon, Sir Barrington	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Percy, Earl	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)	Wylie, Alexander
Pierpoint, Robert	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich	Wyndham-quin, Major W. H.
Plummer, Walter R.	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk	Younger, William
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Pretyman, Ernest George	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Stone, Sir Benjamin	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Purvis, Robert	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier	Sir Alexander Acland-
Pym, C. Guy	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead	Griffith, Ellis J.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Allen, Charles P(Glone.,Stroud	Gurden, Sir W. Brampton	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Asquith, Rt, Hn. Herbert Henry	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Palmer, Sir Charles M. (D'rh'm
Atherley, Jones, L.	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Partington, Oswald
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Harwood, George	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Bell, Richard	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Perks, Robert William
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.	Philipps, John Wynford
Brigg John	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Pickard, Benjamin
Broadhurst, Henry	Holland, Sir William Henry	Priestley, Arthur
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Reckitt, Harold James
Brunner, Sir .John Tomlinson	Horniman, Frederick John	Rickett, J. Compton
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Bart, Thomas	Jacoby, James Alfred	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea)	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Caine, William Sproston	Kearley, Hudson E.	Robson, William Snowdon
Caldwell, James	Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth	Runciman, Walter
Cameron, Robert	Kitson, Sir James	Schwann, Charles E.
Causton, Richard Knight	Labouchere, Henry	Shackleton, David James
Cawley, Frederick	Lambert, George	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Channing, Francis Allston	Langley, Batty	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Cremer, William Randal	Leese,Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Dalziel, James Henry	Leng, Sir John	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Levy, Maurice	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Lewis, John Herbert	Soares, Ernest J.
Dunn, Sir William	Lloyd-George, David	Spencer, Rt Hn. C.R.(Northants
Edwards Frank	Logan, John William	Stevenson, Francis S.
Ellis, John Edward	Lough, Thomas	Strachey, Sir Edward
Emmott, Alfred	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool	Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.
Fenwick, Charles	M'Kenna, Reginald	Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin	Thomas, F. Freernan-(Hastings
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe	Thomas, J A (Glaamorgan, Gower
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Markham, Arthur Basil	Toulmin, George
Fuller, J. M. F.	Mather, Sir William	Wallace, Robert
Furness, Sir Christopher	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen	Walton, John Lawson (Leeds,S.
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Grant, Corrie	Moulton, John Fletcher	Wason, Eugene
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)	Newnes, Sir George	Weir, James Galloway

White, George (Norfolk)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
White, Luke (York, E. R.)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R)	Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Whiteley,George (York, W. R.	Woodhouse, Sir. JT (Huddersf'd	Mr. William M'Arthur.
Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)	Yoxall, James Henry
Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

(6.33.) Question put accordingly.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 250; Noes, 126. (Division List No. 473.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Denny, Colonel	Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Dewar, Sir T. R.(TowerHamlets	Howard. J. (Midd., Tottenham
Allhusen, Augustns Hn'ry Eden	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P	Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Hunson, George Bickersteth
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh. O.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Johnstone, Heywood
Arrol, Sir William	Duke, Henry Edward	Kemp, George
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart	Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Faber, George Denison (York)	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Fardell, Sir T. George	Keswick, William
Baird, John George Alexander	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Kimber, Henry
Balcarres, Lord	Fergusson Rt Hn. Sir J (Manc'r	King, Sir Henry Seymour
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r	Finch, George H.	Knowles, Lees
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds	Fisher, William Hayes	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow
Banbury, Frederick George	Fison, Frederick William	Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th
Bartley, George C. T.	FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Lawrence, Win. E. (Liverpool)
Beckett, Ernest William	Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon	Lecky, Rt Hon. William Edw. H
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Flannery, Sir Fortecue	Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham
Bignold, Arthur	Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Bill, Charles	Flower, Ernest	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Forster, Henry William	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Bond, Edward	Foster, Philip S.(Warwick,S.W	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Galloway, William Johnson	Long, Rt. Hon Walter(Bristol, S
Boulnois, Edmund	Garfit, William	Lowe, Francis William
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St.Albans)	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Brassey, Albert	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth
Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.	Gore, Hn. G R. C. Ormsby-(Salop	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Brymer, William Ernest	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.	Macdona, John Cumming
Bull, William James	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir ,John Eldon	M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W
Butcher, John George	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim	M'Kiliop James (Stirlingshire)
Campbell, Rt Hon J A (Glasg'w	Goulding Edward Alfred	Malcolm, Ian
Carew, James Laurence	Graham, Henry Robert	Manners, Lord Cecil
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E. (Wigt'n
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Greene, Sir E W(B'ry S Edm'nds	Maxwell, WJH (Dumfriesshire
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire	Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)	Meysey-Thompson. Sir H. A.
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Grenfell, William Henry	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Cecil., Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich.	Groves, James Grimble	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm)	Guthrie, Walter Murray	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Chapman, Edward	Hain, Edward	Morgan, David J. (Walth'mst'w
Charrington, Spencer	Hall, Edward Marshall	Morrell, George Herbert
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.	Morrison, James Archibald
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Hambro, Charles Eric	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm	Mount, William Arthur
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Colston Charles Edw. H. Athole	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Myers, William Henry
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Haslett, Sir James Horner	Nicholson, William Graham
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Heaton, John Henniker	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Helder, Augustus	Peel, HnWm. Robert Wellesley
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Henderson, Sir Alexander	Pemberton, John S. G.
Crossley, Sir Savile	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Percy, Earl
Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Holhousee, Henry (Somerset,E.	Pierpoint, Robert
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Hogg, Lindsay	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Davenport, William Bromley-	Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside	Plummer, Walter R.
Davies, Sir Horatio D,(Chatham	Houston, Robert Paterson	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Pretyman, Ernest George	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Seton-Karr, Henry	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Purvis, Robert	Sharpe, William Edward T.	Webb, Col. William George
Pym, C. Guy	Simeon, Sir Barrington	Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E (Taunton
Quilter, Sir Cuthbert	Sinclair, Louis (Rounford)	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.
Randles, John S.	Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)	Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd
Rankin, Sir James	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)	Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm
Rattigan, Sir William Henry	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge	Stanley, Edward. Jas. (Somerset	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn, E.R.(Bath)
Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson	Stone, Sir Benjamin	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Wylie, Alexander
Robinson, Brooke	Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Univ	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter	Thorburn, Sir Walter	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Round, Rt. Hon. James	Thornton, Percy M.	Younger, William
Royds, Clement Molyneux	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Rutherford, John	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander	Valentia, Viscount	Sir Alexander Acland-
Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)	Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J	Walker, Col. William Hall
NOES.
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead	Hayter, Rt. Hon, Sir Arthur D.	Rickett, J. Compton
Allen, Charles P.(Gloue., Stroud	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry	Holland, Sir William Henry	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Atherley-Jones, L.	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Horniman, Frederick John	Robson, William Snowdon
Bell, Richard	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Runciman, Walter
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Hutton, Alfred E. (Modey)	Schwann, Charles E.
Brigg, John	Jacoby, James Alfred	Shackleton, David James
Broadhurst, Henry	Jones, David Brymnor(Sw'nsca	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)	Kearley, Hudson E.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Bryce, Rt. Hon James	Kinson, Sir James	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Burt, Thomas	Labouchere, Henry	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Lambert, George	Soares, Ernest J.
Caine, William Sproston	Langley, Batty	Spencer, Rt Hn C.R.(Northants
Caldwell, James	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Stevenson, Francis S.
Cameron, Robert	Leng, Sir John	Strachey, Sir Edward
Causton, Richard Knight	Levy, Maurice	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.
Cawley, Frederick	Lewis, John Herbert	Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.
Channing, Francis Allston	Lloyd-George, David	Thomas David Alfred(Merthyr
Cremer, William Randal	Logan, John William	Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings
Dalziel, James Henry	Lough, Thomas	Thomas, J A (Gl'morgan, Gower
Davis, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Toulmin, George
Dilke, Rt. Hon.. Sir Charles	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Wallace, Robert
Dunn, Sir William	M`Kenna, Reginald	Walton, John Lawson(Leeds,S.
Edwards, Frank	M`Laren, Sir Reginald Benjamin	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Ellis, John Edward	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Wason, Eugene
Emmott, Alfred	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe	Weir, James Galloway
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Markham, Arthur Basil	White, George (Norfolk)
Fenwick, Charles	Mather, Sir William	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Whitley, J. H (Halifax)
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Moulton, John Fletcher	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Fuller, J. M. F.	Newnes, Sir George	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Furness, Sir Christopher	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Grant, Corrie	Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham	Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)	Partington, Oswald	Yoxall, James Henry
Griffith, Ellis J.	Pease, J A. (Saffron Walden)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Perks, Robert William
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Philipps, John Wynford	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Pickard, Benjamin	Mr. Herbert Gladstone
Harwood, George	Priestley, Arthur	and Mr. William M`Arthur.
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Reckitt, Harold James

Clause, as amended, agreed to

Clause 11:—

(6.48.) MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

moved to insert after "authority," in line 1, the words, "or any body of managers." He said the object of the Clause was to give the Board of Education the power of compelling the local education authority to carry out its duties. He thought other bodies on whose shoulders responsibilities rested should also be compelled to do their part.

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not think it will do to propose such an Amendment here. That matter has already been discussed on Clause 8, sub-Section (a), and if the managers fail to carry out their duties under this Act certain things are to happen. The Committee have considered that case and laid down what is to happen.

MR. LOUGH

I am thinking specially of Section 9.

MR. M'KENNA

said that if any persons other than the local education authority proposed to provide a new public elementary school and failed to carry out their proposal, the Board of Education should have power to compel them to do so. The Amendment was therefore in order.

THE CHAIRMAN

What does that matter? I understand that other persons can come forward and say that they are prepared to provide a new school, but that is not a duty under the Elementary Education Acts. Therefore it would not be right to insert these words in the way proposed. I do not say the proposal of the hon. Member is not a proper one to make; far from it. What I say is that you cannot assume that persons other than the local education authority have certain duties under the Elementary Education Acts. Of course they have not.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said that under Clause 8 certain consequences were to follow if the managers did not perform their duties, but did that exclude their being subject to another penalty? The local education authority were subject to mandamus.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said that a mandamus was not given as a remedy if there existed another remedy. Under Clause 8, if the managers failed to discharge their duties, the local education authority were, in addition to their other powers, to have power to carry out the original intention as if they were managers.

SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

submitted that it would be very much more convenient if the managers carried out the duty under mandamus than if the local authority-did it.

MR. LOUGH

said the words he proposed to insert would make the Clause clearer.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

submitted that the hon. Member was not entitled to bring in. the words here with reference to Clause 9, which was perfectly explicit. If the managers did not carry out their undertaking to provide a school the Board of Education might require them to do it, but that would rest between them and the Board.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

moved an Amendment, with the object of making it quite clear that failure on the part of the local authority to provide the necessary additional school accommodation was to be brought under the sanction of a mandamus, which was to issue if the local authority in any respect failed in its duty. It would he impossible for the Board of Education to come down upon a County Council and say that they proposed to substitute persons of their own nomination for the purpose of providing the elementary school accommodation which the area required, and so this failure to provide school accommodation must, in correspondence with other failures by the local authority, be brought under the sanction of a mandamus.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 20, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'or fail to provide such additional public school accommodation as is in the opinion of the Board of Education necessary.'"—(Sir William Anson.)

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

(7.0.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said it would be interesting if the Attorney General would give the Committee information as to what was going to happen under a mandamus. If the County Councils were not to be the judges of what accommodation was required for secular education it was possible, indeed it was highly probable, that some of the Councils would say that they would not apply the rates to the purposes which formed the subject of a mandamus. That would be dealing with the rates in a manner which he thought would be disadvantageous to education. Of course the promoter, who might be called the executive officer, would be the Secretary to the Board of Education. He really thought that these great local education authorities should be warned beforehand, so that they might understand how the Secretary in London was going to prosecute them and for what. Was the Attorney General going to prosecute them in cases where they appropriated the rates in a manner which they thought would be advantageous to the ratepayers? He thought that all that should be made clear before mandamus.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said that the procedure by mandamus, where local authorities were concerned, was quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there was a procedure of mandamus in the Public Health Act by which the local authority was, for instance, compelled to carry out a scheme of drainage. The modus operandi was this. Those members of a local authority who refused to perform their statutory duties were liable to be proceeded against; and if they disputed the mandamus, then it might be enforced against their person and property. The remedy was against those who were guilty of disregarding the injunction which was laid upon them. He did not in the slightest degree agree with the observation of the right hon. Gentleman as to the position of the local authority in the Bill.

DR. MACNAMARA

said that this was a very necessary matter, but it seemed to him that there was some little conflict between the Clause proposed by the Secretary to the Board of Education and Section 18 of the Act of 1870. The Clause said that if the local education authority failed to fulfil any of their duties, etc., the Board of Education might, after holding a public inquiry, make such order as they thought necessary, etc. But the Act of 1870 said that the Board of Education was only to proceed if the School Board "failed from time to time" to provide such additional accommodation as was necessary. In order that there might not be conflicts in the courts of law the Attorney General should consider whether the words unrepealed under the Act of 1870 should not be struck out.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said he thought that the effect of the words in the Clause would be to over-ride the Section of the Act of 1870 referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but the point would be fully considered, and, if it was found desirable to modify the Clause, that could be done at a later stage.

MR. M'KENNA

said he wished to move as an Amendment to the Amendment the insertion after the word "authority" of the words, "or other persons mentioned in Section 9." By Clause 9, not only the education authority, but "any other persons" might propose to provide a new public elementary school. By the Amendment of the Secretary to the Board of Education, the Department would have power to compel the local authority to provide the school if they failed in that duty, but there was no power to compel those "other persons" to carry out their proposal. Other persons ought not to be allowed to come up and offer to provide a school, and having stopped the local authority from carrying their scheme, to say six months afterwards, "We are sorry we have not found the money and cannot go on with our proposed school." He maintained that if the Board of Education, having determined that a proposed new school was necessary, and those other persons having defeated the local authority, they should be compelled to carry out their proposal.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— After the word 'or,' to insert the words, 'if the local education authority or other persons under Section 9.'"—(Mr. M'Kenna.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said that the Amendment was not one that could possibly be accepted. It was barely intelligible, and even if it were capable of being understood at all, it would not be flattering to the intelligence of the Committee if they adopted it.

SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

said the Committee had got into trouble because they had been closured last night, and again today. The great danger of Clause 9 was that there would be paper promises which would prevent the real operation of the Section. These paper undertakings would not be kept. The proper way of dealing with the point was by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool, the discussion of which was stopped by the closure. It could not be raised again now, and therefore they were forced to try and adopt a less desirable Amendment.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that the Amendment of the Government dealt with those who failed to provide sufficient accommodation. If the local authority failed to provide sufficient accommodation they were to be punished, but if the managers proposed to afford additional accommodation in their own schools, and failed, they were let go scot-free. It was assumed that the managers had no duties, only privileges. They could compel the authority to give them the rates and Parliamentary grants, but the moment they came to the local authority or the Board of Education it was said that they had no reciprocal duty at all. What his hon. friend proposed was that if the Board of Education

directed that the managers should increase the school accommodation, and make it more satisfactory, and they refused to carry out that order, they should be subject to the same liability as the local education authority. If the local education authority refused to carry out the direction of the Board of Education they could be sent to Holloway gaol. Why not those other persons, the managers? Why should not they mandamus the clergyman of the parish? It was because he was a privileged person. This was another illustration of the way in which one section was favoured at the expense of another. How could hon. Members defend this discrimination between the denominational managers and the local authority? If the managers had duties under the Act, why should they not be compelled to perform them? The only answer was that they could withdraw the grants and close the denominational schools. But they could also withdraw the grants and close the schools of the local authority, and why should not that be sufficient for the latter as well as for the former? There was one law for the sectarian school, and another for the local authority; mandamus for representatives of the people, Holloway prison for the County Council, but none for the clerical manager. He objected to this and to the whole thing, because he maintained that the principle was had to discriminate in favour of a privileged sect rather than in favour of the ratepayers.

SIR JOHN BRUNNER

said he thought it was due to the Committee that the Attorney General should tell them if he would either now, or in some other place, provide against the danger which had been shown by his hon. friend to exist. The difficulty described by the hon. Member for North Camberwell was a real one, and a hindrance to the progress of education.

(7.18.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 116; Noes, 243. (Division List, No. 474.)

AYES.
Allan, SirWilliam (Gateshead)	Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)
Allen, Charles P(Glouc., Stroud	Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson
Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry	Brigg, John	Bryce, Rt. Hon. James
Atherley-Jones, L.	Broadhurst, Henry	Burns, John
Burt, Thomas	Kitson, Sir James	Runciman, Walter
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Lambert, George	Schwann, Charles E.
Caine, William Sproston	Langley, Batty	Shackleton, David James
Caldwell, James	Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington	Shaw, Charles Ed W. (Stafford)
Cameron, Robert	Leng, Sir John	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Causton, Richard Knight	Levy, Maurice	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Cawley, Frederick	Lewis, John Herbert	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Channing, Francis Allston	Lloyd-George, David	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Cremer, William Bandal	Logan, John William	Soares, Ernest J.
Davies, Alferd (Carmarthen)	Lough, Thomas	Spencer, Rt Hn C R.(Northants)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Stevenson, Francis S.
Dunn, Sir William	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Edwards, Frank	M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Emmott, Alfred	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Mather, Arthur Basil	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Fenwick, Charles	Mather, Sir William	Thomas, J A (Glam'rgan, Gower
Fergnson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Toulmin, George
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Morley, Charles (Breconshirc)	Wallace, Robert
Father, J. M. F.	Newnes, Sir George	Walton, John Lawson (Leeds.S)
Gladstone. Rt Herbert John	Norman, Henry	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Goldard, Daniel Ford	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Wason, Eugene
Grant, Corrie	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Weir, James Galloway
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)	Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham	White, George (Norfolk)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Partington, Oswald	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Pease, J. .N. (Saffron Walden	Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Harmsworth. R. Leicester	Perks, Robert William	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Harwood, George	Phililpps, John Wynford	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Pickard, Benjamin	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Priestly, Arthur	Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid
Hemphill. Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Rea, Bussell	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.
Holland, Sir William Henry	Reckitt, Harold James	Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Rickett, J. Compton	Yoxall, James Henry
Horniman, Frederick John	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Hutton, Alfred F. (Morley)	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)	Mr. M'Kenna and Mr.
Jacoby, James Alfred	Robson, William Snowdon	Brynmor Jones
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Fardell, Sir T. George
Agnew. Sir Andrew Noel	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Aillmsen, Angustu, Hendry Eden	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Brim.	Finch, George H
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Chapman, Edward	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Charrington, Spencer	Fisher, William Hayes
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Clare, Octavius Leigh	Fison, Frederick William
Arrol, Sir William	Clive, Captain Percy A.	FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A. E.	Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon
Bai[...]y, James (Walworth)	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Baird, John George Alexander	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Flower, Ernest
Balcarres, Lord	Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Forster, Henry William
Balfour, Rt. Hon, A.J.(Manch'r	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S.W
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Compton, Lord Alwyne	Galloway, William Johnson
Balfour, RtHn GeraldW (Leeds	Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas	Garfit, William
Ba[...]bury, Frederick George	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St.Albans)
Bar[...]ley, George C. T.	Cranborne, Viscount	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Beckett, Ernest William	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Gordon Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop
Bignold, Arthur	Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc.
Bill, Charles	Crossley, Sir Servile	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon)
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Goschen, Hon. George Joachum
Bond, Edward	Cust, Henry John C.	Goulding, Edward Alfred
B[...]wen, Arthur Griffith-	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Graham, Henry Robert
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)	Davenport, William Bromley-	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn	Davies, Sir HoratioD(Chatham	Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nds
Brassey, Albert	Denny, Colonel	Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury
Brodrick, Rt. Hon, St. John	Dewar, Sir T.R. (Tower Hamlets	Grenfell, William Henry
Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Greville, Hon. Ronald.
Brymer, William Ernest	Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Groves, James Grimble
Bull, William James	Dixon-HartlandSirFredDixon	Guthrie, Walter Murray
Butcher, John George	Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Hain, Edward
Carew, James Laurence	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Hall, Edward Marshall
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Duke, Henry Edward	Halsey Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire	Faber, George Denison (York	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Hardy, Laurence (KentAshford	Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Hare, Thomas Leigh	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J
Harris, Frederick Leverton	Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Heaton, John Henniker	Morgan, DavidJ (Walth'mst'w	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Helder, Augustus	Morrell, George Herbert	Smith, James Parker (Lanark)
Henderson, Sir Alexander	Morrison, James Archibald	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich
Hogg, Lindsay	Mount, William Arthur	Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk
Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset
Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm	Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil	Myers, William Henry	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Hudson, George Bickersteth	Nicholson, William Graham	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Talbot Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd.Univ
Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.	Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway,N.	Thornton, Percy M.
Johnstone, Heywood	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Kemp, George	Parker, Sir Gilbert	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh	Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop	Pemberton, John S. G.	Valentia, Viscount
Keswick, William	Percy, Earl	Vincent, Col. Sir CEH(Sheffield
Kimber, Henry	Pierpoint, Robert	Walker, Col. William Hall
King, Sir Henry Seymour	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H
Knowles, Lees	Plummer, Walter R.	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Webb, Colonel William George
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow	Pretyman, Ernest George	Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E.(Taunt'n
Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool	Purvis, Robert	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H	Pym, C.Guy	Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne
Lee, Arthur H(Hants, Fareham	Quilter, Sir Cuthbert	Williams, RtHnJ Powell-(Birm
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Rankin, Sir James	Williams, Colonel Rt. (Dorset)
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Rattigan, Sir William Henry	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Remnant, James Farquharson	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Long, Col. Charles W (Eversh'm	Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.	Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Lowe, Francis William	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.
Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth	Robinson, Brooke	Younger, William
Lyttleton, Hon. Alfred	Rothschild, Hn Lionel Walter
Macdona, John Cumming	Round, Rt. Hon. James
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (EdinburghW	Royds, Clement Molyneux	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire	Rutherford, John	Sir Alexander Acland-
Malcolm, Ian	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Manners, Lord Cecil	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Question put, and agreed to.

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

It being after half-past Seven of the clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.