EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.

HC Deb 07 November 1902 vol 114 cc386-447

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

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

Clause 12:—

(12.10.) SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)

moved to include Rural District Councils specifically among the bodies which should nominate persons of experience in education to serve on the Education Committee. He said the Amendment was supported on both sides of the House. It was felt by the Rural District Councils that they were rather left out in the cold as compared with the Urban District Councils, and the noble Lord the Member for the Horncastle Division of Lincolnshire had, with himself, been requested to put this Amendment on the Paper by the Rural District Councils Association, a body which represented 200 Rural District Councils. If the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill could not now accept the Amendment, he hoped that at any rate he would promise it favourable consideration.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 36, after the first word 'of,' to insert the words 'Rural District Councils.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)

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

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

declined to accept the Amendment, urging that it was better to leave the words perfectly general, so that the education authority might be at liberty to make its selection from any public or other body it might choose. If it should be thought desirable by a local authority to apply to the Rural District Council, it would be able to do so as the Bill now stood. If not, the Bill enabled the authority to have recourse to such other bodies as it judged desirable. He could not help thinking that the Amendment was an objectless Amendment, so far as extending the powers of local authorities was concerned. In addition, it was open to the objection that it inserted the name of one body, but did not enumerate the others. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed by the hon. Baronet.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said he felt very strongly that these local Education Committees should be as representative as possible, and he objected to this Amendment because he thought it would tend to limit the discretion of the local authority. One of the most important features of this Clause was that it gave the local authority the power of appointing the best committee it could obtain. In some cases, no doubt, the representatives of Rural District Councils would be desirable, but he thought those cases would not be very common, and he was in favour of leaving to the local authority the fullest discretion.

SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)

suggested that the Amendment commanded the Council to perform an impossibility. How many Rural District Councils were there in the cities of Liverpool, Manchester, or Leeds? On the ground of number alone it would be impossible to give them all a representation on the Committee.

MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)

said that to his mind this was a most ridiculous Amendment. It was as he understood it a proposal that the Rural District Council should have the right of nominating a person to serve on the local Education Committee. The result would be that if the majority of the Education Committee were to be members of the County Council as was already provided by the Bill, and every rural district were to nominate a member of the minority, either there would be more persons with a right to sit on the committee than there would be seats available, or the County Council must undertake the invidious task of choosing between different District Councils. This would set up friction which would do, incalculable injury both to education and local government. So far they had been careful to do nothing likely to cause friction between the supreme Council of the county and the Urban and Rural District Councils. Every effort had been made to secure that they should work harmoniously. This was the first note of friction, and it seemed to him that the Government had no alternative but to offer the Amendment the strongest possible opposition. Nothing worse could happen than that it should be carried.

MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Brightside)

said the Amendment showed extraordinary inconsistency on the part of the hon. Baronet who moved it. Members of the Rural District Councils were usually men who had great difficulty in finding time to discharge their public duties, and it was preposterous that the County Council, when selecting experts to advise them in their educational work, should have to go to a body which was composed of neither educational experts nor leisured men, and the members of which would in consequence of the difficulty of having to go to the county town to attend meetings, abstain from putting in an appearance. He strongly opposed the Amendment.

MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE (Sussex, Horsham)

said he was much struck by the sudden cessation of talk on the part of the Opposition, after the Amendment had been moved. There must be surely something very remarkable in this unexpected silence. He felt sure the Opposition would not have been so anxious to divide so early had this Amendment been submitted from the Government side of the House. He did not in the least undervalue the work of Rural Councils, but it could not be said that the members of those bodies had much experience in educational work. The Clause, as it stood, gave ample power to the County Councils to select

the men most fitted to divide them, and he had no doubt that among the Members of Education Committees would be found some who filled the position of Rural District Councillors.

MR. SPEAR (Devonshire, Tavistock)

pointed out that if Rural District Councils were given the right to nominate representatives on the Education Committee an equally good claim might be advanced on behalf of the Urban District Councils and small boroughs, and if the rights of both kinds of bodies were conceded, the Education Committee would be filled by their representatives to the entire exclusion of other representatives of educational bodies who would be specially fitted to advise the County Councils in this important work entrusted to them. Therefore, while recognising the reasons for the Amendment, he was unable to vote for it.

(12.33.) Question put—

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 74; Noes, 117. (Division List No. 485.)

AYES.
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Roe, Sir Thomas
Allen, Charles P. (Gloue., Stroud	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Runciman, Walter
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Helme, Norval Watson	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Brigg, John	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Shackleton, David James
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Horniman, Frederick John	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Burns, John	Jacoby, James Alfred	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Caldwell, James	Lambert, George	Soares, Ernest J.
Cameron, Robert	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Spencer, Rt. Hn C.R.(Northants
Causton, Richard Knight	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Channing, Francis Allston	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Lena, Sir John	Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Lewis, John Herbert	Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)
Duncan, J. Hastings	Lloyd-George, David	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Edwards, Frank	M'Kenna, Reginald	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Elibank, Master of	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Wason, Eugene
Ellis, John Edward	Markham, Arthur Basil	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Emmott, Alfred	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Perks, Robert William	Yoxall, James Henry
Fuller, J. M. F.	Price, Robert John
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Rea, Russell	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Reckitt, Harold James	Sir Edward Strachey and
Grant, Corrie	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)	Mr. Thomas Bayley
NOES.
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden	Bain, Colonel James Robert	Blundell, Colonel Henry
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Baird, John George Alexander	Bond, Edward
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r.	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds	Brookfield, Colonel Montagu
Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John	Bartley, George C. T.	Brotherton, Edward Allen
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy	Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Carew, James Lawrence
Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire	Johnstone, Heywood	Purvis, Robert
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Kemp, George	Pym, C. Guy
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.	Rankin, Sir James
Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A. (Worc.	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Lawson, John Grant	Reid, James (Greenock)
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Remnant, James Farquharson
Cranborne, Viscount	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Finch, George H.	Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	MacIver David (Liverpool)	Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside
Fisher, William Hayes	M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W	Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)
Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Malcolm, Ian	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Flower, Ernest	Maxwell, W.JH(Dumfriesshire	Spear, John Ward
Forster, Henry William	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W	Middlemore, John Throgmorton	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon	Morrell, George Herbert	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Graham, Henry Robert	Morrison, James Archibald	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Greene, Sir E.W (B'rySEdm'nds	Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute	Valentia, Viscount
Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Gretton, John	Nicholson, William Graham	Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E(Taunton
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)
Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford	O'Doherty, William	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Harris, Frederick Leverton	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Higginbottom, S. W.	Pemberton, John S. G.
Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset, E.)	Percy, Earl
Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside	Plummer, Walter R.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Sir Alexander Acland-
Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)	Pretyman, Ernest George	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

moved to leave out "other bodies" and insert "educational institutions in or near the district not themselves subject to the control of the local education authority, such as universities, colleges of university rank, non-local schools, and local endowed schools." He said it would be observed that this Amendment dealt with the question of the representation of educational bodies in no sectarian or sectional spirit. If they were to have nominations from any bodies at all it was desirable to restrict them to such bodies as proceeded on broad national lines. He wished to point out that there were other bodies, such as trade unions and co-operative societies, which he had no desire to exclude. He wanted, in fact, to bring in bodies which sought to promote, the general welfare of the whole body politic. He regretted that they had not on the previous day an opportunity of arriving at some compromise as to the form of nomination. What he was contending for in his Amendment was that the bodies which should contribute to the membership of the local committee should be bodies of an educational character as distinct from sectional or sectarian interests, and the Amendment was pressed upon him by those who were interested in higher education in Birmingham and the Midlands generally. The Government had intimated that the Board of Education would carefully weigh the claims of strictly sectarian bodies, and press those claims upon the County Councils. Now, one of the main objects of the Bill, as he understood it, was that it was to be a really educational measure, bringing all branches of education together; but the Board of Education, by pressing the claims of purely sectarian bodies on the County Councils, would be importing into the new educational machinery the very evil of sectarian strife and animosity which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, while in office, again and again protested against—the evil which resulted from the popular election of School Boards under the cumulative vote.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 4, line 36, to leave out the words 'other bodies,' and insert the words 'educational institutions in or near the district not themselves subject to the control of the local education authority, such as universities, colleges of university rank, non-local schools and local endowed schools.—(Mr. Channing.)'"

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

THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)

said he imagined no one would object to the enumeration of the bodies which the hon. Member desired to see represented on the Education Committee. But he did not see on what principle of justice the hon. Gentleman desired to exclude any other institution, such as the Association of Voluntary Schools, from representation, They were going, rightly or wrongly, to place the denominational schools under the control of the education authority, and to insist that upon every board of management of the voluntary schools there should be a representative of the local education authority. Was it not common fairness that they should have, not a preponderating representation, nor even a numerically important representation, but at all events someone on the Education Committee through whom they might make their views heard? Although that was a perfectly sound view as regarded all denominational schools, probably it was of less real importance when they were dealing with Anglican schools, or even Wesleyan schools, than it was when they were dealing with Roman Catholic schools. There ought to be some one on the Education Committee to represent Roman Catholic schools in regard to any action the committee might take which specially affected those schools. To try to prevent that simple measure of fairness from being carried out by using such phrases as "sectarian" and "anti-national" was not very wise. He believed the Committee, except for the purpose of sectarian controversy, did not really desire such an exclusion, and he trusted the Amendment would be rejected.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

thought a strong case existed for the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had not given any reason why these sectarian associations should be represented on the Education Committee. No difficulty would arise in regard to the Roman Catholic schools, because, with sonic exceptions, those schools were only used by members of their own denomination. He could not conceive that anybody wanted to injure them or to deal unjustly by them. Yet their case was always trotted out in the front rank of the schools as to which difficulty was likely to arise. He protested against the use that was made of the Roman Catholic case.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he thought that the case was strongest in regard to the Roman Catholic schools; but there was a case with regard to the other schools.

MR. BRYCE

said by Clause 8 they had subjected the denominational schools to the control of the local authority for all the purposes of secular instruction. Therefore, so far as secular instruction was concerned, the denominational schools were on a level with other schools. For the purposes of religious instruction the denominational schools were absolutely under the control of their own managers. No question could come before the Education. Committee which involved religious instruction, and, therefore, so far as he could see, the raison d'être for the representation of these bodies on the committee entirely disappeared. The object of the Government was to give them a double control.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No.

MR. BRYCE

said their managers were to have complete and absolute control over religious instruction, and yet religious instruction was the reason for giving them representation on the committee. It was an illustration of a familiar proverb—they wanted both to eat their cake and have it. He entirely failed to see the ground or justice of the right hon. Gentleman's demand. If the local education authority had been given any power to interfere with religious instruction, this claim to representation would have been well founded. But there was no such power, and the claim, therefore, fell to the ground. He saw no reason why any sectarian association should be given representation on the committee. Nothing could be worse for the good working of the committee than that certain persons should be put on it to be the champions of sectarianism. That would introduce into this new body an element of discord which need not be there at all, and it was a very bad omen for the working of the committee, for there could be nothing more likely to introduce the party element and the germ of discord than the adoption of such a policy.

(1.0.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The Committee will allow me to say one word in reply to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He talks in the first place as if the allowing of a single representative of a Roman Catholic Voluntary School Association in the district to be on the committee is to give them a controlling voice, or something like a controlling voice. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] At all events an important voice in the management of the schools of the district. That I understood to be the right hon. Gentleman's argument. But it should be remembered that in respect of these very Roman Catholic schools you have put, not one out of forty-five or fifty, but two out of six, who are to represent the local education authority on the board of managers. If that is not interference with sectarian education, surely he might allow the whole body of Roman Catholic schools in a district to send one representative to the Education Committee in case something should arise which specially affects their interests. Other questions than religious education would be of interest to the denominational managers. The very preservation of these schools is not a question of religious teaching, but it is a question of the greatest interest of the denomination, and surely they might be allowed to make their voices heard if any policy is initiated which would have a destructive effect.

MR. BRYCE

But the Education Committee will have no policy. It will be the policy of the County Council.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Surely they might be allowed to explain or, at all events, to make their voice heard in the committee which is to advise the Council in these matters. But that is not all, although I think that would be enough. I think the fact that this Education Committee is to advise not only upon broad policy but upon other matters is a sufficient reason for giving these schools some way of making their voices heard. But there is more than that. Let the Committee remember what the right hon. Gentleman has asked. It is that the education authority shall have the right to veto the appointment of a teacher. The Education Committee have to advise on that point. Is it not fair and commonsense that at all events before so drastic a policy is pursued the voluntary schools concerned should have some methods of explaining their views? I do really think that if hon. Members would approach this question in a more impartial spirit than the right hon. Gentleman has done, they would not attempt to force on the House or into the Bill provisions which would be inequitable in working.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

said he did not think the Prime Minister had quite fairly stated the objection of his right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen. His right hon. friend had never objected to allowing a Roman Catholic to sit on the committee.

MR. BRYCE

I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that I had done so. If he had said so I should have contradicted him. I have not the slightest objection to Roman Catholics being on the committee. I think it might be a courteous thing to invite persons of all denominations. My objection is to their being on the committee in the capacity of Roman Catholics.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he understood that his right hon. friend objected to a Roman Catholic or anyone else being forced on a body of that character merely because of his faith.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

To represent the schools.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

But after all it was a theological test, and no such test should either qualify or disqualify for membership of the committee. Let no man sit in this governing body with regard to his religious faith or sect. If the Government were anxious that Roman Catholics should have a voice in the management, not merely of their own schools, but of the educational system of the country, why did they abolish the School Board? There were districts in which Roman Catholics were in a small minority, but one belonging to their religion got on to the School Board. Was not that a better system than the system now proposed? It was idle for the Prime Minister to curry favour with Catholics by proposing to allow them to become members of the committee. By the system which the opponents of this Bill wished to retain, Roman Catholics were allowed to represent their educational interests on almost every School Board throughout the country. It was assumed, because a body was more or less in the hands of Nonconformists, that therefore Anglicans and Roman Catholics were necessarily excluded from a voice in its affairs. That was perfectly absurd. The governing bodies in Wales did not exclude Roman Catholics. If a Catholic was willing to work for the general interest of the community they selected him without regard to his creed. In the county of Merioneth, which was as Nonconformist as any in Wales, they a short time ago selected a Roman Catholic for a teachership because he was a better man than the Nonconformist candidates. It was Idle to talk as if there was a dead set against Roman Catholics because of their faith.

MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomeryshire)

said that in his county there never had been any religious difficulty at all, and that was not because the members of the governing body did not hold strong opinions one way or another, but simply because they were willing to work in the general interest of education. Of course they were aided by the fact that under the Welsh Act there was complete exclusion of sectarian influences. The non-sectarian character of the bodies contributed to their harmonious working, and he sincerely trusted that nothing would be done by future legislation which would infringe that principle.

MR. EMMOTT (Oldham)

said it seemed to him that the real difficulty about the Clause, as it stood, was that it would be possible for sectarian bodies to nominate persons to the Education Committee who would be firebrands, and who might do a great deal of mischief. He noticed that the Prime Minister was making more and more use of the Roman Catholic case. It was a separate case, but he fully admitted, with the Prime Minister, that it could not be treated separately. He only wished that it could be treated separately. But that case should not prejudice the wider case. If these denominational representatives were put on the Education Committee, what became of the complete control of secular education by the local authority. The parents of the children attending the elementary schools elected the local Councils. While the question of religious instruction was excluded from the purview of the Education Committee, was it necessary to have these elementary schools specially represented on the Education Committee? He fully agreed with his hon. friend who moved the Amendment that the bodies he named were those most suitable to nominate their own representatives. He did not himself see that it was necessary to have special representatives of the elementary schools, although he admitted that in many cases it would be very wise if men of that kind were on the committee. But surely they were covered by the words "persons of experience in education." On the other hand, they did want experts such as would be appointed by the bodies named by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire.

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)

said that he thought the Clause should be modified in some direction. He had no objection at all to the County Councils voluntarily giving the right of nomination to other bodies which were interested in education, but that was a different matter from allowing a Government Department to force on the County Council the right of nomination in favour of another body against the will of the local authority. It seemed to him that the words of the Clause put it in the power of the Board of Education to force on the County Council the acceptance of a scheme which would give the right of nomination to a body to which the County Council distinctly objected. He viewed with great apprehension the friction and opposition which was sure to arise between the Education Department which had decided views and a County Council which entertained equally decided views in an opposite direction. He thought it would be most unfortunate if there was a struggle between them, and that controversies on such delicate questions should arise. The position of the County Councils would be very uncomfortable, and even intolerable; and for these reasons he should like to see some modification introduced, if not now, at a future stage—some such limiting words as "where it appears desirable," so as to give the County Council the option to say whether these other bodies should have the right of nomination or not.

LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)

said he had an Amendment lower down on the Paper which substantially raised the same points involved in the discussion of the Amendment of his hon. friend, and he asked the permission of the Committee to make a few general observations on the subject. They had heard a great deal from the Prime Minister and the Attorney General the previous day and that morning, about the wishes and the position of the local authorities, the County Councils in particular. It occurred to him that it was a curious thing that the natural course had not been adopted by the Government of trying to find out from the municipalities, and the County Councils themselves what they wanted, for surely they were the best judges in this matter. The representative Municipal Associations, and the Association of County Councils had given no approval whatever to bringing in representatives of bodies unless these were educational bodies. The words of the Clause were carefully considered by both these Associations when the Bill was first printed, and when there was a desire to place the most favourable construction upon the words, some of which seemed to be rather vague, and they drew up a resolution in regard to the matter. The deputation which waited on the Duke of Devonshire was specifically of opinion that a majority of the Education Committee should be appointed from their own number. He was sure that if these mysterious words in the Clause had been explained in the manner given by the Attorney General, it would have brought down the condemnation of these important bodies. However Conservative a body the County Councils Association might be, there was a division of opinion amongst the members that did not correspond with party. It was a division between the lay and the clerical mind which was far more serious than party distinction. He believed that the County Councils Association and the Municipal Association would resent having forced on them gentlemen, however eminent, respectable, and personally popular, who were sent to "roll the log" of some particular religious denomination. The Prime Minister had used an argument with the spirit of which he entirely sympathised, but he could not agree with the conclusion which the right hon. Gentleman drew from it. He said how hard it would be if a Roman Catholic or Church of England teacher were dismissed by the interference of the managers, or the County Council itself, and there was nobody to speak for the teacher, or as it were to hold a brief on the Committee to defend the cause of the denomination. Now, he contended that cases of that kind ought to be judged impartially, and the incriminated party ought himself to be heard. He could hardly imagine anything more objectionable than that when a case of a Roman Catholic, or Church of England, or Wesleyan school came up, there should be sonic gentleman at the table whose bounden duty would be to get up on the Committee and argue in behalf of his particular client. That was his answer to the Prime Minister. He regretted that the hon. Member for North West Ham was not now in his place, because he had told the Committee the previous day that what he desired was a system of representation which he found last year on a visit to Zurich in Switzerland. The hon. Member for North West Ham had told the Committee that his ideal was that the nominations should come from great educational bodies, as was the ease in Zurich. That was what was proposed in the Amendment, which might be called the Zurich Amendment. Let it not be said again that the Opposition were opposed to co-optation. What they were opposed to was nomination by sectarian and denominational bodies. They knew the machinery of co-optation and were strong partisans of it. He knew gentlemen who had been originally opposed to co-optation, but who had been converted to it by the admirable manner in which men, chosen by co-optation, did their work. He wanted to ask the Prime Minister whether the meaning of these two sub-Sections, taken together, was that the committees should consist entirely of representatives of the County Council, and those persons nominated by the representative bodies, or whether the scheme also provided for co-option. Suppose the committee consisted of twenty members, and that the County Council only appointed one, were the remaining nineteen to be all id the class described in sub-Section (b); or was it to be in the power of the County Councils to appoint four or five representatives from public bodies, and the others by co-optation?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The second alternative is the right one.

LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE

said that that should be made clear in the Clause, because it was not clear now. He hoped that before the Report stage of the Bill was reached, the Government would carefully consider the views of the great municipal bodies and County Councils who, he was sure, did not wish sectarian and denominational interests thrust into their midst. They ought to be free from the unfortunate animosity that had done so much to injure the cause of education in the past.

(1.30.) MR. BOND (Nottingham, E.)

said he quite agreed that the kind of bodies the hon. Member indicated in his Amendment were bodies which might naturally have the power under the scheme of appointing members of the Education Committee, but these were not all the bodies which ought to have a right to that privilege. As an hon. Member who had had practical experience upon this point, he should like to state what took place in regard to the London County Council and its Education Committee. The London County Council was not obliged to admit anybody but members of its own body, but they adopted a very much wiser course, and while maintaining that a majority of the committee should be members of the Council they admitted an almost equal number of other people. Amongst the bodies represented on the London County Council Education Committee were the London Trades Council, the London School Board, the Association of Headmasters, the National Union of Teachers, the City of London Guilds Institute, and the City Parochial Trustees who were concerned with the London Polytechnics. In addition to these there were two or three members appointed by co-optation. University College and King's College were also represented. The circumstances of different districts differed enormously, and it was useless to prescribe that what was suitable for London would lie suitable for a remote district of Devonshire, and some latitude must be given to the local authority and the Board of Education as to what sort of people should be co-opted. The more freedom of choice they gave the better, because different circumstances required different treatment, and in this way they were more likely to get suitable people. With regard to this sectarian question he did not know that it should have been raised at all. There might be districts in which the diocesan associations should have a nomination, but there were districts where this would not be advisable. He did not recognise that any particular denomination or association had ally claim, except under very special circumstances, to nominate a member of the Education Committee. They ought to trust their officials to behave like reasonable and sensible people, and to do their best to find in each particular district the representatives who would be of the greatest service.

MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)

said they had not all got the same child-like faith as to the manner in which this Act would be administered as the hon. Member. Religious difficulties had caused much sectarian strife in the past. This Clause appeared to him at the outset a very curious Clause to construe, and still more difficult to enforce. He understood it could be enforced by mandamus. The new construction put upon the Clause by the explanations of the Prime Minister had produced a very dark outlook. Take the county of Lincoln. The Prime Minister said it would not be merely permissive but obligatory on the County Councils to appoint even a representative of the Roman Catholic Voluntary Association in the county of Lincoln. If that were correct, it was a very unjust condition.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

But it does not do that.

MR. PERKS

said he understood now that there was no obligation of this kind on the County Councils to appoint representatives of voluntary associations, and it was permissive.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

That is so.

MR. PERKS

said there were in the county of Lincoln not more than twenty Roman Catholic schools in the villages, and not more than forty or fifty Wesleyan schools, while there were 350 Anglican schools. Surely the Anglican and the Wesleyan schools would not wish to have representation except through the favour of the elected representatives. Surely the Anglican schools had sufficient protection by the preponderance of the representation on the managers board and the influence they exercised over the County Council. Why should they recognise the voluntary associates and diocesan conferences which in his county were remarkable only for the line of cleavage between the views of the laymen and the clergy, especially on educational questions. It was impossible to take up any report of a diocesan conference or congress in his county without seeing that they were constantly at loggerheads, particularly in regard to the administration of the Elementary Education Act. This exception was not wanted by the great Nonconformist Church of this country, who did not ask for it, and though there might have been some compact made between the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church to secure this exception, he ventured to say that this was a phase of the question which had not been disclosed to Parliament, and it had not dawned upon the electors of the country, and certainly not upon the educationists in the rural districts, to whom this Clause would prove to be a very objectionable one.

MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

in a maiden speech, said he wished to touch upon one or two points in the Amendment. He thought there were other bodies who ought to assist in the work of the committee. If Government would allow the present conditions to remain unaltered, and gave the County Council the entire right to call in whom they liked, he would favour allowing the Clause to stand as at present. It was because the Government refused to allow the present municipalities and County Councils to have the powers they now possessed that he rose to object to the position they took up. If it was desired to include the special bodies mentioned in the Amendment, he would move a further Amendment that trades unions, and co-operative associations should also be included. He desired to give one or two reasons for holding that those two organisations should be so included. Take the case of trades unions. He was connected with one that gave ten free scholarships for certain branches of technical instruction, and was closely connected with another that gave every year thirty free scholarships, and a prize of 5s. to everyone that passed certain examinations. He was also connected with a co-operative society which gave a free scholarship to the children of its members who took advantage of the opportunities offered by the Technical Instruction Committee. He contended that those bodies had certain claims, but he did not trust the Government with respect to them. The reason was because he had in his hand a few words which were used by an official of the Government who had charge over a certain Department. That official said: "I must decline to recognise the union as intermediary or to receive a deputation which may purport to convey the views of its members." When a Government permitted any official to use words like that in connection with their trades union he was not prepared to trust them in that matter. He asked that the Government would permit the powers referred to to be given to the local authorities as at present, and said then be would support any resolution which distinctly stated what societies were to be brought into that Clause.

MR. JAMES HOPE

said he did not believe that in one case out of ten would any serious difference arise between the County Council and the Education Department upon the point suggested by the hon. Member for East Somerset. With regard to what had fallen from the lion. Gentleman who last spoke, he t bought there were cases where the trades councils ought to be represented on the educational body. In his own constituency he thought it would be right that there should be some trade union representation. All he said was that the demand for representation by all these bodies on the Educational Committees could only be justified on grounds of educational interest. He utterly denied that because a body is denominational it might not also be educational. The denominational associations were working, and did their part, and took their place in the great work of national education. He supported the proposal on the converse ground that if they did not give this representation they would exclude the energy and zeal of large bodies of men, and estrange them from this great work. The School Board had, as a fact, through the cumulative vote, brought to education the sympathies of large bodies of men who worked harmoniously together, and if in the future the right of minorities to take their part in the system of the education of this country, which they had in the past, was denied, it would estrange some very valuable elements which our national system could ill afford to part with.

MR SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid)

said he thought the sound thing to do in this case was to allow the County Councils themselves, as part of

their duty, to consider the claims of everybody, upon purely educational grounds, and in that way make provision for the representation of all persons interested in education. The objection to the proposal of the Government was that they were giving to the denominational bodies a status which they never had before: they would give them a power of nomination, which would never be taken away, and thereby give them a status, not as an educational but as a denominational body. The really sensible thing to do was to leave it to the educational body to exercise their judgment and bring in those they thought were best. It must be remembered that these committees would deal with secondary as well as elementary education. Up to now, they had been successful in excluding this denominational strife, of which they were all sick and tired, from questions relating to secondary education, but now, if these bodies were given the power to nominate persons to serve on these committees, they would introduce all this old strife into not only elementary education, but, for the first time, into the secondary system as well.

(1.53.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 158; Noes, 90. (Division List No. 486.)

AYES.
Aird, Sir John	Carew, James Laurence	Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden	Cavendish. V.C.W. (Derbyshire)	Flower, Ernest
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Forster, Henry William
Ark wright, John Stanhope	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.	Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A (Worc.	Galloway, William Johnson
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton	Gardner, Ernest
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Chapman, Edward	Garfit, William
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Churchill, Winston Spencer	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Baird, John George Alexander	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Graham, Henry Robert
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Cranborne, Viscount	Greene, Sir EW (B'ryS Edm'nds
Bartley, George C. T.	Crossley, Sir Savile	Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.
Beckett, Ernest William	Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Gretton, John
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Bigwood, James	Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Duke, Henry Edward	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd
Bond, Edward	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Harris, Frederick Leverton
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Fardell, Sir T. George	Haslett, Sir James Horner
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Helder, Augustus
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Finch, George H.	Higginbottom, S. W.
Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A (Glasgow	Fisher, William Hayes	Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside
Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred	Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Johnstone, Heywood	Nicholson, William Graham	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Kemp, George	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	O'Doherty, William	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Lawson, John Grant	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Spear, John Ward
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Parkes, Ebenezer	Stewart, Sir Mark J.M Taggart
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.	Pemberton, John S. G.	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Percy, Earl	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Plummer, Walter R.	Talbot, Rt. Hn J.G(Oxf'd Univ.
Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter(Bristol, S	Pretyman, Ernest George	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward	Valentia, Viscount
Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth	Purvis, Robert	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Macdona, John Cumming	Pym, C. Guy	Welby, Lt-Col. A.C.E(Taunton
MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Rankin, Sir James	Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm
M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W	Rattigan, Sir William Henry	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Malcolm, Ian	Reid, James (Greenock)	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire	Remnant, James Farquharson	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Renshaw, Charles Bine	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Middlemore John Throgmorton	Renwick, George	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire	Ridley, Hon. M. W(Stalybridge	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Morgan, David J(Walth'mstow	Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson
Morrell, George Herbert	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Morrison, James Archibald	Round, Rt. Hon. James	Sir Alexander Acland-
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Royds, Clement Molyneux	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Harwood, George	Robson, William Snowdon
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Roe, Sir Thomas
Allen, Charles P.(Gloue., Stroud	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Runciman, Walter
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Holland, Sir William Henry	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Schwann, Charles E.
Brigg, John	Horniman, Frederick John	Shackleton, David James
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Jacoby, James Alfred	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Burns, John	Lambert, George	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Caine, William Sproston	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Caldwell, James	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Soares, Ernest J.
Cameron, Robert	Leng, Sir John	Spencer, Rt Hn C.R. (Northants
Causton, Richard Knight	Lewis, John Herbert	Strachey, Sir Edward
Changing, Francis Allston	Lloyd-George, David	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E)
Cremer, William Randal	M'Kenna, Reginald	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Markham, Arthur Basil	Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen	Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.
Duncan, J. Hastings	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Edwards, Frank	Moss, Samuel	Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S
Ellis, John Edward	Paulton, James Mellor	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Emmott, Alfred	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Wason, Eugene
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Perks, Robert William	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Philipps, John Wynford	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	Pickard, Benjamin	Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund	Price. Robert John
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Rea, Russell
Fuller, J. M. F.	Reckitt, Harold James	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Rigg, Richard	Mr. Herbert Gladstone
Grant, Corrie	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)	and Mr. Wm. M'Arthur.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

(2.3.) Question put accordingly, "That the word 'other' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 156; Noes, 85. (Division List No. 487.) (2.15).

AYES.
Aird, Sir John	Garfit, William	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Allhusen Augustus Henry Eden	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St.Albans)	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)	Pemberton, John S. G.
Ark wright, John Stanhope	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Percy, Earl
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Graham, Henry Robert	Plummer, Walter R.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S Edm'nds	Pretyman, Ernest George
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Gretton, John	Purvis, Robert
Baird, John George Alexander	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Pym, C. Guy
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Randles, John S.
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford	Rankin, Sir James
Bartley, George C. T.	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Helder, Augustus	Reid, James (Greenock)
Bigwood, James	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Remnant, James Farquharson
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Higginbottom, S. W.	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Bond, Edward	Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside	Renwick, George
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)	Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Johnstone, Heywood	Round, Rt. Hon. James
Brown, Alexander H (Shropsh.	Kemp, George	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Campbell, Rt Hn. J.A. (Glasgow	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Carew, James Laurence	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Cecil. Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Lawson, John Grant	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Chapman, Edward	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham	Spear, John Ward
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Talbot, Lord E. (Chiehester)
Cranborne, Viscount	Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd Univ
Crossley, Sir Savile	Macdona, John Cumming	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Maclver, David (Liverpool)	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool	Valentia, Viscount
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W	Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.
Duke, Henry Edward	Malcolm, Ian	Welby, Lt.-Col A.C.E. (Taunton
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Faber, George Denison (York)	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Williams Rt Hn J. Powell-(Birm
Fardell, Sir T. George	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Morgan David J (Walthamstow	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Morrell, George Herbert	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Finch, George H.	Morrison, James Archibald	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fisher, William Hayes	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Murray Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute
Flower, Ernest	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Forster, Henry William	Nicholson, William Graham	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Sir Alexander Acland-
Galloway, William Johnson	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Gardner, Ernest	O'Doherty, William

NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Harwood, George
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud	Duncan, J. Hastings	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Edwards, Frank	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Emmott, Alfred	Horniman, Frederick John
Brigg, John	Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Jacoby, James Alfred
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Jones David Brynmor Swansea
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	Lambert, George
Burns, John	Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington
Caine, William Sproston	Fuller, J. M. F.	Leigh, Sir Joseph
Caldwell, James	Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John	Leng, Sir John
Cameron, Robert	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Lewis, John Herbert
Causton, Richard Knight	Grant, Corrie	Lloyd-George, David
Cremer, William Randal	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	M'Kenna, Reginald

Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)	Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)
Markham, Arthur Basil	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Middlemore John Throgmorton	Robson, William Snowdon	Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower
Morgan, J. Loyd (Carmarthen)	Roe, Sir Thomas	Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Schwann, Charles E.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Moss, Samuel	Shackleton, David James	Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Paulton, James Mellor	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Wason, Eugene
Perks, Robert William	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Philipps, John Wynford	Sloan, Thomas Henry	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Pickard, Benjamin	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Price, Robert John	Soares, Ernest J.
Rea, Russell	Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Reckitt, Harold James	Strachey, Sir Edward	Mr. Channing and Mr.
Rigg, Richard	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	Henry J. Wilson.

(2.43.) SIR ROBERT FINLAY

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause to the word "acts," inclusive, in page 4, line 39, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause to the word "acts," inclusive, in page 4, line 39, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 157; Noes, 88. (Division List No. 488).

Allhusen, Augustus H'nryEden	Galloway, William Johnson	Morrell, George Herbert
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Gardner, Ernest	Morrison, James Archibald
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Garfit, William	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St.Albans)	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Atkinson, Ht. Hon. John	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)	Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim	Nicholson, William Graham
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Baird, John George Alexander	Greene, Sir EW (B'ryS Edm'nds	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r	Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)	Parker, Sir Gilbert
Bartley, George C. T.	Hain, Edward	Parkes, Ebenezer
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x	Pemberton, John S. G.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Percy, Earl
Bigwood, James	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Pierpoint, Robert
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Haslett, Sir James Horner	Plummer, Walter R.
Bond, Edward	Heaton, John Henniker	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John	Helder, Augustus	Pretyman, Ernest George
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.	Hickman, Sir Alfred	Purvis, Robert
Bull, William James	Higginbottom, S. W.	Pym, C. Guy
Butcher, John George	Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset, E.	Randles, John S.
Campbell, Rt Hn. J.A. (Glasgow	Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside	Rankin, Sir James
Carew, James Laurence	Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.).	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire	Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Johnstone, Heywood	Reid, James (Greenock)
Chamberlain, Rt, Hon. J.(Birm.	Kemp, George	Remnant, James Farquharson
Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A(Worc.	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Chapman, Edward	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm	Renwick, George
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow	Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Lawson, John Grant	Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Robertson, Herbert) Hackney)
Crossley, Sir Savile	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Round, Rt. Hon. James
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Duke, Henry Edward	Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Durning,-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Faber, George Denison (York)	Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Fardell, Sir T. George	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Fergusson, RtHn. Sir, J (Manc'r.	Macdona, John Cumming	Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W	Smith, Hon. W.F.D. (Strand)
Fisher, William Hayes	Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire	Spear, John Ward
Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart
Flower, Ernest	Middlemore, John Throgmort'n	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Forster, Henry William	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W	Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd.Univ.
Tollemache, Henry James	Welby, Lt-Col. A.C.E. (Taunton	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Tomilinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward	Williams, Rt. Hn J Powell-(Birm
Valentia, Viscount	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.	Wrightson, Sir Thomas	Sit Alexander Acland-
Wanklyn, James Leslie	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Robson, William Snowdon
Allen, Charles P (Gloue., Stroud	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Roe, Sir Thomas
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Runciman, Walter
Atherley-Jones, L.	Horniman, Frederick John	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Jacoby, James Alfred	Schwann, Charles E.
Brigg, John	Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea	Shackleton, David James
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Lambert, George	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Bryce, Rt. hon. James	Layland-Barratt. Francis	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Burt, Thomas	Leese, Sir Joseph F(Accrington	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Caine, William Sproston	Legg, Sir John	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Caldwell. James	Lewis, John Herbert	Soares, Ernest J.
Cameron, Robert	Lloyd-George, David	Spencer, Rt Hn. C.R (Northants
Channing, Francis Allston	M'Kenna, Reginald	Strachey, Sir Edward
Cremer, William Randal	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Davies, M Vaughan-(Cardigan	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.
Duncan, J. Hastings	Moss, Samuel	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Edwards, Frank	Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham	Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Elibank, Master of	Partington, Oswald	Wason, Eugene
Ellis" John Edward	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Emmott, Alfred	Philipps, John Wynford	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)	Pickard, Benjamin	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Price, Robert John	Yoxall, James Henry
Fitzmaurice, Loral Edmund	Rea. Russell
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Reckitt, Harold James
Fuller, J. M. F.	Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Rickett, J. Compton	Mr. William M'Arthur
Grant, Corrie	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)	and Mr. Causton.

(2.53.) Question put accordingly.

The Committee divieded:—Ayes, 169; Noes, 91. (Division List No. 489.)

AYES.
Aird, Sir John	Cavendish. V. C.W. (Derbyshire	Gardner, Ernest
Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Garfit, William
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Champerlain, Rt. Hon J A (Worc.	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)
Arnold- Forster, Hugh O.	Chapman, Edward	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Bagot Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Graham, Henry Robert
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Colomb, Sir. John Charles Ready	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Cox, Irwin Edward (Bainbridge	Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S. Edm'nds
Baird, John George Alexander	Crossley, Sir Savile	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Hain, Edward
Bartley, George C. T.	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Hamilton Rt Hn Lord (Midd's
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Duke, Henry Edward	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf're
Bigwood, James	Faber, George Denison (York)	Harris, Frederick Leverton
Bill, Charles	Fardell, Sir T. George	Haslett, Sir James Homer
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Heaton, John Henniker
Bond, Edward	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r	Helder, Augustus
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Hermon- Hodge, Sir Robert T.
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Hickman, Sir Alfred
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Fisher, William Hayes	Higginbottom, S. W.
Brown, Alexam H. (Shropsh.)	Fletcher, Ht. Hon. Sir Henry	Hobhouse, Henry (Somesset, E.)
Bull, William James	Flower, Ernest	Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside
Butcher, John George	Forster, Henry William	Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)
Campbell, Rt Hn J.A. (Glasgow	Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W	Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Carew, James Laurence	Galloway, William Johnson	Johnstone, Heywood
Kemp, George	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.	Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway,N.)	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Lawson, John Grant	Parker, Sir Gilbert	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.	Parkes, Ebenezer	Smith, Hon. W. E. D. (Strand
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Pemberton, John S. G.	Spear, John Ward
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.	Percy, Earl	Stewart Sir Mark J.M Taggart
Loiter, Gerald Walter Erskine	Pierpoint, Robert	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Long Col. Charles W.(Evesham	Plummer, Walter R.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Talbot, Rt. Hn, J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Pretyman, Ernest George	Tollemache, Henry James
Lowe, Francis William	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.
Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)	Purvis, Robert	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Loyd Archie Kirkman	Pym, Guy	Take, Sir John Batty
Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth	Randles, John S.	Valentia, Viscount
Macdona, John Cumming	Rankin, Sir James	Walrond Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Maclver, David (Liverpool)	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Wanklyn, James Leslie
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W	Rattigan, Sir William Henry	Welby, Lt-Col A.C.E. (Taunton
Maxwell, W. J. (Dumfriessh	Reid, James (Greenock)	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.
Mleysey-Thomson, Sir H. M.	Remnant, James Farquharson	Williams, Rt. Hn J. Powell-Birm
Milvain, Thomas	Renshaw, Charles Bine	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire	Renwick, George	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Morgan, David J (Walth' mstow	Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalyb'dge	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Morrell, George Herbert	Ritchie, Rt. Hn Chas. Thomson	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Morrison, James Archibald	Robertson. Herbert (Hackney)	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Round, Rt. Hon. James
Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute	Royds, Clement Molyneux	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Saekville, Col. S. G. Stopford-	Sir Alexander Acland-
Nicholson, William Graham	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Harwood, George	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead	Hayne. Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Robson, William Snowdon
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud	Hamphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Roe, Sir Thomas
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Runciman, Walter
Atherley-Jones, L.	Homiman, Fredrick John	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Jacoby, James Alfred	Schwann, Charles E.
Brigg, John	Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea	Shackleton, David James
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Lambert, George	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Layland Barratt, Francis	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Burt, Thomas	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Caine, William Sproston	Leng, Sir John	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Caldwell, James	Lewis, John Herbert	Soares, Ernest J.
Cameron, Robert	Lloyd-George, David	Spencer, Rt Hn C.R. (Northants
Channing, Francis Allston	M'Kenna, Reginald	Strachey, Sir Edward
Cremer, William Randal	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen	Thomas. David Alfred (Merthyr
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Morley, Charles (Berconshire)	Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)
Duncan, J. Hastings	Moss, Samuel	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Edwards, Frank	Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham	Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Elibank, Master of	Partington, Oswald	Walton .Joseph (Barnsley)
Ellis. John Edward	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Wason, Eugene
Emmott, Alfred	Philipps, John Wynford	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Pickard, Bejamin	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Price, Robert John	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund	Rea, Russell	Yoxall, James Henry
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co	Reckitt, Harold James
Fuller, J. M. F.	Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Rickett, J. Compton	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Grant, Corrie	Rigg, Richard	Mr. William M'Arthur
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)	and Mr. Causton.

(3.8.) MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea, District),

in moving the next Amendment, said that, as he understood the Clause as now construed by the Attorney General, it was quite possible that not a single Member of the County Council might be on the Education Committee, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it could hardly be conceived that any County Council would adopt that extreme course. However even if the County Council did not adopt such an extreme course as that, it might appoint only a certain number of its own members, and ten or twelve from outside. It seemed to him, in regard to the nominees of the County Council, that it was highly important that they should be substantial persons, acquainted with the interests of the locality in which they were to act, and not merely educational experts. Unless a qualification of the kind he proposed were introduced, the object they had in view would not be obtained.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 39, after the word 'acts' to insert the words 'provided that two-thirds of the persons appointed by the Council shall be resident ratepayers in such area.'"—(Mr. Brynmor Jones.)

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

SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

said that the Amendment followed the analogy of the practice of the Local Government Board. Where the Local Government Board had the power of adding persons to local bodies, such as Boards of Guardians, there was invariably the qualification that all of them should be ratepayers in the locality. The reason for that was obvious. It was that they should be persons interested in economy. Though the analogy was complete, he thought his hon. friend was right in putting in two-thirds, because the effect of a complete restriction would be to prevent the appointment of married women.

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

said that there was a substantial difference between the bodies mentioned by the right hon. Baronet and that which was now under consideration. The committee now proposed to be set up by the Bill was an advisory committee, the rating powers and the power of spending money being expressly reserved to the Council. If the committee had had the power of expending the rates, then the argument of the right hon. Baronet would have been a strong one, but in this case in the committee was only to advise as to what was necessary in the interests of education, and in that case it did not seem desirable to limit the local authority, in the selection of gentlemen to act on the committee, to those who were resident ratepayers in the area. He maintained that the argument of the Attorney General was sound; it was ridiculous to suppose that any County Council, being given full powers to select an advisory committee as they liked, should only choose outsiders. Such a case had never existed, and he did not believe that it could exist. Why should Parliament make it impossible for the Councils to select somebody in their neighbourhood who, although they were not ratepayers, might be well worthy to be on the committee? He himself felt strongly that the County Councils and the great Borough Councils had shown themselves deserving of having complete confidence being placed in them. If the County Councils and great Borough Councils could not be trusted to select proper persons, whether ratepayers or not, to serve on the committee, they were not fit to be trusted with any of the duties to be imposed upon them under this Bill.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that the President of the Local Government Board had now discovered, after sub-Section (b) was passed, that the County Councils of the country were worthy of the most complete confidence. If so, why not trust them altogether? The Government, however, declined to do so, and forced upon them the nominees of other bodies which they did not want. The President of the Local Government Board had forgotten that it was not the County Councils which the Opposition were afraid of, but the foreign elements which were being introduced into the Committee. Under the Clause there might be placed on the committee bishops, prebendaries, and other people who had no interest, and were not resident in the district. What an extraordinary position for the Government to take! They said they trusted the County Councils, and yet imposed all sorts of limitations upon them. The only complete and absolute trust they had was in the sectarian managers.

MR. ASHTON (Bedfordshire, Luton)

said he objected to the Amendment of his hon. friend, and for this reason. In the county of Chester they had not a very large number of bodies to which the County Council would like to apply to choose outside representatives; but just over the border, in Lancashire, there were many institutions such as Owens College, Manchester, or University College, Liverpool, which the might like to ask to nominate representatives. There were also great technical schools in the county of Lancashire, and in the county boroughs, which might well be asked to nominate representatives. The Amendment would prevent the Cheshire County Council from doing that. So it was also in the case of Birmingham. He thought it would be a great pity to limit the number of representatives from outside authorities to one-third.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said they were under a difficulty in discussing Amendments of this description, because they did not yet know what was to be the size of the Education Committee. A phrase had been used by the Prime Minister in the course of the morning in which, while deprecating the objections of the Opposition to representatives of outside bodies, he said that there might be only two or three out of forty-five or fifty. That was the only indication which they had had as to the size of the committee. He assumed that in many cases it would be larger, and in other cases smaller. He regarded the Amendment of his hon. friend as sound, and he was rather astonished to hear from his hon. friend the Member for Luton, that in the county of Chester they could not find enough ratepayers fitted to form at all events two-thirds of the Education Committee, and that they must go to Liverpool and Manchester, or even to Birmingham for them. In regard to

the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Local Government Board, whose intervention in the debate he welcomed most heartily, that the Opposition did not trust the County Councils. Now, what they had said all along was that the County Councils ought to be trusted so fully that the educational work ought to be done by the members of the Councils themselves; at any rate, that they ought riot to go out of the jurisdiction of the County Councils for members of the Education Committee. Now, it was said that they did not trust the County Councils because they would not allow them a discretion! The right hon. Gentleman had argued that resident ratepayers were not necessary, as the committee was merely an advisory body, a chameleon body. It was quite true that it was an advisory body, and that it did not actually spend the money any more than it raised the rates. But it was the body that advised the spending of the money, arid unless its advice was thrown overboard, which would be the exception, it was tantamount to being the body that spent the money.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)

said he would point out what had been forgotten by the President of the Local Government Board, that the Education Committee was a great deal more than an advisory body. It might be an executive body, because by the Bill as it stood the Council might delegate the power of so acting that the raising of a rite to carry out the inevitable consequence of its action must be unavoidable. He thought it was quite unfair, therefore, to say that the Education Committee was only an advisory body.

(3.23.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 92; Noes, 170. (Division List No. 490.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Buxton, Sydney Charles	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)	Caine, William Sproston	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud	Caldwell, James	Duncan, J. Hastings
Atherley-Jones, L.	Cameron, Robert	Edwards, Frank
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Causton, Richard Knight	Elibank, Master of
Brigg, John	Chanting, Francis Allston	Ellis, John Edward
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Cremer, William Randal	Emmott, Alfred
Burt, Thomas	Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthan	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Fuller, J. M. F.	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John	Moss, Samuel	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Newnes, Sir George	Soares, Ernest J.
Grant, Corrie	Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham)	Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Partington, Oswald	Strachey, Sir Edward
Harwood, George	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Philipps, John Wynford	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Pickard, Benjamin	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Price, Robert John	Thomas, J A .(Glamorgam, Gower
Horniman, -Frederick John	Rea, Russell	Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Jacoby, James Alfred	Reckitt, -Harold James	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lambert, George	Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Layland-Barratt, Francis	Rickett J. Compton	Wason, Eugene
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Rigg, Richard	White, Luke (York, W. R.)
Leigh, Sir Joseph	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Leng, Sir John	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth.
Lewis, John Herbert	Robson, William Snowdon	Wilson, Henry (York, W. R)
Lloyd-George, David	Roe, Sir Thomas	Yoxall, James Henry
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Rumanian, Walter
M'Kenna, Reginald	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	TELLERS FO THE AYES—
Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Shackleton, David James	Mr. Brynmor Jones and
Markham, Arthur Basil	Shaw, Thomas (Hawiek B.)	Mr. Samuel Evans.
NOES.
Aird, Sir John	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden	Fisher, William Hayes	Lowe, Francis William
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Flower, Ernest	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Forster, Henry William	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W	Macdona, John Cumming
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Galloway, William Johnson	MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy	Gardner, Ernest	M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Garfit, William	Maxwell, W.J H. (Dumfriesshire
Bam, Colonel James Robert	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	Middlemore, John Throgmorton
Balfour, Capt. C B. (Hornsey)	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.	Milvain, Thomas
Bartley, George C. T.	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim	Morgan, David J (Walthamstow
Beresford, Lord Charles William	Graham, Henry Robert	Morrell, George Herbert
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Morrison, James Archibald
Bigwood, James	Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S Edm'nds	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Bill, Charles	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Greene, W Raymond-(Cambs.)	Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute
Bond, Edward	Grenfell, William Henry	Nicholson, William Graham
Bowles T. Gibson (King's Lynn	Gretton, John	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Hain, Edward	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.)	Hanbury, Bt.Hon. Robert Wm.	Parker, Sir Gilbert
Butcher, John George	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Campbell, Rt Hn. J.A (Glasgow	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Pemberton, John S. G.
Carew, James Lawrence	Haslett, Sir James Horner	Percy, Earl
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)	Heaton, John Henniker	Pierpoint, Robert
Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Plummer, Walter R.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hickman, Sir Alfred	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Higgin bottom, S. W.	Pretyman, Ernest George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Brim.	Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)	Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Chamberlain, Rt Hon. J A (Worc.	Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside	Purvis, Robert
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)	Randles, John S.
Chapman, Edward	Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Rankin, Sir James
Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.	Johnstone, Heywood	Rasch, Major Frederick Carne
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Kemp, George	Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Colomb. Sir John Charles Ready	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.	Reid, James (Greenock)
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Kimber, Henry	Remnant, James Farquharson
Crossley, Sir Savile	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Lawson, John Grant	Renwick, George
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Lecky, Rt Hon. William Edw. H.	Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Scalybridge
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson
Fardell, Sir T. George	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham	Round, Rt. Hon. James
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Bristol, S	Royds, Clement Molyneux

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-	Tollemache, Henry James	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.	Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Tritton, Charles Ernest	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Sharpe, William Edward T.	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-
Sinclair, Louis (Romford)	Tuke, Sir John Batty	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East	Valentia, Viscount	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield	Yerburgh, Robert Armstron
Spear, John Ward	Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.
Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart	Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E (Taunton	TELLEIZS FOR THE NOES—
Talbot, Lord K (Chichester)	Welby, Lt-Col. A.C.E. (Taunton	Sir Alexander Acland-
Talbot, Rt. H n. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ	Welby, Sir Chas. G.E.(Notts)	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Question put and agreed to.

(3.35.) MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE

said he wished to move to insert "(c) For the inclusion of women as well as men among the members of the committee." He should have thought the committee would be agreed that the work of women on educational bodies was of great value, and that their presence on them was desirable from all points of view, but for some remarks of the hon. Member for Glamorgan yesterday. He wished to remind the Committee of the invariable good work that women had rendered on School Boards in the past; and considering that the Bill abolished School Boards, they ought to see, in doing that, that the opportunities of women for taking part in educational work were not diminished. Personally, he had had experience of the valuable work of women in educational matters, and he wished to vouch for the great assistance they had been. If it were necessary to add anything on the subject, he would quote the words of the Lord President of the Council in the House of Lords a few years ago, in which the noble Lord bore testimony in the most sympathetic language to the admirable way in which women discharged educational duties. When it was considered that half of the young people in the schools were of the female sex, and no less than two-thirds of the teachers in the elementary schools were of that sex also, would any one deny the claims of women to be duly represented on the bodies which guided and presided over education? Some hon. Members might be inclined to say, "That is all very well, but the Bill proposes to put them on equal terms with men in this respect." It was true that the Bill proposed to make them eligible; but did it propose to put them on equal terms with men? Would they have the same opportunities, and would they have the same likelihood of getting on Education Committees as men? He thought not, considering that the Education Committees would be appointed by bodies from which women were at present excluded. Women were, rightly or wrongly he would not now argue, excluded by law from County Councils-and Borough Councils; and that made it very unlikely that they would have the same opportunity of getting on Education Committees that men would possess. They had had recent and extensive experience of the matter. On Technical instruction Committees women were equally eligible to serve with men; but what was the fact? Out of 115 bodies that appointed Technical Instruction Committees only 20 had appointed women on them. That was the experience of the last ten years on the subject most analogous to that before the Committee. The Royal Commission on Secondary Education pointed out some years a go that there was a risk that women would not be chosen on a body like that proposed unless some special provision were made to include them; and he ventured to think that the experience of the past few years had gone far to emphasise their words. Indeed, most of those who had considered the subject agreed that there was serious risk that women would not be appointed on many of these bodies, unless some provision were inserted to ensure their presence in due numbers. There would be no difficulty in doing that. It could be done in the scheme, as was constantly done in schemes drawn up by the Charity Commissioners, and in various other ways. He wished to say a word to the rather timid members of the Committee who appeared to fall into a state of exaggerated alarm whenever the word woman was mentioned. He wished to assure-them that there was no covert purpose in Ids proposal, and no suggestion that municipal bodies should admit women. He had hitherto been personally opposed to the political claims of women, but for that very reason it was more incumbent on him than on other hon. Members to declare his view that in a matter. If matter such as that before the Committee women should not suffer any injustice. There were several Amendments to his proposal. He would welcome the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet opposite, but in reference to other Amendments he wished to assure the Government that if they would only sympathise with his proposal, the express form of the words mattered little to him, as long as they secured a due proportion of women on the committees, and not only made women eligible, but gave sonic security for their presence on these bodies.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 39, at end to insert, '(c) For the inclusion of women as well as men among the members of the committee.'"—(Mr. Henry Hobhouse.)

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

MR. BRYCE

said he was glad the Amendment came from the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Somerset, because that showed that the question was not one which in any sense divided the Committee on Party lines. He assured Government that many Members had been recipients of communications which had convinced them of the width, depth, and strength of the feeling that existed, not only among women, but among men, in favour of some compulsory provision for the inclusion of women. It was not necessary that he should add anything to what had been said as to the value of the work which had been done by women. As the hon. Gentleman said with great truth, now that School Boards, on which women had done such excellent work, were to be abolished, and as they could not by law sit on County Councils, it was all the more necessary to make a very clear and emphatic provision for their presence on the Education Committees. Like the hon. Gentleman, he himself had never been able to vote for giving the Parliamentary franchise to women, but that was all the more reason why those of them who had always said that women could safely trust to the goodwill and fairness of this House to make provision for giving them their due share in the public life of the country should endeavour to secure it for them in this women were asked to be content with the goodwill and care of Parliament, surely this was a case in which that goodwill and care should be shown. It had been his privilege, along with the hon. Member for East Somerset and the hon. Member for Cambridge University opposite, and with the hon. Member for West Nottingham, on his own side of the House, to sit on a Royal Commission on Education on which there were three ladies. They were not only among the most valuable members of the Commission, but their knowledge, their experience, and their practical suggestions bearing on education questions were invaluable, and the Commission separated with the feeling that they could not possibly have dealt with the questions submitted to them in what they hoped and believed was a fairly exhaustive fashion if it had not been for the help these ladies afforded. The remarkable change in the position of women in the last thirty years and the part they now took in many occupations and professions for which special instruction was necessary, from which they were formerly debarred, party through want of knowledge and special training, and party through old-fashioned prejudice, suggested an additional reason for supporting this Amendment. One of the most important parts of the work of these committees would be that which concerned technical instruction, and he thought women would be of the utmost possible value on the committees when questions concerning the employment of women and the fitting of women for professions were considered, ant that any committee would be lame and imperfect in the discharge of its duties concerning technical instruction, without their presence. For these reasons he appealed to the Committee to secure that women should be placed on these committees. It would, unfortunately, not be in order to secure under this Bill that they should sit on the Council as elective members. What was left to the Committee to do was to secure that they should be members of the committees. As evidence that it was necessary to make an absolute provision he would point to the Act of 1869, which extended to women the benefits of educational endowments. That had been carried out to a very limited extent; and every educational authority would agree that much more might have been done by the Charity Commissioners in order to make educational endowments available to women. With regard to the proposal on the Paper defining women as "married or single," he suggested that the Attorney General should give an opinion as to the necessity for this Amendment, on which he looked with a little uneasiness hitherto women had been allowed to serve on School Boards and other bodies without any question as to whether they were married or single and it occurred to him that there might be a risk in introducing the Amendment, as it might by implication be held to raise a doubt as to the status of women who on other bodies served without question of disqualification by marriage. The Committee should not be content with any Amendment that merely expressed an opinion favourable to the appointment of women on these committees. They could not leave the claims of women in this matter to the casual benevolence of any County or Borough Council, but should secure their presence on the committees by making it a matter of law.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said with regard to the question put to his hon. and learned friend, he understood that the Attorney General was inclined to think that some method of dealing with the legal difficulty the right lion. Gentleman had suggested ought to be found, but this was clearly not the place to insert what would be more suited to a definition Clause. On the merits of the question he thought they were all of one mind—that women ought to serve upon these committees. He did not think anybody doubted that women had now an enormous share in the education of the country; and having that enormous share they ought to have some share in the counsels by which the educational policy of the country was to be directed. There was probably no district of the country where there were not either educational establishments specifically devoted to the education of girls and women, or where, if there was none, the question of the special needs of women and girls would not come within the purview of the new education authority. The only doubt, therefore, was whether this should be made mandatory. He observed a somewhat remarkable change of front on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the mode in which County Councils should be treated as to the co-optation of members under this Clause. In the early part of the discussion, not to trust the County Councils to select what bodies they should have represented on the committees was regarded as perfectly monstrous, and an insult to, and a degradation of, those education authorities; now it was said they must not trust to what the right hon. Gentleman termed the casual benevolence of County and Borough Councils. Why they might be absolutely trusted when dealing with other interests, but might not be trusted when dealing with the interests of more than half the community, he could not imagine. If it were worth while to challenge hon. Members opposite on the logical consistency of their scheme of argument, it would be interesting to know how this could be explained. Speaking for himself, he would support his hon. friend, the only possible question, he thought, being whether the proposal should be in a mandatory form, or in the milder nature of a recommendation. He, at all events, could say that, as regarded any charge of inconsistency in this matter, his withers were unwrung.

SIR CHARLES DILKE

said the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's charge of inconsistency in this matter was that women had now an assured and honourable position in connection with education by their position as elective members of the School Board, and they were being deprived of that position by the destruction of the School Boards. The proper remedy would be to make them eligible to the Councils. Thirty years ago, or even twenty years ago, that could have been done under the Bill by means of an Instruction on going into Committee; and he believed the majority of the Committee would have been favourable to it were it now possible. But it was not possible; and 'that was why they were driven to this unsatisfactory way of dealing with the question. Therefore, they were unharmed by the charge of inconsistency made by the right hon. Gentleman. With reference to his Amendment, he would not deal with it at length, as its principle had been accepted by the hon. Gentleman opposite. It was, however, quite true, as his right hon. friend had said, that the words he proposed would, to some extent, weaken the position of women on School Boards if they continued to exist; but they were to be abolished. Further, legal opinion was that the position of married women was more than doubtful. He therefore joined in the request of his right hon. friend to the Attorney General for his opinion on the question. His own view was that it was most dangerous to leave the question to the courts of law, remembering what the courts had already done in passing over the plain intentions of the Legislature as to peaceful picketting the Truck Law, and also in these questions relating to women. It was essential that what they meant should be made clear in the Bill. There was the famous case decided in 1872 as to the meaning of the Act of 1869, of which he was one of the promoters, giving the municipal franchise to women. In that ease it was held that a woman who was rightly on the register could not vote, because she had married before the election; and in face of the arguments by which that view was unanimously maintained by a very strong court, it was obviously most dangerous to leave the question vague. In the decision to which he had referred, the Lord Chief Justice said that it was quite certain, by common law, that a married woman s status was so merged in that of her husband, that she was incapable of exercising almost all public functions. The Committee would observe that the word "almost" disappeared from the decision of Lord Esher in the Sandhurst case, and having regard to the language used by Lord Esher in that decision with regard to the disability of women to exercise any public function, it would be most extraordinary if the Government did not agree to the Amendment.

(4.0.) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)

said the right hon. Baronet had dealt with the manner in which the Courts had ignored the "plain intentions" of the Legislature. All the Courts had to do was to interpret the Acts passed by t he Legislature, and any complaint that they declined to go outside the four corners of the Act was neither relevant nor called for. There was enough doubt about this matter to make it proper that in the definition Claus they should say that marriage should not be a disqualification in the case of women or of men. It could be put in here, but as it was desirable that it should also apply to the managers of schools, he would embody the words in the definition Clause.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said he regarded the question of what rights women should have in matters pertaining to the State as an exceedingly grave and serious matter, and a great constitutional question. This was a matter which ought not to be dealt with piecemeal. They had the opinion of the right hon. Baronet that women should occupy the same status as men, even up to the right of sitting in this House. If that was the general opinion, the matter should be dealt with constitutionally once and for all. In his view, however, in all matters of administration and government; men could do all that was required without the assistance of women at all, and in ninety-nine cases out of 100 could do it better. He did not say that women had not been useful members of School Boards and Local Government Boards, but those women still remained exceptions to women as a rule. Men had dealt with education for years, and women previously had taken no part in it. It j was now suggested by the hon. Member for East Somerset that it had not been dealt with properly because they had not employed women. The position was this that women where they were eligible by Act of Parliament had not taken any active part in educational matters.

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE

That was not the fault of the women, but of the men who were put on the appointing bodies.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

thought the hon. Member would not say that the Technical Instruction Committees had not done their work properly without the assistance of women. What it was now sought to do was to make it compulsory to elect women on these educational bodies. He understood this was to be an open question. He had a strong opinion that they ought not to compel the local education authorities to appoint women to these committees, whether they could find suitable women or not. Women in general had no desire to enter into public life at all. There was a great deal about public life, and even about elections, that it was desirable that women should not come into, and to say in this Bill that they must be elected was taking a very rapid step in advance. He recommended the Committee very strongly not to make it compulsory.

MR. BARTLEY

said he should really like to know what the issue was. He agreed with the hon. Member opposite. I le agreed that women should he eligible, but if the Amendment meant that it should be compulsory that a certain number of women should be placed on these committees, he should vote against it. They ought to know what the! Government intended.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said, as he understood it, women were by law eligible for these committees. The question at issue was whether the local authority should have regard to the representation of women on the Committee, or whether the scheme should provide compulsorily for the inclusion of at least one woman.

MR ERNEST GRAY

said that, when this subject was referred to at an earlier stage of the Bill, he had expressed a hope that it would be finally settled that on every one of these committees a certain number of women should be included. It was absolutely essential that women should come into close connection with the working of the schools. There were many thousands of children under seven; many thousands in girls' schools, and many more in what were known as the mixed schools. How were they to get satisfaction unless the teachers could turn to some woman on the Board? On the grounds of health, and comfort, and sanitation in the schools, it was absolutely necessary that the teachers should be able to approach a woman and tell her the position. These matters could not be left to chance. He entirely agreed that, so long as the appointing body was composed of men, there was a danger that the claims of women would be overlooked. He did not approach this question with any view to giving women more power, but entirely from the standpoint of the children instructed in the schools, and they had unanswerable arguments which, viewed from the children's point of view, showed that further needs would arise in future. He might mention the excellent work done by women in some parts of the country in that type of school in which women were trained, a type of which they knew far too little. The desire was evidently to make women more decorative than useful, but when women were brought into close connection with this work, there was a strong desire to make them useful as well as decorative. He should go into the Lobby in support of this. Amendment without hesitation, and he trusted all his friends, on that side of the House would support him. Some of the best friends children ever had were women, married as well as single.

SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge-University)

said that the debates of the House had been conducted on the supposition that the new local authority ' would have the charge and care of schools only. As a matter of fact, it would also have charge of a large number of nurseries where very young children—far too young to instructed and who ought, not to be instructed at all in the ordinary sense of being instructed—were kept in order that their parents might go to work. He had as profound a faith in the capability of men for managing schools as the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan, but none in their capability for managing nurseries. There it was absolutely necessary to have the advice of women, and a great number of matters connected with the health of the very young children in our schools urgently demanded more of the attention of women than they now received. Though reluctant to interfere with the discretion of the new local authorities, he could not object to this direction being given to them.

MR. A. K. LOYD (Berkshire, Abingdon)

said that in the absence and at the request of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tewkesbury, he had consented to move tile Amendment standing in his right hon. friend's name. The Amendment proposed to extend to the nominated and co-opted members of the Education Committee the disqualification which already attached to members of the County Council. It followed the language of Section 12 of the Municipal Corporation Act of 1882 which, by the Act of 1888, was applied to County Councils. He understood from his right hon. friend that the Government, at first disposed to accept the Amendment, were subsequently inclined to think that eminent educationists, such as the Principal of Owens College, would be disqualified merely because the institutions to which they belonged were subsidised by the local education authority. The last sentence had been added to the Amendment to provide against that possibility. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 39, at the end, to insert the following words: 'Provided that a person shall be disqualified for being a member of and Education Committee, who, by reason of holding an office or place of profit, or having any share or interest in a contract, or employment, is disqualified for being a member of the council appointing the Education Committee. But no such disqualification shall apply to a person by reason only of his holding office in a school or college aided, but not provided or maintained, by the Council.'"—(Mr. A. K. Loyd.)

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that he was doubtful as to the proper line for the Committee to take on this Amendment. His first instincts had been entirely in favour of the Amendment.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

The first part.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Exactly, but without the rider which had been added to it many persons who ought to be included would be excluded; and with the rider, a very invidious distinction was drawn between institutions which were aided and those which were provided by the public authority. Therefore his whole feeling had undergone a charge with regard to it. He was now inclined to think it would be better to rely on the fact that the Education Committee was a purely advisory body, the mere creature of the County Council, and that there was no popular election to it or the possibility of such canvassing by interested persons as had done harm in some cases. On the whole, the disadvantages associated with the Amendment outweighed the advantages, and he should recommend his hon. friend not to press the Amendment.

MR. BRYCE

thought that there was great force in what the right hon. Gentleman had said. There was one aspect of the subject, however, which should be considered. The Council might delegate large spending powers to a committee which might be entrusted with a considerable control of accounts.

4.30. MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

agreed there ought to be a provision inserted in the Clause which should prevent a contractor from being on a committee controlling expenditure. But he did not think there was so much difficulty with regard to the second part as the Prime Minister seemed to apprehend. His own objection to the Amendment was that it excluded the possibility of a teacher of a primary school being on the committee, and in that way it limited unfairly the discretion of the Council. The only teacher who could be put on would be a teacher of a secondary school, whereas it was much more important that a teacher in a primary school should be on, because most of the expenditure would be in connection with primary education.

MR. A. K. LOYD

said he felt sure that no such result was intended by the right hon. Baronet, who had drafted his proviso to meet the doubt suggested by the Government as to the exclusion of teachers from aided institutions like Owens College. This effect of the limited terms used to carry out that purpose was wide altogether of the evil aimed at, and if the case of admitting the elementary teachers had not been already provided, for the proper words should be used to include them as eligible for these committees.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that in regard to the county governing bodies in Wales, it had been made an absolute condition that a teacher should be appointed, and the teachers amongst themselves elected the most efficient representative. He moved to omit the words "but not" so as to make the closing portion of the Amendment read, "But no such disqualification shall apply to a person by reason only of his holding office in a school or college aided, provided, or maintained by the Council." The Council ought to be perfectly free to put a teacher on the committee if they chose, no matter what school he was in, but at the same time it was very undesirable that contractors should be on a committee practically dealing with their own work.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— In line 6, to omit 'but not.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'but not' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

thought that just as it might be advantageous to have a teacher on the committee, so sometimes it might also be advantageous to have a clerk or some other official receiving a salary from the local authority. The real question to consider was the exclusion of jobbery, leaving an option to the authority to put a teacher or a clerk on the subordinate bodies, and he ventured to suggest that some form of words should be devised by which that would be possible.

Mr. A. BALFOUR

said he was informed by the Attorney General that while the word "contract" was perfectly clear in the connection in which it occurred in this Amendment, it would not be so clear if they cut out the words "office or place of profit" or "employment." He thought, however, that the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs would meet the case.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston)

said it was the invariable rule of large municipalities not to have on their committees persons in any way engaged in contracts or work connected with the Council, or anyone in its employ. The first part of the Amendment would deal with that matter, while if the Amendment of his hon. friend were accepted it would be possible to secure the services of persons specially acquainted with the work of primary education to the great advantage of the general administration of primary education. They ought, however, absolutely to exclude from the committee all persons directly employed by the Council or interested in any contract or work undertaken by the Council in connection with the administration of the Act.

SIR FRANCIS POWELL

was afraid that the Committee by drawing the line too tight in imposing disqualifications would exclude the valuable services of many competent persons. He cited a case where the chairman of a large technical school had devoted a great deal of time to developing and executing a plan, in addition to giving a large amount of money. He discovered accidentally that one of his subordinates had made, without his knowledge, a very small contract with one of the authorities. The result was that the chairman withdrew, and the town lost the benefit of his services. It would be lamentable if through the operation of such a provision as that proposed the Councils were deprived of the advantage of such valuable services.

MR. EMMOTT

hoped that the Committee would accept the Amendment as amended by the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs. Such a ease as that mentioned by the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan would open wide the door to any kind of jobbery. Hard cases might arise, but the Committee could not allow for them in a matter of this sort.

MR. ERNEST GRAY

endorsed the view just expressed, and hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs. According to a return he had read, there were 600 teachers engaged in primary and secondary schools who had already been invited by the Borough Councils to share in the work of technical education. It would be a gross misfortune if the committees of the future were to lose the services of these people which had been so gladly given in the past, and the Amendment of the hon. Member would provide against any such loss. The country having spent large sums of money in training teachers had a right to say that the experience and acquired knowledge of those teachers should be at the service of the State when required. There was also the case of the inspectors. It was the almost universal rule on the Continent for the inspectors to be on committees of this description. But they, being persons in receipt of salaries from that authority, would not be covered by the suggested Amendment, and to meet their case a further alteration would be required.

SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

understood that there was no general law applicable to this case. What was wanted was to provide against any member of the committee giving a vote which would in any way benefit himself. He suggested that members of the committee who were not members of the local authority should have no vote, but only power to advise, and he had placed an Amendment on the Paper to that effect.

MR. LAWSON WALTON (Leeds, S.)

hoped the Amendment, so far as its first Clause was concerned, would be adhered to in the form proposed. As he understood, the hon. Member desired to apply to the constitution of the education authority the same principle of qualification as applied to the Council which created the authority. Unless such a provision were made, the mischiefs that had been guarded against in the case of members of the Council would creep into the constitution of the Education Committee. The standard proposed was one that had been construed; it was defined in the statutes, and well understood, therefore if it was applied to the new body, no confusion or difficulty would arise. If, however, the Government listened to the appeal to allow more latitude in regard to the constitution of the education authority, new words would have to be framed and another interpretation given, and there would be a class of persons who, though not eligible for the Council, were eligible for the education authority. The Council would thus be able to put on the education authority persons who, by reason of their interest, would be ex, eluded from the membership of their own body, and an anomaly would be introduced. That difficulty would be guarded against by the words as originally proposed.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

recommended the Committee to bring the discussion to a conclusion by adopting his hon. friend's Amendment, subject to the alteration proposed by the hon. Member for Carnarvon. That seemed to be the general view of the Committee, and though he was quite ready to consider the matter again before Report, he was pretty sure it was the right thing to do.

Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. PLUMMER (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

moved the insertion of a new sub-Section— (e) For the appointment, if desired, of members of School Boards existing at the time of the passing of this Art as members of time first Committee. He could conceive of only two objections being urged against the proposal— first, that owing to its non-compulsory character it was valueless; and, secondly, that owing to the fact that the suggested course would be almost invariably followed, it was unnecessary. He contended, however, that the provision was neither so valueless nor unnecessary as it might at first sight appear. As to its general desirability, he thought there could be no two opinions. No one could deny the desirability of the experience of the past being taken advantage of in the operation, of the future. To those who Viewed with no little regret the fact that the uniformity and co-ordination required by the Bill involved the extinction of the School Boards in the large cities, it would be some compensation if they could feel sure that the services of the experienced men who had been members of those Boards could be utilised by the new bodies about to be created. He trusted that the Amendment would have the effect of causing the local education authority to include in their scheme some members of the existing School Boards, and, wherever possible, lady members. It would be in the nature of a suggestion to the local authority to take that course. He believed County and Borough Councils would in many cases be anxious to avail themselves of this experience in a twofold way. In selecting members of their own body they would, wherever possible, choose those who had had experience of School Board work in the past, and, in selecting the additions to the Education Committees, they might appoint those who have the present experience. In this way the transfer would be effected with as little interruption as possible, and the new bodies would be kept in touch with the whole staff of the existing School Board. To the teachers and others there would then appear on the Education Committees, if not old friends with new faces, at anyrate old friends in new places, and the change would be made with as little friction as possible to the great advantage both of education and of the children and of all concerned. The Amendment was limited to the constitution of the Committee in the first instance, and in no way tied the hands of the local authorities in the future. Moreover, its acceptance would show that the charge sometimes levelled against hon. Members on that side, of hostility to School Boards, was not justified. He had always declared that School Boards, as a rule had done their work well. Where they had come in conflict with public opinion was in a few cases in large towns by exceeding their duty, and in not a few cases in country districts by too often neglecting their

duty. But it was one thing to affirm that they had on the whole clone their work well, and another to approve the continuance of an educational system under which, financially, the schools educating more than half the children of the country had in the past been unduly handicapped. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— After the words last inserted, to insert the words, '(e) For the appointment (if desirable) of members of School Boards existing at the time of the passing of this Act as members of the first committee.'"—(Mr. Plummer.)

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think the Amendment of my hon. friend would be an improvement, and we are prepared to adopt it.

MR. CORRIE GRANT (Warwickshire, Rugby)

moved to leave out the words "if desirable," so as to make it mandatory on the County Councils to appoint members of the School Boards.

(5.3.) Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— To leave out the words 'if desirable.'"—(Mr. Corric Grant.)

Question put, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 185; Noes, 93. (Division List No. 491.)

AYES.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow	Fardell, Sir T. George
Aird, Sir John	Carew, James Lawrence	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lines.)	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derbyshire	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.	Fisher, William Hayes
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.	Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Baird, john George Alexander	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Flower, Ernest
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r,	Chapman, Edward	Forster, Henry William
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Charrington, Spencer	Galloway, William Johnson
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds	Churchill, Winston	Gardner, Ernest
Banbury, Frederick George	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Garfit, William
Bartley, George C. T.	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)
Beresford, Lord Charles William	Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Godson, Sir Augustus Fredrick
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc.)
Bignold, Arthur	Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Bigwood, James	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Bill, Charles	Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Graham, Henry Robert
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Dixon- Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Bond, Edward	Doughty, George	Greene, Sir E.W (B'ry S Edu'nds
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Duke, Henry Edward	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury
Brown, Alexander H (Shropsh.	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Grenfell, William Henry
Bull, William James	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Butcher, John George	Faber, George Denison (York)	Guthrie, Walter Murray
Hain, Edward	Malcolm, Ian	Renwick, George
Hall, Edward Marshall	Manners, Lord Cecil	Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Staly bridge
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x	Massey. Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Maxwell. WJH (Dumfriesshire	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Harris, Frederick Leverton	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Rolleston, Sir John E. L.
Haslett, Sir James Homer	Middlemore, John Throgmort'n	Round, Rt. Hon. James
Hay, Hon. Clause George	Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Helder, Augustus	Milvain, Thomas	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone. W.)
Hickman, Sir Alfred	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Higgin bottom, S. W.	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)	Morgan, David J (Walthamstow	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside	Morrison, James Archibald	Smith, Hon, W. F. D. (Strand)
Horner, Frederick William	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Spear, John Ward.
Hutton John (Yorks, N. R.)	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute	Stewart, Sir Mark, J M'Taggart
Kemp, George	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop	Nicol Donald Ninian	Talbot, Rt Hn J. G (Oxf'rd Univ.
Kimber, Henry	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
King, Sir Henry Seymour	Orr-Ewing. Charles Lindsay	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Law, Anderew Boner (Glasgow)	Parker, Sir Gilbert	Valentia, Viscount
Lawson, John Grant	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington	Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield
Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.	Pemberton, John S. G.	Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Percy, Earl	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Pierpoint, Robert	Welby, Lt-Col A.C.E.(Taunton
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Plummer, Walter R.	Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (N otts
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Pretyman, Ernest George	Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm
Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham	Pryce-Jones. Lt.-Col. Edward	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.	Purvis, Robert	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Lowe, Francis, William	Randles, John S.	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale)	Rankin, Sir James	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth	Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Reid, James (Greenock)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Macdona, John Cumming	Remnant, James Farquharson	Sir Alexander Acland-
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W	Renshaw, Charles Bine	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Griffith, Ellis J.	Reckitt, Harold James
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)
Allen, Charles P (Gloue, Stroud	Harmsworth, Leicester	Rickett, J. Compton
Atherley-Jones, L.	Harwood, George	Rigg, Richard
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Hemphill, Ht. Hon. Charles H.	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Brigg, John	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Roe, Sir Thomas
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Horniman, Frederick John	Runciman, Walter
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Jacoby, James Alfred	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Burns, John	Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea	Shackleton, David James
Burt, Thomas	Lambert, George	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Caine, William Sproston	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Caldwell, James	Leng, Sir John	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Cameron, Robert	Lloyd-George David	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	M'Arthur, William Cornwall	Soares, Ernest J.
Causton, Richard Knight	Markham, Arthur Basil	Spencer, Rt. Hn C.R. (Northants
Channing, Francis Allston	Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William	Strachey, Sir Edward
Cremer, William Randal	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Dalziel, James Henry	Morley, Charles (Brecoushire)	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose	Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Moss, Samuel	Tervelyan, Charles Philips
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Newnes, Sir George	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Duncan, J. Hastings	Norman, Henry	Wason, Eugene
Edwards, Frank	Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham	White, George (Norfolk)
Emmott, Alfred	Partington, Oswald	White, Luke (York. E.R.)
Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone	Paulton, James Mellor	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Philipps, John Wynford	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Pickard, Benjamin	Yoxall, James Henry
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Price, Robert John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Fuller, J. M. F.	Priestley, Arthur	Mr. Corrie Grant and Mr.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John	Rea, Russell	John Ellis.

Words inserted

(5.13.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause to the word "made," inclusive, in page 5, line 15, stand part of the Clause' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause to the

word "made," inclusive, in page 5, in line 15, stand part of the Clause' be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 179; Noes, 90. (Division List No. 492.)

AYES.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute
Aird, Sir John	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Graham, Henry Robert	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Greene, Sir E.W. (B'ry S Edm'nds	Parker, Sir Gilbert
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n
Baird, John George Alexander	Grenfell, William Henry	Pemberton, John S. G.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Percy, Earl
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Guthrie, Walter Murray	Pierpoint, Robert
Balfour, Rt Hn Generald W. (Leeds	Hain, Ed ward	Plummer, Walter R.
Banbury, Frederick George	Hall, Edward Marshall	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bartley, George C. T.	Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x	Pretyman, Ernest George
Beresford, Lord Chas. William	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Pryce-Jones, IA.-Col. Edward
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Purvis, Robert
Bignold, Arthur	Haslett, Sir James Horner	Randles, John S.
Bigwood, James	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Rankin, Sir James
Bill, Charles	Helder, Augustus	Rasch, Major Frederick Carne
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Bond, Edward	Hickman, Sir Alfred	Reid, James (Greenock)
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Higginbottom, S. W.	Remnant, James Farquharson
Bull, William James	Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Carew, James Laurence	Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside	Renwick, George
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Horner, Frederick William	Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge
Cautley, Henry Strother	Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson
Cavendish, R. E. (N. Lancs.)	Kemp, George	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. V. (Salop.	Robertson, Sir John F. L.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Kimber, Henry	Round, Rt. Hon. James
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J. (Birm.	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J.A (Worc.	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Chapman, Edward	Lawson, John Grant	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Charrington, Spencer	Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Lees, Sir Elliott, (Birkenhead)	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Smith, Hon. W. E. D. (Strand)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Spear, John Ward
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Stewart, Sir Mark J.M 'Taggart
Cook. Sir Frederick Lucas	Long, Col Charles W. (Evesham	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cranborne, Viscount	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Lowe, Francis William	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Lowther, C. (Comb. Eskdale)	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Doughty, George	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)	Valentia, Viscount
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Macdona, John Cumming	Vincent, Col Sir C.E.H (Sheffield
Faber, George Denison (York)	M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Fardell, Sir T. George	Malcolm, Ian	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Manners, Lord Cecil	Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.	Whitmore, Algernon
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm.
Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas	Middlemore, John Throgm'rton	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Fisher, William Hayes	Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Milvain, Thomas	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Flower, Ernest	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Forster, Henry William	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Galloway, William Johnson	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Gardner, Ernest	Morgan, David J (Walthamstow	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Garfit, William	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Sir Alexander Acland-
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)	Mowbary, Sir Robert Gray C.	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Abraham. William (Rhondda)	Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Bryce, Rt. Hon. James
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)	Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Burns, John
Allen, Charles P. (Gloue., Stroud	Brigg, John	Burt, Thomas
Atherley-Jones, L.	Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Buxton, Sydney Charles
Caine, William Sproston	Jacoby, James Alfred	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Caldwell, James	Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea	Roe, Sir Thomas
Cameron, Robert	Lambert, George	Runciman, Walter
Campbell-Bonnerman, Sir H.	Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Causton, Richard Knight	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Shackleton, David James
Channing, Francis Allston	Leng, Sir John	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Cremer, William Randal	Lloyd-George, David	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Dalziel, James Henry	Markham, Arthur Basil	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Spencer, Rt. Hn, C. R (Northants
Duncan, J. Hastings	Morley, Rt Hon, John (Montrose	Strachey, Sir Edward
Edwards, Frank	Moss, Samuel	Strachey, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Ellis, John Edward	Newnes, Sir George	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Emmott, Alfred	Norman, Henry	Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone	Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Partington, Oswald	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund	Paulton, James Mellor	Wason, Eugene
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Philipps, John Wynford	White, George (Norfolk)
Fuller, J. M. F.	Pickard, Benjamin	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Grant, Corrie	Price, Robert John	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Priestley, Arthur	Wilson, Henry J. York, W. R.)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Rea, Russell
Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Reckitt, Harold James
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Rickett, J. Compton	Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Rigg, Richard	Mr. William M'Arthur
Horniman, Frederick John	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

(5.23.) Question put accordingly.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 177; Noes, 90. (Division List No. 493.)

AYES.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas	Higginbottom, S. N.
Aird, Sir John	Cranborne, Viscount	Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset E.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Hope, J. F. Sheffield, Brightside
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dix'n	Horner, Frederick William
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Doughty, George	Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Kemp, George
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.
Baird, John George Alexander	Faber, George Denison (York)	Kimber, Henry
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Fardell, Sir T. George	King, Sir Henry Seymour
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Fellowes, Ron. Ailwyn Edward	Limbton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds	Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Manc'r	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Banbury, Frederick George	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Lawson. John Grant
Bartley, George C. T.	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Lecky, Rt Hn. William Edw. H.
Beresford, Lord Chas. William	Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas	Lees, Sir Elliott. (Birkenhead)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Fisher, William Hayes	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Bignold, Arthur	Fletcher, Rt Hon. Sir Henry	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Bigwood, James	Flower, Ernest	Leveson Gower, Frederick N. S.
Bill, Charles	Forster, Henry William	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Galloway, William Johnson	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham
Bond, Edward	Gardner, Ernest	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Garlit, William	Lowe, Francis William
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans	Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)
Bull, William James	Godson, Sir Aughstus Frederick	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc	Lucas, Beginald J. (Portsmouth
Carew, James Laurence	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim	Macdona, John Cumming
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Graham, Henry Robert	M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W
Cautley, Henry Strother	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Malcolm, Ian
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)	Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S Edm'nds	Manners, Lord Cecil
Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Grenfell, William Henry	Maxwell, WJH (Dumfriesshire
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Meysey-Thompsen, Sir H. M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.	Guthrie, Walter Murray	Middlemore, John Throgmort'n
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J.A (Worc.	Hain, Edward	Milner, Rt Hon. Sir Frederick G
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hall, Edward Marshall	Milvain, Thomas
Chapman, Edward	Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x	Montagu, Hon, J. Scott (Hants
Charrington, Spencer	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Harris, Frederick Leverton	More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Helder, Augustus	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Hickman, Sir Alfred	Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Remnant, James Farquharson	Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.
Nicol, Donald Ninian	Renshaw, Charles Bine	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.	Renwick, George	Tuke, Sir John Batty
O'Doherty, William	Ridley, Hon. M.W (Stalybridge	Valentia, Viscount
Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson	Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield
Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Walrond, Rt Hon Sir William H.
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Pemberton, John S. G.	Round, Rt. Hon. James	Welby, Lt-Col. A.C.E.(Taunton
Percy, Earl	Royds, Clement Molyneus	Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts.
Pierpoint, Robert	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Sharpe, William Edward T.	Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm
Pretyman, Ernest George	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Pryce-Jones, Lt,-Col. Edward	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Purvis, Robert	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Randles, John S.	Spear, John Ward	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Rankin, Sir James	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Stewart, Sir Mark J.M 'Taggart	TELLEES FOR THE AYES—
Rattigan, Sir William Henry	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Sir Alexander Acland-
Reid, James (Greenock)	Talbot, Rt Hon. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Grant, Corrie	Reckitt, Harold James
Allan, Sir William (Gateshed	Griffith, Ellis J.	Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Allen, Charles P (Gloue., Stroud	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Riekett, J. Compton
Atherley-Jones, L.	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Rigg, Richard
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Brigg, John	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Robson, William Snowdon
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Horniman, Frederick John	Roe, Sir Thomas
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Jacoby, James Alfred	Runciman, Walter
Burns, John	Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Burt, Thomas	Lambert, George	Shackleton, David James
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Caine, William Sproston	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Caldwell, James	Leng, Sir John	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Cameron, Robert	Lloyd-George, David	Sloan, Thomas Henry.
Campbell-Bannerman. Sir H.	Markham, Arthur Basil	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Channing, Francis Allston	Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William	Spencer, Rt Hon. C.R (Northants
Cremer, William Randal	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Dalziel, James Henry	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Moss, Samuel	Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Newnes, Sir George	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Duncan, J. Hastings	Norman, Henry	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Ed wards, Frank	Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham	Wason, Eugene
Ellis, John Edward	Partington, Oswald	White, George (Norfolk)
Emmott, Alfred	Paulton, James Mellor	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidst'ne	Philipps, John Wynford	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan	Pickard, Benjamin	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Price, Robert John	TELLERS FOR TIIE NOES—
Foster. Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Priestley, Arthur	Mr. William M'Arthur
Fuller, J. M. F.	Rae, Russell	and Mr. Causton.

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

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.