- Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire).
- Strachey, Sir Edward.
- Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
In page 4, line 27, by leaving out from the beginning to the word 'an' in line 29, and inserting the word 'establish.'"—(Sir William Anson )
§ MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)
moved the omission of the words "or education committees." The object of the Bill was 172 understood to be to set up in a given locality one and the same authority for elementary and secondary education, That was a vital part of the Bill, and he objected to words which would empower the local authority to set up two committees within its area, one f r secondary and technical instruction, and the other for elementary education. It might be that that was not the intention of the framers of the Bill; but, as the Clause stood, it would empower, and to some extent invite, the local education authority to transact its business, not merely through one committee, but through two committees. It might be that the intention of the Government was that the local authority in the larger areas should have power to appoint committees on topographical grounds, not by reason of the different kind of education to be controlled. That might be proper and necessary; but the Clause should not be left in its present vague form. Over the whole of a county there should be one and the same committee for all kinds of schools. Although' he did not think it was the intention of the Government, the words "education committees" would prevent that. It was necessary to know what was the intention of the Government, because a new feature was brought into the Bill which would be negative to the main features of the Bill, and which ran contrary to much of the argument by which the Bill had been supported, both in the Committee and in the country. The words "education committees" would divide the control of the work into two parts. It would assign to one committee elementary education, and practically set up another School Board and assign to another committee technical and higher education. Such a thing would in his opinion be foreign to the principles of the Bill, and for that reason he. begged to move that the words "or education committees" be omitted. Already the principle of one and the same authority had been strained to a dangerous degree.
In page 4, line 29, to leave out the words 'or Education Committees,' and insert the words consisting as to a majority of Members of the Council, and as to the remainder."—(Mr. Yoxall.)
§ Question proposed. "That the words 'or Education Committees' stand part of the Clause."
§ (1.20.) SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said it would be undesirable to fetter the local education authority in its arrangements as to the mode in which it should get educational advice within its area. There would he no obligation on the local authority to appoint more than one committee, but it might be desirable, and even necessary, in a large area to have more than one. The unity the hon. Member desired for all kinds of education would the Hind in the local authority itself. The hon. Gentleman would see that the mode in which it should collect advice must be left to that authority. So far as the hon. Member desired to prevent that advice being sectional, he would not secure it by his Amendment, because it would be impossible to prevent a committee appointing sub-committees. He could not accept the Amendment.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE
admitted there was a good deal to be said on both sides. He had been much struck by the manner in which, in the county with which he was connected, the landowners and farmers hail become interested in technical education and had taken a real interest in such technical education as agricultural education. It might be that under the conditions of t his Clause, although they might be disposed to accept the general policy of the committee, it would he found almost impossible to induce them to continue the very useful and increasingly useful work which they were beginning to look upon as their own, and to take considerable pride in. At the same time he felt that his hon. friend had been fully justified in raising this question, but he thought that he would lie wise to withdraw his Amendment, because although it might work out very well in some ways it would do a great deal of harm in others. He assumed, of course, that these words had nothing to do with sub-Section 3, because these committees were matters upon which he looked with some suspicion. It was one thing to appoint a committee for technical education, and another for elementary education, but quite another thing to cut up the county into two or three large areas, each under a separate 174 committee. Sub-Section 3 dealt with the geographical areas, but, the subject with which the Committee was dealing now was whether the people could divide education into three large classes.
BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea District)
supported the withdrawal of the Amendment. As he understood, it would be open to the local education authority to appoint one committee for secondary education and one for elementary education. That would be a very important point for the Welsh Members to consider when they came to deal with sub-Section 6.
§ MR. YOXALL
expressed his dissatisfaction with the statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Education. He again pointed out that this was a matter which must be considered seriously. It now became evident for the first time in all these debates that the Government contemplated permission being given to the local education authorities under the Bill to retain and maintain the existing division between elementary and technical schools which had worked so badly in the past. In the past a School Board existed, with powers over public elementary education, and in the same borough a Technical Education Committee existed with certain powers for the purposes of technical instruction. There was no co-ordination between those two authorities. The hon. Gentleman said that co-ordination would exist in the Council itself, but it could only be assumed that the Council would adopt the reports of its committees pro forma, as it did at present the reports of its committees for routine work. Therefore the same conditions would exist as at present. One committee would deal with technical instruction in an entirely different manner to another, and the curriculum of the elementary school would bear no relation to the curriculum of the technical school or the secondary school. There would be no common knowledge on the part of one committee of the needs of the various kinds of schools dealt with by the other committee, and they would simply perpetuate the existing bad educational conditions, which could not be justified on any educational basis that he was 175 aware of. The Council was to be the local authority, and in the last resort would rule. It was now proposed to devolve upon a separate committee the task of governing certain schools. If the Government consented to do that he would begin to tax them with insincerity in regard to the alleged aim of the Bill, which, for all the good it would then do, might as well never have been introduced. The words "or educational committees" meant that the local authority would be able, and almost invited, to set up separate committees for elementary, technical and secondary schools. That would not relieve the local authority of work, but it would almost inevitably lead to friction between the different committees. He urged the Prime Minister in the interests of the children and in the the interest of education not to allow these words to remain in their unqualified form. He was perfectly willing to withdraw the Amendment and move the insertion of "sub," so that the Clause would read "education committee or education subcommittees" if the right hon. Gentleman would accept the latter Amendment.
§ SIR CHARLES DILKE
pointed out that the Amendment of the hon. Member would place several Members in a difficult position, because, although they agreed with much he had said, they would be obliged to vote against the proposal inasmuch as the words of the Clause gave an important security, topographically considered, to certain portions of certain districts. He suggested, however, that the hon. Member might carry out his purpose by a proviso at the end of the Clause that the plural committees should apply only topographically, and not as far as classes of schools were concerned. There had been a virtual promise that for certain portions of large counties there should be separate committees, and that promise would fail of fulfilment if either proposal of the hon. Member were accepted.
§ MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomeryshire)
thought the discussion had revealed the great difficulty there would be in applying this Bill in the rural districts. In towns there would be no difficulty in having one autonomous and single committee for the whole area, 176 but in sparsely populated counties of large area it would be impossible to work the elementary schools without some subordinate local authority to look after the details. It might be said that the managers would do that. But in the denominational schools the managers could not be so fully trusted as in the provided schools, and in order to secure satisfactory administration there would have to be subordinate committees over areas of a limited extent to superintend the schools in those areas. That would aid in the co-ordination which all were anxious to secure between elementary and secondary education, and would relieve the central body of a vast amount of work which otherwise they could not possibly carry out. He suggested that the Government should make some alteration of the phraseology enabling the local education authority to work, not only through its committee, but either by appointing subordinate committees, or in some other way to provide for the necessary decentralisation of the work of elementary schools.
§ MR. ERNEST GRAY
agreed that in some counties it would be most desirous to have two committees both dealing with the higher work, each taking one portion of the county, and both reporting to the County Council. It was scarcely necessary, however, to say a single word as to the obvious danger of allowing, or almost inviting, a County Borough Council to appoint two committees, one dealing with elementary and the other with higher education. It should be remembered that there would be a tendency in that direction from the fact that the two forms of education had been separate in the past, and that regrettable divorce between elementary and higher education would be perpetuated. He would prefer sub-committees to separate committees, because the former would have to report to the one advising body before the matter reached the Council. Everyone knew what happened to such reports when they went before the County Councils. Unless there was some notorious new departure the Council would not trouble itself in the matter, but as soon as it had confidence in its committee, would accept its reports without discussion or comment. Would it not be possible for the representative of the 177 Board of Education to give an undertaking that no scheme would be approved which perpetuated this separation between higher and elementary education. The Board of Education were anxious to secure co-ordination; it was the desire of the Government. Then let them not nullify their own proposals by leaving it open to the Borough Councils to adopt machinery which would make it impossible for those proposals to be carried out. If such an assurance as he had suggested were given he would be prepared to let the Clause pass, but he would much prefer to have the words in the Bill.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)
said this point seemed to be outside the region of controversy, for they were all agreed as to the object to be attained. He thought, however, that these things ought to be provided for in the Bill, and the point was not too insignificant to put in express terms in the Bill itself. To him the answer given to the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan, that it was possible to set up two separate committees, was quite alarming. He hardly thought that that was contemplated by the Prime Minister or the Secretary to the Board of Education. The success of the American system of education was due largely to the fact that there was this co-ordination. Surely they ought not to start now contemplating the possibility of severing the functions of the committee, one committee to run primary, and the other secondary education. This bad led to no end of difficulties in the past, and he always understood that it was those difficulties which had given rise to this Bill. Instead of the quarrels between School Boards and Town Councils this proposal would in the future give rise to quarrels between two committees, and they would not improve matters by simply changing the combatants. Education would suffer by those quarrels, and so they ought to make it clear that there should be only one authority with indisputable claims to manage both secondary and primary education. A good deal had been said about sub-committees, but he did not think it was necessary to give this power in the Bill, because every committee had power to appoint sub-committees. Any body could appoint a committee of two or three to attend to one special 178 branch of a subject, and there ought to be no difficulty about that. Why should they add to the possibility of difficulties and quarrels by saying that provided schools should be under the control of one committee up to four o'clock, and after that time under the control of another committee? Between ten in the morning and four in the afternoon one authority controlled, and between four and ten the following morning there would be another authority. That was so absurd arid ridiculous that surely a few words inserted in the Bill would simplify matters.
§ (4.50.) MR. BOND (Nottingham, E.)
thought it would be wise to accept the Amendment of his hon. friend. He had had some experience in these matters, and he thought it was very advisable that one committee should deal with all forms of education. He did not say that no sub-committees should be appointed, because the area must be divided into sub-committees, but it was eminently desirable that all the recommendations of these sub-committees should come before the committee itself. The executive education committee should have before it all the recommendations of the sub-committees, and unless they had something of that kind he agreed with the hon. Member for North \test Ham that some of the promises which had been held out with regard to this Bill ran some risk of not being realised. They ought to do everything they could to prevent any possibility of that kind taking place. He hoped the suggestions which had found favour with a good many hon. Members on both sides as to the importance of giving power to separate very large areas into separate districts would be met. By adopting this course they would be doing more in the interests of education generally than if they adopted the proposal as it was in the Bill.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I have not heard the whole of the debate upon this point, but I have heard enough to appreciate the general tenor of the views on both sides of the House. Hon. Members fear that if more than one committee is permitted the division of the duties between two or more committees will be, 179 as it were, a horizontal division dividing secondary and primary education, and not a perpendicular division. With that general declaration of policy the Government are in entire harmony. We have from the beginning, and from the day I introduced the Bill, contended that it would be a great misfortune if the prophecies of my hon. friend the Member for North West Ham came true, and if education was not now co-ordinated, but divided between School Boards and Technical Instruction Committees, thus perpetuating them under new names under this Bill. But while I sympathise with that general view of policy, I am very reluctant to limit the discretion of the education authority unduly. We must be careful what we do in this matter, and not tie their hands too closely in matters which concern their proper function of dealing with secondary education. I have been trying in a rough way to draft words which I think would carry out the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not think they will require some modification at the hands of the Attorney General. My idea was to introduce later on in the Clause words something like these —"If the scheme provides more than one committee, regard shall he had under the scheme to the need for coordinating the different kinds of education." That, I think, would not lay down a hard and fast rule, but it would be an indication to the local authorities that the Education Department in approving the scheme shire, must not lose sight of the primary object of the scheme, namely to co-ordinate all kinds of education. If an Amendment of that kind lower down in the Clause will meet the views of hon. Gentlemen, shall be prepared to consider the exact form it shall take.
§ MR. M'KENNA
pointed out that by a sub-Clause it was already provided that more than one committee might be appointed on topographic grounds. In the absence of any explanation from the Government, they were bound to assume that the functions of these rival committees would be to deal with separate branches of education in the same area. If two committees were appointed in this, way, there would be three bodies, all 180 within the same area, dealing with education, and they would lose the last hope of coordinating all branches of education under one authority. He did not think the amending words of the First Lord of the Treasury would carry out the object of his hon. friend.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE
said he regretted to differ from his hon. friend. It was perfectly true that it would be disastrous, from the point of view of all, to separate primary and secondary education, but he reminded the Committee that there were classes of education under the head of technical instruction which were quite away and distinct from anything which was ordinarily called primary or secondary education, though no doubt they came within one ore the other. In his county they had appointed an agricultural committee, which dealt with that portion of technical education which was of importance to those engaged in farming. While a committee of that kind did valuable work in connection with a particular industry, he thought it would be disastrous to separate primary and secondary education in the ordinary acceptation of the words.
§ SIR WILLIAM MATHER
said it was of great importance to have continuity and co-ordination through the whole area.
MR. ALEXANDER BROWN (Shropshire, Wellington)
said he agreed generally with what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite.
§ MR. YOXALL
asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would agree to insert the word "district" before the words "Education Committee."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he did not think he could do that without running counter to the argument of the noble Lord the Member for the Cricklade Division.
§ MR. M'KENNA
said there was a way in which all parties could come together and be at one in this matter, and that was a very desirable thing. His own objection to the proposal of the Prime Minister was that there were to be separate committees. Was it not better to say to the local authority that one comprehensive committee ought to be enough, and that there should be one committee, with such subcommittees as might be appointed, to deal with the whole system of education? The experts who were skilled in different branches of education could be put upon the sub-committees.
§ MR. YOXALL
said that having regard to what had fallen from the Prime Minister, although friction might result between the local education authority and the Board of Education if his proposal were adopted, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
called upon Mr. Lloyd Morgan (Carmarthen, W.) to move an Amendment standing in his name.
§ MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden)
asked whether the following Amendment standing in his name before that of the hon. Member for West Carmarthen was out of order—'In page 4, line 29, after the second word 'education,' to leave out to end of Clause, and insert t he words 'consisting of members of the Council, who shall hare power to co-opt other person, to serve on such education committee, but the total number of such co-opted members shall be less than half the total number of members of such committee.'
§ MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE
said that owing to a clerical error the word "education" was inserted instead of the word "committee."
It ought to come as an Amendment to sub-Clause (a). What the hon. Member wants, so far as I can gather, is that a majority of the committee shall be members of the Council.
§ MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE
said his first object was to get rid of the scheme, because he believed the County Councils were perfectly competent to manage their own educational work.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
, on a point of order, said he thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden should come first.
pointed out that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden were put and negatived, that would cut out the other Amendments on the same point. Hon. Members could take it as they pleased.
(5.18.). MR. LLOYD MORGAN (Carmarthenshire, W.)
said that the object of his Amendment was to secure that the appointment of the Committee should be for a term of three years, and three years only. He presumed that under the Clause as it stood the committee or committees would become permanent bodies, and that seemed to him to be a most objectionable course. If the committee or committees were really to be representative of the County Councils and the Borough Councils, then it was absolutely necessary that there should be some limit of time for them holding office. They ought not to exist as a committee for a longer period than three years. The Government Bill of 1896 provided that the educational committee was to exist for three yeans, and three years only, and that one-third of the committee should retire every three years. That was a system which ought to be adopted in the present Bill. The County Council in electing the committee under the Act might be under the impression that certain persons who had had no previous experience in educational matters had a right to he elected, but the process of time might prove to them that they had made a mistake and that the members so elected by them were not the best men for educational work. It seemed to him that an unreasonable fetter was placed on the County Council if it were said that they had no power to release 183 these members of the Committee from service upon it, even if they had changed their opinions. He knew of no committee of the County Council at present which became a permanent body, except the county governing body constituted under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, and, although he had no other authority for saying so, he thought that was a mistake. In the case of the Standing Joint Committee of the County Council the members were only appointed for a limited time. The County Councils constantly changed the members of the Standing joint Committee when it was found that they were not carrying out He views of the County Council. That principle ought to be applied to the educational affairs of the county, and if the members of the Education Committee who had been elected to carry out the provisions of the Act failed in the discharge of their ditty or to satisfy the County Council, they ought to give the County Council power to decide that those members should not hold office for more than three years.
In page 4, line 30, after the word 'committee,' to insert the words 'appointed for a term of three years and.'" (Mr. Lloyd Morgan.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said nobody had ever dreamt that these committees should he permanent bodies, and there was nothing in the Bill to suggest that that bud ever been contemplated from the beginning of the scheme. As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman proposed by his Amendment to give a much greater security for the permanence of the committees than the ever contemplated. If a majority of the committee were members of the County Council, and ceased to he members of the Council or to be qualified as councillors, they could not continue to be members of the committee. What the Government really desired was that the tenure of office of members or the committee should he precisely what the local education authority should give it, whether long or short. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that there was nothing in the to suggest that these committees were to be of a permanent character, and that the hon. Member 184 proposed by his Amendment to give them a greater security of tenure than was specified or contemplated in the Bill. Their tenure of office, whatever it might be, would have to be determined by the schemes to be framed by the Councils, and approved of by the Board of Education.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire W.R., Padsey)
thought that the speech of the hon. Baronet had afforded more reason for supporting the Amendment than the remarks of the hon. Member who had moved it. Unless the words of the Amendment were adopted the constitution of the committee might be entirely out of harmony with that of the County Council or the Borough Council. What was going to be done in the case of the members elected to represent the County Council on these committees if the County Council came to an end before the term of office of the education committee expired? The members of the education committee would be hung up between wind and water—appoitited to represent the County Council, and yet not representing the County Council, for some County Councils might have appointed the members of the education committee for terms of four, live, or even six years. He thought common-sense should guide the Committee to the acceptance of the Amendment. They should adopt the practice which was in vogue in County Councils and Municipal Corporations, and fix the term for which the members of the committee were appointed, and make the term so short that they should represent the County Council or the Borough Council, otherwise the education committee might he entirely out of touch with the body which appointed them.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said he would remind the hon. Member that if a member of the education committee was placed on the committee as a member of the Council he would cease to be a member of the committee if he ceased to be a member of the Council. He thought the objection of the hop Member was not a real one.
§ MR. CHANNING
thought that the words which bad fallen from the Secretary to the Board of Education really 185 aggravated the case. The real point was that the Secretary to the Education Department had now told the Committee that the term of office of the members of the education committee was to be determined in the scheme made by the Council, and approved by the Board of Education. But it was possible that a Council might draw up a scheme, and obtain the consent of the Board of Education co it, which would saddle the education committee with a body of outsiders, which might be a permanent body, and would obtain thereby the control of all the machinery, of education in the county or borough, and which might be out of touch with the opinions mid sentiments of the people who elected the County Council or the Borough Council. It seemed to him that if there were no fixed term of office, and that while elected members of the Council could sit only for a time, outsiders nominated on the Committee might have all unlimited tenure of office, it could only lead to their having education handed over to an irresponsible group of outsiders who would obtain absolute and permanent control of all branches of education ill the district. That would he a very serious state of things. Practically the whole education of the country would pass into the hands of an irresponsible and permanent body wholly out of touch, it might be, with the people concerned.
§ SIR FRANCIS POWELL
said he thought that this was one of those minutiæ which it would be wiser to leave to the decision of the County and Borough Councils themselves. Some of these schemes, he thought, were not very well suited to the more general terms adopted in legislation.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
asked the Secretary to the Board of Education whether they could understand that during his tenure of office, at any rate, the schemes of the various education authorities would only be approved by the Department if the members of the County Council elected to the education committee were to remain members of that committee merely daring their term of office on the Council. Although he disliked the Clause he would be satisfied if the Government on this Amendment would give an assurance that that would be the policy of the Education Department with regard to these schemes.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said if the number of the members of the County Council on the committee fell short of a majority the intention was that the County Council should elect others.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said there might he a majority unless the County Council determined that there should not be.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said the position was obvious. These committees would perform a very onerous duty, and it might well be that many of the County Councils would not desire to undertake it. He thought it was extremely unlikely that there would be a majority of members of the County Councils on these bodies; they would desire these onerous duties to be performed by somebody else.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
pointed out that it did not follow from the words in this Section that the position occupied by a member of the County Council on the committee would cease to be occupied by him when he ceased to he a member of the County Council. The question he put, to which he had not yet got an answer, was whether the Education Department would see to it that members of the committee should only be members of that committee for such time as they were members of the County Council.
§ MR. BRIGG
expressed the opinion that with regard to the co-option of members, unless some definite time were put down for their co-option, they would remain in office after they ceased to be members of County Councils. The other members, he took it, would go out of office when they lost their position on the County Councils, but the co-opted members would remain.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said he had some hesitation in pronouncing all opinion on the interpretation of the Bill which might bind the Education Department upon questions which had 187 not yet been brought before it, but he might say that, if a certain majority of members of the committee were to be members of the County Council, and the qualification of their membership of the committee was that they should also be members of the County Council, they would cease to be members of the committee on losing that qualification. The duration of the term of office for the co-opted members of the committee would have to be provided for in the scheme. It would be the business of the local authority to provide for that. If they did not do so, it would be considered an accidental omission on their part, and the Education Board would call their attention to the matter.
§ SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)
asked to have it made perfectly clear by some words in the Bill that if a member of the committee lost his qualification as a member of the County Council lie should also lose his position on the committee. He pointed out that a great many members of a committee who were also members of the County Council might be elected to the County Council on other issues altogether, for the purpose of continuing them on the committee on account of their having done good service. What hon. Members on this side wanted was quite clear, but what they wished to hear from the hon. Baronet opposite was whether their wishes would be carried out by the insertion of words into the Bill.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he thought it was important to know whether there was going to be a term to the membership of members of the committee who were not also members of the County Council. The members appointed by the County Council would be representatives of the rateyayers, but the co-opted members would be experts, and the conduct of those gentlemen might not always commend itself to the County Council or the general body of the district. They could not always anticipate how men would work. Because they took an interest in education, they need not necessarily be good administrators. Therefore he wished to know whether it was clear that there was a term for the membership of these gentlemen.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said he thought he had clearly stated that the Government never contemplated that these co-opted or added members of the committee should have any condition of permanency attached to their appointment. The local authorities, he presumed, would fix the term of the appointment, which it might be desirable to make longer or shorter in some cases than in others, according to the varying conditions of the different local bodies. But if the local authority omitted to fix any term, he would consider that that was an accidental omission, and it would be the duty of the Board of Education to call attention to it.
§ MR. WHARTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Ripon)
remarked that every County Council Committee was re-appointed every year, and unless this Education Committee was to be in a different position from the other committees of the Council no difficulty wm mid arise in this respect. There need be no term of three years, or term of two years; let it be like the other committees.
SIR JAMES-WOODHOUSE (Huddersfield)
endorsed the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and deprecated putting every minute detail into the Bill. Under the existing law, the Technical Instruction Act, it was provided that the County Councils could co -opt their committee members from outside the County Council, and the election of all committees was settled by the Standing Orders of the County Council. If every minute detail was put into time Bill, there would be nothing for bye-laws or Standing Orders to settle.
§ MR. ABEL THOMAS (Carmarthenshire, E.)
said that probably an annual election would be the best thing in this matter, but if any other time were to be selected it should not exceed three years. He therefore proposed that the Amendment should be amended by changing the phrase "appointed for a term of three years" to "appointed for a term not exceeding three years."
By leaving out the word 'of,' and inserting the words 'not exceeding.'"—(Mr. Abel Thomas.)
§ (5.48) Question put, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 118; Noes, 241. (Division List, No. 477.)191
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Hayne, Rt Hon. Charles Seale-||Rteckitt, Harold James|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries|
|Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud||Hemphill. Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Rickett, J Compton|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Holland, Sir William Henry||Rigg, Richard|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Horaiman, Frederick John||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Bell, Richard||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Schwarm, Charles E.|
|Brigg, John||Jacoby, James Alfred||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Jones, David Brymnor (Sw'nsea||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Kitson, Sir James||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Labouchere, Henry||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Burns, John||Lambert, George||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Burt, Thomsa||Langley, Batty||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Caine, William Sproston||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants|
|Caldwell, James||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Cameron, Robert||Levy, Maurice||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Lewis, John Herbert||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Cawley, Fredrick||Lloyd-George, David||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan E.)|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Logan, John William||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Crenter, William Randal||Lough, Thomas||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Mac[...]amara, Dr. Thomas .J.||Thomas, J.A. (Glam'rg'n, Gower|
|Davises, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Toulmin, George|
|Davies, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||M'Kenna, Reginald||Trevelyan, Charles Philps|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin||Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.|
|Dunn, Sir William||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Edwards, Frank||Markham, Arthur Basil||Wason, Eugene|
|Ellis, John Edward||Mather, Sir William||Weir, James Galloway|
|Emmott, Alfred||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)||Newnes, Sir George||White, Luke (York. E. R.)|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Norman, Henry||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Whttaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Nussey, Thomas Willians||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund||Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk. Mid.|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Partington, Oswald||Wilson, Henry. J. (York, W.R.)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Paulton, James Mellor||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Philipps, John Wunford|
|Grant, Corrie||Pickard, Benjamin|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||Price, Robert John||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Priestley, Arthur||Mr. Lloyd Morgan and|
|Harwood, George||Rea, Russell||Mr. Abel Thomas.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Bartley, George C. T.||Caveadish, V.C.W (Derbyshire|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Beckett, Ernest William||Cayzer, Sir Charles William|
|Allhusen, Augstus H'nry Eden||Bentinck, Lord Henry C||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Beresford, Lord Chas. William||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Bhownaggree, Sir M.M.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. (Birm.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bignold, Arthur||Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A.(Wore.|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton|
|Arrol, Sir William||Bond, Edward||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Boulnois, Edmund||Chapman, Edward|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Brassey, Albert||Coghill, Douglas Harry|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Cohen, Benjamin Louis|
|Balcarres, Lord||Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Bull. William James||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r||Butcher, John George||Compton, Lord Alwyne|
|Balfour Capt. C.B. (Hornsey)||Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A (Glasgow)||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge|
|Balfour Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Carew, James Laurence||Cripps, Charles Alfred|
|Balfour Kenneth R (Christch.||Carson, Bt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Cautley, Henry Strother||Crossley, Sir Savile|
|Cust, Henry John C.||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Jebb, Sir Richard (Claverhouse||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Denny, Colonel||Johnstone, Heywood||Purvis, Robert|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Kearley, Hudson E.||Pym, C. Guy|
|Dinsdale, Sir Joseph Cockheld||Kemp, George||Rankin, Sir James|
|Disraeli, Coningshy Ralph||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop||Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Starybridge|
|Doughty. George||Kimber, Henry||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethaal Green|
|Douglas, Rt. Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Knowles, Lees||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Dorning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Dyke. Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Elliot. Hen. A. Ralph Douglas||Lawson, John Grant||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Faber, George Denkon (York)||Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Shackleton, David James|
|Fergusson, Rt Hon Sir J (Manc'r||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Fieblen, Edward Brocklehurst||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Finch, George H.||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Long, Rt Hon Walter (Bristol, S.||Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Fison, Frederick William||Lowe, Francis William||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Spear, John Ward|
|Fiztzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset|
|Fetcher, Rt Hon. Sir Henry||Macdona, John Cumming||Stewart, Sir Mark .J. M.'Taggart|
|Flower, Ernest||Maclver, David (Liverpool)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Forster, Henry William||Maconochie A.W.||Talbot. Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S.W.||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Talbot, Rt Hn. J.G. (Ox'f'd Univ.|
|Galloway, William Johnson||M'Killop, James(Stirlingshier)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Garfit, William||Majendie, James A. H.||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Gibbs. Hon. Vicary (St Albans)||Malcolm, Ian||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Manners, Lord Cecil||Valentia, Viscount|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F||Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Wallace, Robert|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Middlemore John Throgmorton||Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William. H.|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S Edm'nds||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Welby, Lt.-Col A.C. E (Tannton|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire||Welbv, Sir Charles G.E (Notts.)|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Morrell, George Herbert||Whiteley, H.(Asht'n-und. Lyne|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Whitley, J.H. (Halifax)|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Mount, William Arthur||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Haslett, Sir James Horner||Mowbrey, Sir Robert, Gray C.||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Hatch. Ernest Frederick Geo.||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute||Willox, Sir John Architald|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh., N.|
|Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Myers, William Henry||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Newdegate, Francis A. N.||Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Huddersf'd|
|Helder, Augustus||Nicholson, William Graham||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Henderson, Sir Alexander||Nicol, Donald Nimian||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B Stuart|
|Hickman, Sir Alfred||Nolan, Col., John P. (Galway, N.)||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Higginbottom, S.W.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Wylie, Alexander|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Hothouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Pease. J.A. (Saffron Walden)||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellusley|
|Hope, J.F (Sheffield, Brightside||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Horner, Frederick William||Percy, Earl||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Hoult, Joseph||Pierpoint, Robert||Sir Alexander Acland|
|Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)||Plummer, Walter R.||Hood, and Anstruther.|
§ (6.5.) DR. MACNAMARA
, in moving the insertion after "Committers" of the words "which shall in all cases be subject to the decisions of the local education authority, and shall be," said he recognised that the position had been sensibly changed since the modified constitution of the local education authority had 192 been placed before the Committee. He was in seine doubt as to the precise functions of the local authority, because, when the matter was discussed in June last, there were many references to the committee being constituted in the same manner as a Watch Committee, which was not required to report its proceedings 193 to the parent Council, and was not in any wav subject to its decisions. He would formally move the Amendment, in order to elicit whether the committee would be subject in all respects to the local authority.
In page 4, line 30, after the word 'committees,' to insert the words 'which shall in all cases be subject to the decisions of the local education authority, and shall be;'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said the point which the hon. Member desired to call attention would much more directly arise on the Amendment standing in the name of Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. He thought that when that Amendment was reached the hon. Member would see that all that he desired was effectively carried out, and perhaps with that statement he would be satisfied to allow the matter to remain until his hon. friend's Amendment was reached.
§ Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
§ MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE,
in moving the omission of the remainder of the Clause after the words "or education committees," said his object was to do away with the necessity of appealing to the Board of Education with schemes altogether. Everybody acquainted with the working of committees of municipal corporations or county councils knew that those committees were quite capable of drawing up any scheme which they thought necessary for their own work. At present the Technical Education Committees formed their own schemes, and were not subject to the control of the education authority. He believed the same confidence might be reposed in the bodies now to the created. It was absurd to think that they should be kept in leading strings by the Board of Education. If, however, these bodies were given the privilege of carrying out their own schemes he thought it should be provided that the committees should be annually elected, with power to co-opt a minority, while a majority of the members should be direct representatives of the local education authority. By that means a 194 great deal of cumbrous and unnecessary work in connection with the submission of schemes to the Board of Education would be obviated. He suggested two grounds on which the Government might well accept the Amendment—first, that these bodies were capable of carrying out their work and ought to be entrusted with these powers, and secondly, that the Clause would then be disposed of and the remainder of the Bill could be proceeded with.
In page 4, line 30, to leave out from the word 'committees,' to the end of the Clause."—(Mr. Joseph A. Pease.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words on the 'constituted in accordance with a scheme made by the Council' stand part of the clause."
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
assured the hon. Member that it was from no want of confidence in the local education authority that he asked the Committee not accept this Amendment. The Bill, as it stood, did not provide for elasticity as regarded the frame-work of the schemes, and every regard would be had to local wants and exigencies in determining what schemes should be. ["By whom?"] By the Board of Education as well as by the local education authority. Doubtless the hon. Member would agree as to the desirability of a certain amount of co-ordination, and the Board of Education was that which, after all, must remain the central authority to see that there is no more divergence in the schemes than local circumstances required. It was left entirely with the local authority to frame its scheme, and there was no regulation whatever with a view to bringing the various schemes into relation with one another. There was no desire to tryannise over the local authorities, but surely it was desirable that the experience possessed by the central authority as to what had been found to work well in one locality should be at the service of another locality. He therefore submitted that it was much better that the schemes should be prepared by the local authorities, subject to the supervision of the Board of in the manner proposed in the Bill.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Morley)
said that the element of schemes was one of the most objectionable in the Bill. There could not be found in any other portion of our local government a parallel to the present proposal. To say, in reference to money coming from the public exchequer and the local rates, that the money should be dealt with by a body composed under a scheme approved by the Board of Education, was not only a novel proposal, but a very serious innovation in the practice of the country in regard to local government and the administration of public money. No information had yet been given as to how the Board of Education intended these schemes to be worked. He presumed the nomination of the minority on these committees will lie with other bodies. First of all, the County Council would suggest the bodies that should have power to nominate representatives. It seemed to him that that was a means of enabling denominational and other schools to secure an indirect interest in the authority that would administer this money. He quite agreed that if there were a university college in the area it should have its representative on the local education authority, but that was not all that this proposal would do. It would secure that a great variety of interests should be represented. Besides the denominational schools, there would be secondary schools, grammar schools, technical schools, and any other kind of endowed school that happened to exist within the area, all wanting to nominate representatives. They would obviously go to push the interests of their own school. He had no doubt that that would be the result of the working of the scheme. To whom would those people owe their allegiance? Not to the public interest, not to the County Council, but to the different bodies and schools and boards in the area, and they would all push those particular interests. If they did not they would not be considered to have done their duty, and they would not find a place on those committees for a second time. If they were going to have co-option, then the authority should be the co-opting authority. They should be able to call in those who had had experience in university, technical, and secondary education, but that they 196 should have the right of putting on their own nominees was an infringement upon public responsibility and public administration. If they had a scheme of this kind they left people open to intrigue. In fixing this scheme they would have hundreds of applications setting forth their right to be represented, and the President of the Board of Education would have to adjudicate upon them, and he did not think the Education Department should have that duty to discharge, Why should the Department be called upon to say that this school had a right to one, this to two, and another to no representatives at all? It would be impossible for the Department to adjudicate between all these interests. But while all these sectarian bodies would have this right there would be one body that would have no right at all, and that body would be those who, had had experience on School Boards and who thoroughly understood School Board work. He remembered the hon. Gentleman opposite saying that under this Bill School Boards would continue to exist except in their corporate and financial capacity. He could not imagine a body existing that had lost those capacities. It seemed to him that this was a proposal which would open the door to a tremendous amount of backdoor influence and intriguing of all kinds. It was a proposal which would do a great deal to withdraw that confidence in public administration which would be given if County Councils were left to do their work on their own responsibility. He should support the Amendment.
§ MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE
thought the hon. Member opposite had raised a good many points which did not arise on this Amendment. He did not think that some of his arguments were well-founded, because, under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, there had existed for a good many years a very strong analogy to the bodies proposed to be set up under this Bill. Those bodies were doing excellent work, and they were constituted by the initiative of the County Councils, confirmed by a Government Department. The County Councils would have full power of initiative, and they did not anticipate any of the dangers which were foreshadowed by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
§ MR. BRYCE
said that he would leave it to his hon. friends from Wales to deal with the Welsh case. He would point out, however, that this Amendment raised a very much larger principle which could not be dealt with by any reference to a special case of that kind. The weak point of the Bill was that the Government had determined to throw a great mass of new and very difficult work upon bodies which were already heavily loaded, and which had not been elected with any view to their educational capacity. They had contended from the first discussion on this Bill that the capital error of the Bill was that it destroyed Boards which had been specially chosen, and which had acquired special knowledge, and they were substituting for them a new authority which was already fully occupied with other work, and which had no special competence for the new work. The Government, like the sensible men that they were, felt the weakness of their own scheme. Of course they did not admit it, and nobody expected that they would, but they felt it all the same, and they had determined to try to get rid of this weakness. The Government's device for getting rid of the difficulty thus created was to shift all the work, except the ultimate control, from the local authority to the committee, and then to constitute the committee by putting experts upon it. Then, in order to make certain that there should be experts, they appointed experts by means of this scheme. That was not the course that any people who had not set out with a determination to extinguish the School Boards would have adopted. The Government had inevitably been driven to adopt the scheme which they had proposed. Nevertheless it did not make a good plan, although it might be the best way out of the difficulties which the Government had imposed upon themselves. Let them face the matter upon its merits. He thought they might consider the merits of the proposal quite apart from any predilection of a scheme because it came from the Government. He admitted that it was desirable to have an expert element. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] He really did not understand that laughter, corning as it did from hon. Members who never contributed anything to their debates. The expert element was a necessary element, and they all agreed that if they could secure experts it would be a 198 good thing to do. So far he was at one with the Government, but he believed that if they left the matter to the County and Borough Councils they would put on experts. His own knowledge of County and Borough Councils led him to feel perfectly certain that they would avail themselves of this expert knowledge, and endeavour to qualify themselves for the work they had to discharge by obtaining the most capable men. The Government thought that this must be secured by providing by their scheme that experts must be put on. But they went further because evidently they intended not merely that the Council should have power to choose its own experts, but also that nominations might be made by other persons who were to be forced upon the local education authority. That was going a very long way. His first objection to this course was that it was not at all respectful to the local authorities themselves. They purported to give these powers to the local authorities, and then they forced upon them persons who were not of their own choice. But there was a more grievous objection. How could they tell who were the persons whom the scheme would require to be appointed upon these committees? Upon this subject the Government had preserved from the first an ominous silence, and had not given any indication as to who the persons were who would be nominated. They saw in the Bill that experts were to he appointed by other bodies, and they had asked who the other bodies were, but no information had been given. They had, from other sources, reason to conjecture that these other bodies would in some cases be bodies representing sectional interests, not primarily educational. But if they agreed to the scheme they would agree to it in the form in which the Government put it forth, which was to give to these extraneous bodies, of whom the Committee knew nothing, the right to select members of these committees. If the scheme were to be made by the County Council or the Borough Council he should not be very-much afraid. They were, after all, popular bodies responsible to the electorate, and he was persuaded that, they would not put on any nominated body any person with whom this House would be displeased. But where did the ultimate voice lie? It lay with the 199 Board of Education. If a scheme proposed by a County Council did not meet with the approval of the Board of Education, that Board was to make a scheme itself.
§ MR. BRYCE
said the Board of Education would still have the last voice. They all knew what happened under a Provisional Order. They all knew that there was another House which had as much voice as the House of Commons in a Provisional Order. They could not look on the provision that the scheme should be framed by Provisional Order as at all adequate. In this matter the last voice ought not to lie, as it would lie under the Provisional Order plan, with the Board of Education. The price the Government asked them to pay for having experts on these bodies was too high. If the Government would say what bodies were likely to have the nominations that might remove some of the distrust with which the proposal was now surrounded, but if the scheme was to be placed before them as it stood at present, he thought they must reject it altogether. They must say that Parliament should fix the composition of the committees, and if Parliament did not do so it should be left to the local authority, but they could not leave the matter to be dealt with by the Board of Education by Provisional Order, and then to be pushed through the House as a Party measure under circumstances that would give no opportunity for adequate discussion.
§ (6.33.) SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)
said the account which the right hon. Gentleman had given of the genesis of this particular provision was quite inaccurate. The right hon. Gentleman had reiterated the old fallacy which seemed especially dear to the other side of the House—that in School Board elections the electors rushed to the poll to choose the representatives most educationally fit. The real genesis of the present difficulty was that the Technical Instruction Committees of the County and Borough Councils had been doing excellent work for the last twelve years. The Technical Instruction Committee of the London County Council had done invaluable service, and it was constituted 200 exactly according to the scheme of this Clause. The majority of its members were members of the Council, and there were also representatives of all kinds of educational interests. [An HON. MEMBER: Appointed by outside bodies?] Some of them were appointed by outside bodies, among which was the London Trades Council. Though he was strongly of the opinion that the County and Borough Councils might be trusted gradually to arrive at a satisfactory composition of their Education Committees, yet the time of the House was not wasted in trying to give certain indications to the Councils as to what the committees should consist of. He would give an example which would, he thought, appeal strongly to the personal feelings of his right hon. friend. One of the great misfortunes in the composition of these Technical Instruction Committees was that so very few of then included women. The members of County Councils were exclusively males, and with regard to the Technical Instruction Commitees, with few exceptions they had entirely ignored the desirability of having women upon them. The advice of the Board of Education might serve to ensure the inclusion of women in the Education Committees. The whole composition of the scheme would be left to the local authority. It was a great mistake for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Board of Education could make a scheme and force it upon a local authority. He seemed to belittle the influence of this House in the matter of Provisional Orders. These generally passed because they were wholly unopposed, but if an attempt were made to foist on a great town like Liverpool or Manchester a scheme to which the Council objected, he was certain that it would be opposed; and, if opposed, the matter would not be settled, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, by a Party majority, It would be settled by a Private Bill Committee, who would decide, not on Party grounds, but in such a manner as would, in their judgment, secure the justice of the case. He would pity his hon. friend, the Secretary to the Board of Education, if he should at any time have the misfortune to defend in this House a scheme in a Provisional Order which had been proposed by the Board of Education, and objected to by one of the 201 municipal boroughs or a great County Council. He did not think the Bill would have much chance of going through the House if opposed. If there was anything ill the scheme to which just objection could be taken, he should think it highly probable that a Committee of this House would reject the Provisional Order. He thought there were certain provisions which might be included in this Clause which would not cripple and impede the Councils, but would give them advice and suggestion of an extremely valuable character, and assist them in the making of a scheme. He hoped that when a scheme had been framed it would never be interfered with except in the most extreme cases.
§ SIR WILLAM HARCOURT
said that the whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman was addressed to the action of the County Councils in the matter of technical education. What had been their action? It had been satisfactory because it had been done on their own responsibility. If these local authorities were good for anything, they ought to have the power of making their own schemes. Why should those bodies, because they had discharged so well and so satisfactorily the business for which they had been chosen, the moment they embarked On a new business be put under the tutelage of another authority? A more irrational argument than that of the right hon. Gentleman it was impossible to conceive. The hon. Gentleman had spoken as if this were a suggestion of the Education Department. Suggestion! Why, the Education Department had an absolute veto on the scheme of the education authority. What was obvious was that the Government did not really trust the local authorities. That appeared in every Clause of the Bill. In Clause 8, sub ,Section 2, local authorities were put under the control of the Education Department, because they did not trust them. Having allowed the local authorities to appoint their own Technical Instruction Committee, the Government now made any scheme of general education which the local authorities might propose subject to the consent of the Education Board. The Bill said: "The Education Committee constituted in accordance with a scheme made by the Council and approved by the Board of Education." Well, if the Board of Education did not approve there 202 was no scheme; there was an end to it Then sub-Section 4 went on: "Before approving a scheme the Board of Education shall take such measures as may seem expedient for the purpose of giving publicity to the provisions of the proposed scheme, and may, if they think fit, hold a public inquiry." What position did that put the education authority in? And the hon. Gentleman claimed that that was only the Education Department making a suggestion! The public inquiry was, of course, to prove that the scheme of the education authority was a bad one. It was obvious that the whole of this was founded on absolute distrust of the local authorities. Why should not the Government leave the local authorities to act as they now did through their Technical Instruction Committees. If the Education Department disapproved of the schemes of the Borough Councils or County Councils, it was because they thought these bodies were unfit to do their duty, and that a public inquiry should be held to support their views in condemning the schemes. That was what the bon Gentleman called a "suggestion." He should have used another word for it than "suggestion" Then, "If a scheme under this section has not been made by a Council, and approved by the Board of Education within twelve months after the passing of the Act, the Board may, subject to the provisions of this Act, make a Provisional Order for the purposes for which a scheme might have been made." Well, the Education Department represented the Government of the day, and when they introduced a Provisional Order the Government would put it as a political question, and very likely a religious question, and pass it by means of their majority. Then, of course, they could carry out that Provisional Order by mandamus. A mandamus was a "suggestion" to the County Councils or the Borough Councils! He maintained that the provisions of the Clause were insulting to large local bodies. Why did not the Government trust them in this as in other matters?
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said that the right hon. Gentleman harped too much on the single string of Government distrust of the local authorities. There was no such distrust. He thought that the arguments the right hon. Gentleman used in 203 connection with this subject were a good deal exaggerated. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to attribute to the local authorities a sort of infallibility, and had spoken with great feeling that it was an insult to hold an inquiry as to whether a scheme was a good one or not. He ventured to say that there was not a local authority in the country which would not repudiate such extravagant language put forth by the right hon. Gentleman. The local authorities had the good sense to know that, after all, they were mortal, and he was quite sure that, so far from regarding a public inquiry, where they would have an opportunity of bringing forward their views, as an insult they would welcome it. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if the section provided that the public inquiry was to be held after the decision of the Board of Education. It was nothing of the kind. The provision of the section was—Before approving of a scheme, the Board of Education shall take such measures as may appear' expedient for the purpose of giving publicity to the provisions of the proposed scheme, and may, if they think fit, hold a public inquiry.Inquiry was not to follow, but to precede, their decision. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Board of Education could carry any Provisional Order that they chose to arrive at with almost certainty. He ventured to take issue with the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman knew that with reference to any Provisional Order a petition might be presented, that petition would go before a Committee of this House, and there would be a judicial inquiry.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
What the right hon. Gentleman said was that the Provisional Order would be carried as of course; but the Order would be sent to a Committee, and if that Committee arrived at the conclusion that the preamble bad not been proved, he ventured to say that no Government would, except in the most exceptional and special circumstances, venture to over-ride the Report of the Committee. The procedure was hedged round by the highest safeguards, and to 204 suggest that these Provisional Orders would be run through the House without regard to the justice of the matter was a mere delusion. On the whole, he submitted to the Committee that there must be some provision for an inquiry to correct any mistakes. If the public inquiry revealed defects in the scheme, there was nothing to prevent the local authority sending up another scheme which would embody the improvements necessary to correct the weak points disclosed by the inquiry. Under these circumstances, he submitted that the provisions of the Bill were adequate.
§ SIR JOHN BRUNNER
said he had listened very carefully to the right hon. the Member for Cambridge University, and went entirely with him in his praise of the work of the County Councils and the County Boroughs under the Technical Instruction Act. That was a matter in which he had taken intense interest since 1889. He had watched the proceedings very closely of the Technical Instruction Committees in London, Liverpool, Manchester, Lancashire, Cheshire, and Devonshire; and when the right hon. Gentleman said that the constitution of the Technical Instruction Committee was the model which had been adopted in this Bill, he quite disagreed from him. He thought it was on account of the freedom enjoyed by these bodies that they did their work so well. This Bill was something entirely new to all our local government. In it there was no freedom, but only a liberty to propose to the Secretary to the Board of Education, who would dispose. He desired to see local government as thorough and effective as possible, and he felt convinced that as more freedom and more power and greater responsibility was given to these authorities, the more effective and efficient they would become. It had been said that these committees would differ in their method of work. Why should they not? The Technical Education Committee of London differed materially in their methods and curricula from those of Bradford or Leeds. Liverpool had not the same instruction to give as Manchester. Lancashire and Dorsetshire differed very widely, but why should they not? They knew the circumstances and position of those for whom they acted far better than the Board of Education possibly could 205 and the people of Dorsetshire and Lancashire were not only satisfied but all the better off for the difference in their authorities. He asked the Committee not to introduce these new-fangled things, but to leave the new education authorities as free as the Technical Committees were today.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he thought the Committee ought, before half-past 7 o'clock, to get down to the words "Board of Education," and to add the proviso which had been agreed upon. He hoped the Committee would agree to this.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEY
ventured to think that of all the Amendments moved with the object of improving the machinery of this Bill, none had been put before the Committee so excellent in its purpose as the one moved by his hon. friend. His hon. friend had truly stated that if it was accepted it would get rid of the cumbrous procedure of this Bill. This Clause was a perfect mosaic of cumbrous provisions. It was only necessary to look at the Clause to see the necessity for this Amendment, or one of a like character. There were six Sections and several sub-Sections, the whole of which were elaborated to carry out in
§ an extremely complicated fashion that which could be and had been done in the easiest possible manner. The hon. and learned Attorney General, in the first of his two speeches delivered this evening, had described the necessity of the scheme for the purpose of affording elasticity, but elasticity was the last thing that was needed by these committees. What was required was uniformity. The hon. Member for East Somerset had described these committees as compound bodies, and had said that in his opinion for the creation of these bodies it was absolutely necessary to have some scheme. There was no such necessity. These compound bodies already existed in the Technical Instruction Committees and the Library Committees, both of which had done excellent work. As an old member of a municipal corporation he entirely objected to this outside interference with local authorities. It would not be welcomed by them, and they could do their business much better without it. He thought the simple and easy solution of this matter was on the lines of the Amendment of his hon. friend, and therefore he supported it.
§ (7.8.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 241; Noes, 119. (Division List No. 478).209
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)||Crosy, Alexander (Glasgow)|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Brassey, Albert||Crossley, Sir Savile|
|Allhusen, Aug'stus Henry Eden||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Cust, Henry John C.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire)||Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bull, William James||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Bullard, Sir Harry||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph|
|Arrol, Sir William||Butcher, John, John George||Dixon- Hartland, Sir Fred Dix'n|
|Atkinson, Rt Hon. John||Carew, James Laurence||Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Doughty, George|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Cautley, Henry Strother||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.||Duke, Henry Edward|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon.(A.J.) Manch'r||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Chamberlain, Rt. H on. J. (Birm.||Faber, George Denison (York)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn JA (Wore'r||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward|
|Balfour, Kenneth R (Christch.)||Chamberlayen, T. (S'thampton||Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manor)|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Champman, Edward||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Clive, Captain Percy A.||Finch, George H.|
|Beckett, Ernest William||Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne|
|Bentinek, Lord Henry C.||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Beresford, Lord Chas. William||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Fison, Frederick William|
|Bhownaggrre, Sir M. M.||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-|
|Bignold, Arthur||Compton, Lord Alwyne||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Flannery, Sir Fortescue|
|Bond, Edward||Cranborne, Viscount||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Flower, Ernest|
|Forster, Henry William||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Ridley, S. Ford (Bethnal Green)|
|Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S.W.||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Garfit, William||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Lowther, C. Cumb., Eskdale)||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Lucas, Reginald J(Portsmouth||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Seely, Maj. JEB. (Isle of Wight)|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Maconochie, A. W.||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S Edm'nds||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Majendie, James A. H.||Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Guthrie, Walter Murray||Maxwell, W JH (Dumfriesshire||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Handlton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Spear, John Ward|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Middlemore, John Throgmort'n||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.||Stewart, Sir Mark J.M. Taggart|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Milvain, Thomas||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Haslett, Sir James Horner||More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire)||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||Morgan, David. J (Walthamst'w||Talbot, Lord E. (Chicester)|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Morrell, George Herbert||Talbot, Rt Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Helder, Augustus||Mount, William Arthur||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Henderson, Sir Alexander||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute||Tuffnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Hickman, Sir Alfred||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Higginbottom, S. W.||Myers, William Henry||Vincent, Col Sir C. EH (Sheifield|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel||Newdegate, Francis A. N.||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Nicholson, William Graham||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Hoult, Joseph||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Welby, Lt. Col AC. E (Taunton|
|Howard, J. (Midd. Tottenham)||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Parker, Sir Gilbert||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd.|
|Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)||Parkes, Ebenezer||Whiteley, H (Ashton-und Lyne|
|Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Peel ,Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Pemberton, John S. G.||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.|
|Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Percy, Earl||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N)|
|Johnstone, Heywood||Pierpoint, Robert||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Kemp, George||Plummer, Walter R.||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Kennaway, Rt Hon. Sir John H.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharpe||Wortley, ,Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-|
|Kenyon, Hon. Geo T. (Denbigh||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Wylie, Alexander|
|Keswick, William||Purvis, Robert||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)||Pym, C. Guy||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Lawrence, Sir. Joseph (Monm'th||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert|
|Lawrence, William F (Liverpool||Rankin, Sir James|
|Lawson, John Grant||Rattigao, Sir William Henry||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm||Remnant, James Farquharson||Sir Alexander Acland|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge||Hoodand Mr. Anstruther.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Cameron, Robert||Fenwiek, Charles|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)|
|Allen, Charles P.(Glouc. Stroud||Causton, Richard Knight||Fitzrnaurice, Lord Edmond|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Cawley, Frederick||Fuller, J. M. F.|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Charming, Francis Allston||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Cremer, William Randal||Grant, Corrie|
|Bell, Richard||Dalziel, James Henry||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Gurdon Sir W. Brampton|
|Brigg, John||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Dilke, Rt. Hon, Sir Charles)||Harmsworth, R. Leicester|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Dunn, Sir William||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Edwards, Fran k||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.|
|Burns, John||Ellis, John Edward||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Burt, Thomas||Emmott, Alfred||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)|
|Caine, William Sporston||Evans, Samuel T (Glamorgan)||Horniman, Frederick John|
|Caldwell, James||Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.|
|Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Partington, Oswald||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||Paulton, James Mellor||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Philipps, John Wynford||Thomas, J.A. (Gl'mrg'n, Gower|
|Kitson, Sir James||Pickard, Benjamin||Toulmin, George|
|Labouchere, Henry||Price, Robert John||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Lambert, George||Rea, Russell||Wallace, Robert|
|Langley, Batty||Reckitt, Harold James||walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.|
|Leese, Sir. Joseph F (Accrington||Reid, Sir R Threshie (Dumfries||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Leigh, Sir Joseph||Rickett, J. Compton||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Levy, Maurice||Rigg, Richard||Weir, James Galloway|
|Lloyd-George, David||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Logan, John William||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Runciman, Walter||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin||Schwann, Charles E.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Shackleton, David James||Williams, Osmoud (Merioneth)|
|Mather, Sir William||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.|
|Morgan, J Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Shipman, Dr John G.||Wilson, Henry. J. (York, W.R.)|
|Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)||Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd|
|Newnes, Sir George||Sloan, Thomas Henry||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Norman, Henry||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Norton. Capt. Cecil William||Soares, Ernest J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Spencer, Rt Hn. C.R (Northants||Mr. Herbert Gladstone and|
|Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham||Stevenson, Francis S.||Mr. William M'Arthur.|
Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday next.
The next two Amendments seem to raise the same point, and the next, standing in the name of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, ought to have come in sub-Section 2, sub-Section (a.)
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
moved to insert, after the words "Board of Education," the following proviso:—Provided always that, if a Council having powers under Part II. only of tins Act, determine that an Education Committee is unnecessary in their case, it shall not be obligatory on them to appoint such a committee."
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said he thought the Committee ought to have time to consider this proviso. There was a feeling on both sides that something of this kind should be done. Be rather favoured the suggestion that these small bodies should not he allowed to appoint a committee at all. If they were given the power they were very likely to exercise it, and what the Committee had now t decide was whether it was desirable that these small Councils all over the country should have the power to appoint a committee. He did not think the Government would be wise in forcing this proviso through without some further discussion.
§ The Amendment was agreed to.
§ It being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.210
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.