§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), in the Chair.]
§ Clause 13:—
In page 5, line 21, after the word 'council,' to insert the words including the reasonable travelling expenses of the members of the Education Committee.'"—(Mr. Soares.)
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
To leave out the first word the,' and insert the word 'such.'"—(Mr. Lyttelton.)
§ Question again proposed, "That the first word 'the' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ (2.40.) THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,) Bristol, S.
said that when the Committee adjourned on the preceding night they were in the midst of a very interesting debate. He had found it impossible to reply in a word or two to the suggestions put forward from both sides of the House, and he therefore now proposed to 884 state as briefly as he could the view of the Government on the present proposal. They shared as fully as anybody the desire that the attendance of all classes on the governing bodies should be as regular as possible. But he was bound to look at this question from the general point of view of local government. Hon. Gentlemen had sought to prove that there was a distinction between the committee of the local education authority and the committees of other bodies. So no doubt there was, but he doubted very much whether the distinction told in favour of the Amendment now under discussion. They had been told that it was very desirable that working men, whose interest in the educational system of their districts was very great, he might say greater than that of any other class, should be on the committee, but they were also told that the position of the education committee was one entirely subordinate to the local education authority. It was not the controlling body that was to be strengthened by the addition of working class members, it was only the intermediate authority. He thought that told rather against the Amendment than for it. He must ask the Committee not to be misled on this matter. If this proposal was adopted they would open a door which they would not be able to shut again. It was not for him to dictate to the Committee as to whether the change would be for better or for worse. But he had had some experience of local government, and he would ask whether there were not many men claiming to represent this or that particular interest, but not belonging to the industrial classes, who would be attracted to these governing bodies directly they were sure they would he relieved of all costs. No doubt the proposal before the Committee was a guarded one, but how were they going to keep it within such narrow limits? They were asked to only sanction reasonable travelling expenses. What were the travelling expenses of a member of the committee? Was it realised that in many of these cases miles of roads had to be travelled over—that frequently it entailed a journey the day before? [Cheers.] He appreciated those cheers. It made the position of the workman harder still, but the real difficulty was not the expenses. There was 885 also the loss of one or two days work. There were committees of the County Council whose work, in his judgment, was quite as important—in the interests of the working classes—as that of a committee of the local education authority. Let them take the case of the Lunatic Asylums Committee. In the work of that body the working man had a special interest. The asylums were often situated in a distant corner of the county, but the committee had to meet regularly, and its members had to travel long journeys in order to get there. Their proceedings were keenly watched by the working classes, whose relatives had unfortunately so often to take refuge within the walls of the institution The members of the committee were not reimbursed their expenses. [Cries of "They are paid."] No, travelling expenses were only paid in cases where the asylum or workhouse was outside the county area, and where the members of the committee had consequently to travel beyond that area. They received nothing when they merely had to travel from I heir own homes to a place within the county area.
§ MR. HERERT LEWIS (FlintBoroughs)
Under the schemes passed wider the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, third class travelling expenses are paid to members attending not only the meetings of the central board, but also the meetings of the county governing bodies.
§ Mr. WALTER LONG
said he was not aware of that. He was dealing with the local authorities which were within the cognisance of his Department, and with which he had personal contact. He might take another illustration. Hon. Members familiar with the North of England, knew that there were many unions where the guardians had miles of roads to traverse in order to get to workhouses near to which there was no railway station. They had to attend a variety of committees, but they were not paid their expenses. He was not arguing against the principle of reasonable travelling expenses, but he was trying to point out that there was a practical difficulty in limiting the expenses in the way proposed in this Amendment. It was not for him nor for the Government to ask the Committee not to take this 886 step if they thought it a right step to take. But let them take it with their eyes open, and not, as they were asked to take it on the previous night, on the ground that this proposal could be limited within these narrow lines. This proposal was far too serious for the Government, to give their assent to it. There were no exceptional circumstances in regard to the education committee which did not apply to other committees. If this proposal was adopted, he thought they would find that pressure would be exercised to grant the same privileges to members of other local authorities, and that pressure they would not be able to resist. Then it would be but a short step to the House of Commons. Hitherto they had successfully, and as he believed rightly, resisted all proposals to cast on public funds the costs incurred by men who were members of these local governing bodies. If they now gave way in this case they would be unable to stop at the payment of travelling expenses; every man who devoted himself to local or public service would expect to have extended to him the right to payment of all out-of-pocket expenses. This was therefore a much wider question than that of the local education committees, and he would ask the Committee not on this occasion by a side wind to upset the principle which Parliament had hitherto upheld, but to adhere to the sound principle that those who took part in local or Imperial government should do so with all the risks and loss that the service entailed.
§ SIR WILLLAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)
said the argnment of the right hon. Gentleman meant that it was impossible that men of humble means could take part in the administration of this Act. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Nothing of the kind."] The right hon. Gentleman agreed that long distances would have to be travelled, and that men of humble means would not be able to undertake the work.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said the right hon. Gentleman entirely misrepresented what he had said. He had pointed out that the expenses could not be limited as it was proposed to limit them in this Amendment. Men of the very class the 887 right hon. Gentleman alluded to found means of attending the meetings of Boards of Guardians without having their expenses paid.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said men of humble means could not afford to travel long distances by train or carriage. To his mind the interruption of the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs disposed of the whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman. This terrible precedent which was to ruin our local administration had been in operation for a considerable time in Wales. There they had long distances to travel, and railway communication was by no means easy. It seemed to hint to be a simple proposition. What was there in it to give rise to this alarm? He thought the Committee would do extremely well to accept the Amendment.
§ MR.MILVAIN (Hampstead)
said the argument of the last speaker reminded him of the tale of the little boy who when remonstrated with for pitting out his tongue to his master replied that it was only a little one. He could not help thinking that those who were advocating the payment of these expenses out of the rates had their little tongues in their cheek. He was strongly opposed to the Amendment. In his estimation, working men were a fetish, unduly worshipped in this House. But by this Amendment it was proposed to pay the travelling expenses, not of working men, but of the committee, and these expenses might include their day's work and their food. If they sanctioned the payment of the expenses of members of our representative institutions, they opened the floodgates of unlimited expense. Hon. Members opposite claimed "economy" and "efficiency" as their watchwords. Where was the economy to be found in paying the expenses of their representatives on representative institutions? He could not see it in view of the fact that there were so many men of leisure and ability will-mg to do the work for nothing. This proposal had been made before, and always successfully resisted on the ground that it was not consistent with economy. If it was admitted now it would he without precedent, and would be admitted for the first time in the 888 legislation of this House. If they paid the expenses of the education committees it would conduce not to efficiency but to jobbery; it might lead to outside influences being brought to hear on the County Councils to elect a class of man whose services would not conduce to efficiency. Upon these grounds he should vote against the Amendment.
§ MR. GOULDING (Wiltshire, Devizes)
said this was a matter of vital importance to working men and people with small means, and he had always contended that the parents of the children who went to these schools should be able to see that the education given to their children was such as they approved of, and this it was quite impossible for them to do unless the Bill was amended in the direction proposed. It was stated that the payment of travelling expenses was introducing a new principle; but on the London County Council the committees had conveyances supplied to carry them round on inspection work, and when railways were more convenient for the purpose of conveyance in carrying out inspection railway fares were paid. Had this been a question of payment for services on the committee he should not have supported the Amendment, but this was a case of enabling the parents of the children to serve on the committees, and it was on that ground that he supported it.
§ (3.5.) SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)
expressed his regret that the President of the Local Government Board should have run away immediately after having fired his shot, because he had made a confident statement which ought to receive an answer, and which would receive an answer that he ought to have stayed to hear. The right hon. Member for West Monmouth-shire who followed the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the subject generally and not specifically with regard to the present case. The hon. Member opposite and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board both took the line which was familiar to all Government Departments. It was the line adopted by the Treasury with regard to every proposal made to them. The consecrated phrase of the Treasury to all the other Departments who made these 889 proposals was not couched in very good language. It was, "These proposals wind open a very serious door." He would be glad to see the "very serious door" opened to which the right hon. Gentleman objected. He would go even further. As a specific proposal this was much stronger than any other. In the case of Durham the county town was almost in the centre of the county, and around that town were a great many mines. The result was that the hon. Member for Mid Durham, and many miners of that district, were able to serve on the County Council; but in many mining counties School Boards were elected for particular districts, and on those boards admirable work was done. The parents of the children in the milling districts were keener about education than anybody else in those districts, and by the abolition of the School Boards these men would be knocked out of education altogether. The object of the Amendment was to retain the services of these men. The right hon. Gentleman was guilty of an error when he said there was no precedent for this; there was the Welsh precedent, and there was also the precedent that some members of the Fisheries Board were paid their expenses. This, therefore, was a practical Amendment. With regard to the Amendment to the Amendment, although, for convenience, a general discussion was being taken upon it, he thought the mover ought to say clearly how it was going to be dealt with. He was not quite clear as to its effect; if it allowed the counties to pick and choose it would be most objectionable. [An HON. MEMBER: That is what it does do!] If that was so, then, of course, it ought to be opposed. Those who had been able to pay their own expenses and who acted outside the area for local authorities had generally thought it their duty to accept their expenses along with the others, because they thought the question of expenses should be a general and not a particular one. The point upon which the President of the Local Government Board relied was merely technical. If a member of a Board of Guardians in the south-west of London paid a visit to the north-east of London, his expenses were paid. Surely a similar course might be taken in a large county where the 890 distances and the time occupied were much greater. It was not right to use the merely technical objection that in the former case the visit was outside the district. Many School Board areas would, under this Bill, be embraced within the new district⁁the county—and therefore members would have to travel altogether outside the existing districts. It was really on the lines of present practice to apply the Amendment to cases of that kind. On the grounds he had stated he should oppose the Amendment to the Amendment, and support the original proposal.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL (Oldham)
said that when his hon. and learned friend moved the Amendment to the Amendment on the previous night there was a considerable measure of agreement or approval on the Government side of the House, and no distinct expression of disagreement on the other side. It appeared now, however, that his hon. and learned friend was between the upper and nether millstones, inasmuch as his proposal neither commanded agreement on that side nor met with acceptance on the other. At the same time it was a most sensible and reasonable Amendment. There had been brought before the Committee two attitudes of mind, with neither of which he was able to sympathise or agree. The first was that of the President of the Local Government Board, who used the "open door" argument—that they were opening a door which they would never be able to shut. The door was, in fact, already open, and the present was not the period in our history in which to talk about the "thin end of the wedge." There were no great questions in which the thin end of the wedge had not already been inserted. The other attitude of mind was that of Labour members, who declared they were not ashamed to say they needed the money, but they would be ashamed to take it unless those who did not need it were also made to take it. That was a fantastic proposition to which very few Members on that side of the House, no matter how progressive their views might be, would be inclined to assent. Practically two considerations were before the Committee, each of which 891 was complicated and controversial, and each supported by a considerable body of opinion. The first was that they did not want to settle the great question of the payment of representatives on a side and comparatively small issue on an Education Bill. They, on that side, would not shrink from a settlement of that question. But he, personally, would draw a great distinction between travelling expenses and remuneration for actual services, whether in regard to Members of Parliament or members of local bodies. The second consideration had been urged by almost every speaker in the debate. The schools concerned were the schools attended by the children of the people in humble circumstances, and if there was any board upon which the working classes ought to be represented it was the education authority. It was quite evident, however, that it would be impossible for them to be so represented unless there travelling expenses to and from the place of meeting were defrayed. These two considerations came into collision, and out of that collision the present question arose. How were the two points of view to be reconciled? How were the poorer members of these authorities to be enabled to attend to their duties without at the same time conceding or affirming the great principle of the payment of representatives? The Amendment of his hon. and learned friend presented a safe, easy, clear, convenient, and suitable method of solving the problem. It conceded no great principle; it affirmed no small principle that had not already been conceded. On the other hand, it dealt with the immediate emergency, removed the actual concrete grievance operated through the very authority the Bill proposed to set up, and acted in a spirit of compromise which harmonised with the general principle of a Bill which in itself was a great compromise. If this half-way measure, this friendly and conciliatory Amendment, was to be treated with disdain and contumely by hon. Gentlemen opposite, he should certainly urge his hon. and learned friend not to press it, and then they on that side would have to go into the Division Lobby against the other side on the main principle. 1f, however, the Opposition were prepared to accept this 892 reasonable concession, they would meet with a certain amount of support on that side of the House.
SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston)
said that the Amendment to the Amendment, as interpreted by its mover, was one which many on that side could not accept. It would lead to diversity of practice in different parts of the country.
SIR WALTER FOSTER
said the discretion of every local authority would be influenced by local circumstances; and they would have a practice adopted on one side of the boundary which was not followed on the other, and friction and discontent would be the result. Private arrangements of this sort, in which money passed from one to another, were not desirable in the carrying on of local government except under uniform rules. He supported the original Amendment on the same ground as the President of the Local Government Board opposed it, viz., in the interests of local government. In numerous instances, efficient representatives had been obliged to give up their seats on County and Rural District Councils because they could not afford the travelling expenses and also the time to attend, and local government necessarily became less efficient in consequence. The question of the education of the children of the people was a wider interest than any other matter of local government, inasmuch as it affected every-family in the land. The management of lunatic asylums was not a fair parallel case, as that had to be carried on by specially qualified men, and only affected relatively few people. Many of the men who had served on the School Boards would be disfranchised from serving on the education committees, because of their inability to sit on the councils, and because working men could not afford to go from one end of the county to the other. He should certainly vote for the Amendment, because it would satisfy a just and righteous claim, and add to the efficiency of the education authority. He hoped 893 the First Lord of the Treasury, if he spoke again, would support the view of finding some way out of the difficulty in which they were placed.
§ (3.30.) MR. WHARTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Ripon)
said the right hon. Gentleman had told them that this was part of a large matter. He wished to ask the Committee where was this matter going to stop? It would stop in this House and not before. If they were going to pay these particular men and women to come forward and offer their services, why should they not pay other men find other women who came forward? If they did that well and good. He warned the Committee that if they adopted this proposal it would not stop there. The President of the Local Government Board told them that the Amendment would open the door to a dangerous precedent. In this case he was not in favour of the policy of the open door.
§ SIR JOSEPH LEESE (Lancashire, Accrington)
said he was anxious that the Committee should not give up the Amendment to the Amendment in a hurry. He was of the opinion that his hon. and learned friend had put a wrong interpretation upon this proposal. In order to make the meaning clear he suggested the insertion of the word "all." It would then read—Including such reasonable tra[...]ling ex penses of all the menders of the education committee as the local education authority may think fit.Personally he was quite prepared to accept the words as they stood.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I hope the Division may very shortly be taken. Perhaps the Committee will think it only respectful that I should say one or two words upon the questions which have been raised. I am sorry that I was not present during the debate last night, as I should like to have heard the speeches, especially those made by hon. Gentlemen who claim, and claim justly, to specially represent the working classes, which I am informed were not only speeches of great ability but also showed great moderation. I had not that good fortune, and therefore I speak under 894 that disadvantage. I really have only two points to urge upon the Committee One is this: If you mean to make a great change in the existing practice with regard to the payment of expenses of persons serving upon public bodies is this Education Bill a convenient place to do it? [OPPOSITION cries of "Yes, it is."] I am aware that an hon. friend of mine below the gangway, and hon. Gentlemen opposite say that this is no innovation, and that it has already been made in the case of the Welsh Intermediate Education scheme and in the case of the London Government Bill. I do not think either of those measures is on all fours with the present scheme. In the first place the Welsh Intermediate scheme is different from this because it says that a third-class ticket is to be paid for from station to station, and that by no means covers the ground of expenses. That was not introduced in the debate on the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, but it was accepted as part of a scheme brought forward under the 1ct. That is very different from a precedent deliberately adopted by this House with regard to any great question of local government. The other question, I am distinctly informed by the President of the Local Government Board, is really no precedent at all, and if that takes place which my hon. friend tells us upon his authority, and from his own knowledge, does take place on the London County Council the London County Council are breaking the law and they are liable to be surcharged by some future Mr. Cockerton. So much for the two precedents which have been alleged. I think it will be admitted that they are hardly in front. I bring the Committee back to this: you are attempting to initiate a very great change in our practice as regards local government. Is this Education Bill an occasion to do it? I venture very strongly to urge upon the Committee that it is a most inconvenient occasion, partly because this Bill surely arouses enough controversies without importing this into it; and also because this Bill alone among local government Bills does give the smaller localities and parishes of all classes special opportunities of taking their share in the work of education. Let the Committee remember that while the committee whose expenses 895 are to be met is only an advisory committee, and advisory upon general principles, the actual management of the school rests, in the case of voluntary schools or non-provided schools, in a body of managers, necessarily local, one of which will be appointed by the minor local authority, the Parish Council or District Council, and the other will be appointed, no doubt, by the education authority, and they will probably appoint somebody intimately acquainted with the details of the work of that district and capable of attending, without great personal sacrifices, to the work. That is the case of the non-provided schools. As to the provided schools, it rests entirely with the education authority, who can take care—and certainly will take care—that the parents of the children will have an adequate opportunity of taking their share in the management. Therefore, I should say that of all Bills touching on local government this is the very last Bill upon which you ought to make this change, because the grievance which the hon. Gentleman so eloquently refers to exists in a far less degree than it does in any other county or borough work. There is one other reason which I will venture to urge upon the Committee, and it is that this is a very bad occasion on which to make this change. Last night we had a great debate in regard to the burden thrown upon the ratepayers by this Bill. I have never denied that the ratepayers of counties would desire to see the teachers better paid, and the schools better equipped than they are now, but when I have uttered these educational prophecies I have been met by the answer that the ratepayers will be so reluctant to pay that they will starve the schools. I do not think they will, but I do think that an Amendment of this kind in creases the temptation thrown upon them to starve education. Remember also that every shilling you take out of the rates for the purpose of paying the travelling expenses of members is money taken away from the higher purposes of education, which this Bill is intended to serve, and I would seriously suggest to the Committee that it is most unwise for us to make the burden thrown upon the rates by this Bill heavier and more onerous than it would otherwise be. The 896 Committee will observe that I have carefully refrained from making any pronouncement upon the broad question of this Amendment. It is far too large a question to be touched upon at the end of an enormous discussion like that which has taken place upon this Bill. Let the House, when the proper occasion comes, deal with it as a whole as affecting every branch of public administration, and affecting both local and Imperial government, but do not take this occasion of the thirty-ninth day of the Committee stage of this Bill to initiate for the first time in our County Councils and municipal legislation, a change which must inevitably have such far-reaching effects in the future.
§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)
said they were very familiar with the argument about the proper occasion, for it was an occasion which never came. He remembered that when they were discussing the Scotch Local Government Bill of 1888, the First Lord of the Treasury- told them that that was not the proper occasion.
§ MR. BRYCE
contended that by this Bill they were depriving the people who had hitherto had a chance of regulating the education of their own children of the opportunity which they had up to the present enjoyed. The right hon. Gentleman said they had the hoards of management. Did he remember the discussions which took place on Clause 8? He considered it essential that on these education committees, which were to have practically the bulk of the work, some opportunity should be given to the parents to bear the part in the work 897 which they had hitherto done under the School Board system. They had been told that by adopting tins Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the Barnstaple Division they would take a step which would have consequences in the future. That was an argument they had often heard, but his answer to it was this. They were asked for the sake of a possibly distant object, a consequence which might not arise in our time, a consequence which would have to be determined by totally different arguments, to sacrifice an opportunity of making these bodies much more effective than they other wise would he by admitting people to work in which they were interested, and who were anxious, as well as competent, to discharge it.
§ (3.47.) MR. H. J. WILSON (Yorkshire, W.R., Holmfirth)
said it was a fact that the Sheffield School Board and most other School Boards had habitually paid for conveyances for members when trim yelling around inspecting sites and schools. The same remark applied to cases where Sheffield magistrates visited public-houses in connection with licensing matters. The President of the Local Government Board was entirely wrong (and the Prime Minister was wrong in following him) in supposing that there were not lots of precedents all over the country for a proposal such as that now before the Committee.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorgan-shire, Mid)
said if they were going to divide they should not vote in the dark. His hon. and learned friend said that the County Council would have the right of picking and choosing. The Committee ought to know whether that was a proper construction of the words before voting. His opinion was that there would be no discussion in the County Council at all. He asked the Attorney General to state whether in his opinion that was the proper reading of the words.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)
asked whether in the event of the rejection of these two Amendments there would be power under the scheme to provide for the payment of travelling expenses? Would the Government consider that they had the right under the 898 Bill to sanction payment of travelling expenses where the County Council desired it? The Prime Minister tried to conjure up the bogey of the rates. One experience was worth all the arguments of the Prime Minister on that point. They had power in Wales to pay the travelling expenses of the members of the governing body. He knew a county where the total travelling expenses, third class, amounted in a single year to less than one-fiftieth of a penny on the rates. It was misleading to talk to the Committee about the burden on the rates in a matter of this sort, when the Prime Minister was introducing a Bill which would involve a rate of 4½d. in Gloucestershire, 6d. in Liverpool, and 1s. in some districts, in order to keep up. sectarian schools.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)
said he had been asked to state his opinion in regard to the construction to be put on the Amendment. He did think that the words were not very clear, but he would be inclined to say that the proper construction was that which the author of the Amendment had put on it, namely, that the County Council would have a discretion to pay all, or only some, of the travelling expenses, as they deemed fit. With regard to the other question, he was not sufficiently familiar with the provisions in Wales, to enable him to give an off-hand answer to the question the hon. Member had put to him, but he thought there would be no general power under the Act to introduce a provision into a scheme dealing with this matter. He would he glad to go into the question with the hon. Member, but he was not prepared offhand to give an opinion on a point of this kind, which involved special consideration.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
Does that mean that in the opinion of the Attorney General there will be no power to introduce into a scheme a provision for the payment of even third class travelling expenses in England?
§ Question, "That the first word the stand part of the proposed Amendment,' put, and negatived.899
Amendment further amended, by inserting—
After the word 'including,' the word such,' and by inserting, after the word 'committee,' the words 'as the local education authority may think fit.—Mr. Lyttelton
§ (3.53.) Question put, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 130;Noes, 197. (Division Kist No. 503.901
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Rea, Russell|
|Allen, CharlesP.(Glouc., Stroud||Grant, Corrie||Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Harwood, George||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale||Runciman, Walter|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir ArthurD.||Samuel, Herbert L(Cleveland)|
|Beckett, Ernest William||Helme, Norval Watson||Schwan, Charles E.|
|Bell, Richard||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Shackleton, David James|
|Bignold, Arthur||Horniman, Frederick John||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Brigg, John||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Bummer, Sir John Tomlinson||Jacoby, lames Alfred||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Burr, Thomas||Kemp, George||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Kitson, Sir John||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Caldwell, James||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe|
|Cameron, Robert||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Tennant, Harold John|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Leng, Sir John||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lewis, John Herbert||Thomas, J A (Glamorgan Gower|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Lloyd-George, David||Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R)|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Logan, John William||Tomkinson, James|
|Cremer, William Randal||Lough, Thomas||Toulmin, George|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan||M'Crae, George||Wallace, Robert|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||M'Kentia, Reginald||Walton, Joseph(Barnsley)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Malcolm, Ian||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Wason, Engene|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Markham, Arthur Basil||Weir, James Gallo-way|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Mather, Sir william||Welby, Lt. -Col.A. C. E(Taunt'n|
|Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Edwards, Frank||Moss, Samuel||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Elibank, Master of||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)|
|Emmott, Alfred||Newnes, Sir George||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Evans, Sir Franeis H (Maidstone||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfok, Mid.|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Palmer, George Wm.(Reading)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Ferguson, R. C. (Mnnro(Leith)||Partington, Oswald||Woodhouse, SirJT (Huddersfd|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund||Paulton, James Mellor||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Pickard, Benjamin||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets||Pirie, Duncan V.||Mr. Soares and Mr.|
|Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon||Price, Robert John||Lyttelton.|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bond, Edward||Chapman, Edward|
|Aird, Sir John||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Clive, Captain Percy A.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynoll||Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.|
|Arkwriglit, John Stanhope||Brotherton, Edward Allen||Coddington, Sir William|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Brymer, William Ernest||Coghill, Douglas Harry|
|Arrol, Sir William||Bullard, Sir Harry||Cohen, Benjamin Louis|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Burdett-Coutts, W.||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Campbell, Rt HnJ.A.(Glasgow)||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Carew, James Laurence||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire||Crossley, Sir Savile|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch`r||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Cubitt, Hon. Henry|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Dalrymple Sir Charles|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Dickinson, Robert Edmond|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A(Worc.||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon|
|Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson|
|Doxford, Sir Wilham Theodore||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Elhot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Lockie, John||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Rutherford, John|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Fergusson, Rt Hn. SirJ (Manc'r||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S.||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles|
|Finch, George H.||Lowe, Francis William||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isle of Wight|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Fison, Frederick William||Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Macartney, Rt Hn W.G.Ellison||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Macdona, John Cumming||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E)|
|Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside|
|Flower, Ernest||Maconochie, A. W.||Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)|
|Forster, Henry William||Maxwell, W H J(Dumfriesshire||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick,S.W||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)|
|Carfit, William||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)|
|Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)||Milvain, Thomas||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Joint M.|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Stock, James Henry|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Greene, Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds||Morgan, David J(Walth'mstow||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury||Morrell, George Herbert||Thompson, Dr EC(Monagh'n, N|
|Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.||Morrison, James Archibald||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Gretton, John||Mount, William Arthur||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute||Tritton, Charles Ernest.|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Hamilton Rt Hn Lord(Midd'x||Myers, William Henry||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Hardy, Laurence(Kent Ashf'rd||Nicholson, William Graham||Tully, Jasper|
|Haslett, Sir James Horner||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Valentia, Viscount|
|Heaton, John Henniker||O' Doherty, William||Vincent, Col. SirCEH (Sheffield|
|Helder, Augustus||Orr Ewong, Charles, Lindsay||Walrond, RtHn. Sir William H.|
|Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset, E.||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside||Parker, Sir Gilbert||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Hoult, Joseph||Parkes, Ebenezer||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Howard. John (kent, Faversh'm||Percy, Earl||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne|
|Howard, John(Midd., Tottenham)||Pierpoint, Robert||Williams, Rt HnJ Powell(Birm|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Wtllox, Sir John Archibald|
|Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)||Plummer, Walter R.||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R)|
|Jebb, sir Richard Claverhouse||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. (Bath|
|Kennedy, Patrick James||Purvis, Robert||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh.||Randles, John S.||Wylie, Alexander|
|Kimber, Henry||Rankin, Sir James||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Knowles, Lees||Pasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Reid, James (Greenock)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool||Renshaw, Charles Bine||Sir Alexander Acland-|
|Lee, ArthurH(Hants., Fareham||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Staly bridge||Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
§ (4.5.) MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR (Essex. Romford)
, in moving the next Amendment, said that he represented the largest division in tins country, and an ever-increasing one, and he ventured to say that this Bill had not been drafted to meet the case of his constituents, who would suffer much under its provisions. It was said that the ratepayers would profit more under the Imperial grants than before, but in his case nothing of the kind would occur. The district would be poorer and the Imperial grant would be less under the Bill unless a number of Amendments were made in this Clause. At the present time 97 per cent. of the children in the district were 902 educated in board schools, and only 3 per cent. in the voluntary schools. The result was that the district would have to provide an additional school rate of a farthing. In framing the Bill no consideration had been shown for extreme cases. He noticed that the education rate would be levied on the basis of the district rate instead of the poor rate.
§ MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR
said that there was an Amendment lower down on the Paper which would remove the rate from the basis of assessment for the 903 poor rate to that of the district rate. The East India Docks, under the Public Health Act, would be assessed on £14,000 instead of on £27,000, which they now paid; and the Great Eastern Railway, instead of being assessed on £9,900, would be assessed on only £2,600. The result would he that the houses of only £10 rental would have to make up the deficiency. The result would be inefficiency, the schools would be starved, and many people would not pay their rates. He knew that his was an extreme case, where the population had increased from 8,000 to over 100,000, but in framing a Bill of this magnitude care should have been taken so that no anomaly would occur in the way of increased burdens. He appealed to his right hon. friend in charge of the Bill to so amend the Clause that in extreme cases, like that presented by his constituency, the ratepayers would not be put into a worse position than before.
In page 5, line 21, after the word Council,' to insert the words shall be paid under this Act out of a rate levied by the Council on the basis of the assessment for the poor rate.'"— (Mr. Louis Sinclair.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said he did not quite follow his hon. friend in his reference to an especial hardship on a particular district. He admitted, however, that there was a flaw in the proposal in the Bill in regard to the incidence of the rate. That was not altogether the fault of those who were responsible for the Bill. It had probably escaped his hon. friend's attention that, under the Technical Instruction Act, the rate which could be levied was, in the case of urban sanitary districts, which wore the local authorities for the purpose, the only general rate which existed in them, viz., the sanitary rate, which was liable to deduction in regard to railways, canals, etc. It was thought at first that it was better to leave things as they were; but the Government realised later that it would be a grave injustice if, in the area of a Borough or a County Council the incidence of the rate was to be the poor rate subject only to ordinary deductions, while in sanitary districts it was to be the sanitary rate. His hon. friend said that the Amendment in the name of the Secretary to the Board of Education 904 would not altogether meet the case. On the contrary, that Amendment met the-case more completely and fully than did the Amendment of his hon. friend. The variation was not great, and he ventured to hope that his hon. friend and other hon. Members who had similar Amendments on the Paper, would be willing to withdraw then], and allow the Amendment of his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education to be put from the Chair. The only real difference between the Amendments was one of detail, and not of principle. They all sought to effect the same result, namely, to make the. incidence of the rate for education the poor rate assessment and not the sanitary rate, which was liable to deductions. But there was a small difference. Under the Amendments of his hon. friends, the' incidence of the rate would not be the incidence which rested upon the-county rate basis. The effect of the Amendment of his hon. friend the Secretary to-the Board of Education would be this—in a County Council area the cost of education would be defrayed out of the general rate levied over the whole area having for its basis the county rate basis, and in the case of a borough the poor rate basis or the borough rate basis. Difficulties in connection with assessment did not arise in borough areas as they did in county areas. In the county areas they had to deal with inequalities between different unions; whereas there was not the same conflict in the case of a borough area except in very rare instances, though it did arise in most cases where there was more than one union in the area, but in a mitigated form. There it was met by the power possessed by the Borough Council to have its own assessment, if not satisfied with the union assessment. There remained only the-urban sanitary districts to be dealt with. In these districts there was no rate similar to the borough rate or the county rate; there was only the sanitary rate, which would not do. Therefore they proposed to take the ordinary poor rate assessment; the only detail worthy of mention being that in the rather limited number of cases where the sanitary district was divided into parishes, the assessment as between the parishes would be on the poor rate basis and not on the borough rate or county rate basis. He hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment 905 of his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education as dealing more completely with the matter.
§ MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR
said that agricultural Land which was only assessed at half the poor rate Would not come under the Amendment of the Secretary to the Board of Education.
§ SIR FONTESCUE FLANNERY (Yorkshire, W.R., Shipley)
said he wished to express his very great satisfaction at the explanation given by his right hon. friend, and the promise he had made on behalf of the Government. The fact was that When the Clause was drafted a very serious and inexcusable mistake was made. Under the Clause as it stood, manufactories and householders would have to pay a very much larger proportion of tine rate than the owners of land, railway companies, docks and canals. Allusion had been made to Rumford, but many other constituencies were similarly situated, hl his own constituency, there were three railways covering a large acreage, and there were also canals, which would escape their fair proportion if the Clause remained as it was. They would only have to contribute 3d. in the £, whereas householders would have to contribute 1s. in the £Therefore, he regarded the Amendment of the Secretary to the Board of Education, which had been explained so clearly by his right hon. friend, as a measure of justice; and he hoped it would meet with the entire approval of the Committee.
§ SIR CHARLES DILKE
said he had not the least objection to the withdrawal of the Amendment, and the substitution of the Amendment of the Secretary to the Board of Education. He agreed with what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman in support of the Amendment. The doctrines on which the hon. Member based the Amendment before the Committee were applicable to various parts of the country, and were not confined to the case of Essex. He submitted that it would not be in order to follow the line of argument raised by the hon. Member opposite on the Government Amendment, 906 though he hoped they would have an opportunity of raising the question they wished to raise on (b) (e) and (d).
§ MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire,. E.)
said he did not see much advantage in prolonging the present discussion. He merely wished to say on behalf of the urban district of Kettering and Many similar districts that the proposals of the Government were perfectly satisfactory to those authorities, and wished to thank the Government for the Amendment they had wisely placed on the Paper.
§ MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR
said in withdrawing his Amendment he wished to thank the Government for the Amendment they had put down. At the same time, he should say that an immense amount of ill-feeling and a sense of injustice had been created, because the Amendment had not been thought of before.
§ MR. F. W. WILSON (Norfolk, Mid)
said the Government now proposed that the expenses of the Education Act should be paid out of the poor rate instead of the county fund or the borough rate. Did the Government, in making this change, propose to deal with the great inequalities of assessment to the poor rate? Some District Councils and Corporations assessed on one system, and some on another. In rural districts rent was taken as the basis of assessment in one union, and estimates of annual value in the other. He thought there ought to be uniformity in the system of assessment.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)
said he doubted whether it would be possible within the scope of the present Bill to deal with the large and complicated question which had just been mentioned by his hon. friend. There was an announcement in the King's Speech that legislation on the subject was contemplated, but it was not introduced.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said that that was quite true. One of the great difficulties of the local taxation question was valuation and assessment, and until they had dealt with valuation and assessment they could not approach the local taxation question with any degree of 907 satisfaction or hope of a final settlement. As the noble Lord, however, knew, time did not permit of the introduction of many measures, and that referred to was one of them.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ (4. 30.) SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE (Huddersfield)
said the object of his Amendment was to meet certain exceptional cases which had not been provided for in the Bill. It was well known that by Act of Parliament no borough rate could be levied unless the borough fund was insufficient. He, however, understood that the President of the Local Government Board was prepared to accept the Amendment, therefore he would say no more about it.
In page 5, line 24, after the word 'rate,' to insert the words or a separate rate to be made, assessed, and levied in like manner as the borough rate.'"—(Sir James Woodhouse.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words he there inserted."
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
After the word 'or' to insert the words if no borough rate is levied.'"—(Mr. Fison.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said the point raised undoubtedly required attention. There were cases where the borough fund had proved sufficient hitherto for all local purposes, yet where it might become exhausted unless sufficient provision were made. As the tendency of modern legislation was in the direction of consolidation, and not of separation, he would accept the Amendment as amended by his hon. friend, which would limit its application to those cases where a separate rate had not been issued up to the commencement of this Act.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
In page 5, line 25, after the word district,' to insert the words other than a borough.'"—(Sir James Woodhouse.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said after the clear explanation given by his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade the Amendment he now rose to move would need very little explanation from him. The Amendment was an important one. Its object was to provide that the education expenses of an urban district should not be raised out of the district rate, but out of the poor rate, in order to avoid the exceptions to which the urban district rate was liable.
In page 5, lines 25 and 26, to leave out the words 'as expenses incurred for the general purposes of the Public Health Acts,' and insert the words 'in manner provided by Section 33 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, as respects the expenses in that Section.'"—(Sir William Anson)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be le t out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. BRYCE
drew attention to the fact that in this case the right hon. Gentleman opposite hind adopted the objectionable practice of legislation by reference, which could, he submitted, in this case have easily been avoided. The lines of the Section of the Act of 1876 winch it was proposed to incorporate were only six or seven, and it would have been much more convenient to the bodies who would have to administer the Bill if he had incorporated those lines bodily rather than to refer them to a separate Act.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said that he was in general agreement with the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but he submitted that this was a case where the course taken was a desirable one, as it thus made it clear that the expenses were to be raised in the same way as under the Act of 1876.
§ MR. EMMOTT (Oldham)
asked if there was any necessity for the words at the 909 end. He had no legal knowledge with regard to it, but was it not possible that, if those words were left in, they might be considered as relating only to the expenses referred to in that particular section.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
thought that this was essentially a case where legislation by reference ought not to have been resorted to. It would have been a very simple thing to have incorporated the words referred to in the new Act. The only justification for legislating by reference was the undesirability of overloading an Act with unnecessary words. That was not the case here.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
admitted there was much in the contention of the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken, but at the same time pointed out that the Amendment had been considered cart fully by those responsible, who considered this was the most convenient form in which to move it. He had, however, taken notice of what had been said, and would consider whether it would not be advisable to alter the form at another stage of the Bill.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. CHANNING
said the Amendment he now moved had been pressed upon him by urban districts whose councils were autonomous authorities for the purposes of Part III., and who also had power to raise a penny rate for education other than elementary under Section 3. Some of these districts had the strongest desire to carry out a bold policy of providing for secondary education, and were willing to exercise all their powers and make all possible sacrifices for this object. But it was urged on behalf of the ratepayers that where they had paid a local rate under Section the rating power of the County Council should be exercised in the district only to supplement and expand the secondary education within such a district itself, and that the district should not be called upon to contribute also to the general expenses of secondary education throughout the county.
In page 5, line 26, at end, to insert the words, '(a) The County Council shall not raise any
sum on account of their expenses under Part 11. of this Act within any urban district the council of which is an education authority for the purposes of part III of this Act, and which has levied a rate under Section 3 of this Act for the purposes of education other than elementary, save and so far as the proceeds of any such county rate may be applied for the supply or aid of education other than elementary within such urban district; and (b).'"—(Mr. Channing.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. WALTER LONG
pointed out that the Amendment, if accepted, would lead to an anomalous condition of things, because, while it would exempt Urban District Councils, the Borough Councils would be left untouched. The issue, however, was a very simple one. The principle of the Bill was that there should be concurrent powers in the councils of boroughs of 10,000 population and urban districts of 20,000 and the County Councils. But the intention of the Government had been that while those concurrent powers should be preserved, every inducement should be given to the County Councils, not only to exercise, but to exercise fully, their concurrent power, the aim being that the County Councils should be the main directing and controlling authority, while the local authority should have power, if they wished, to give special or extra aid to the development of education in their own area. Under these circumstances the Government could not accept an Amendment which would deprive County Councils of the means of doing that which it was hoped they would do.
agreed that the Amendment would strike a heavy blow at the idea of making the County Council the local education authority. It was true that he supported an Amendment to give certain large powers to the smaller boroughs, but the idea of those who supported the proposal was that of not depriving the small places of the powers they possessed, and at the same time encouraging them to exercise them in a subordinate capacity. The present Amendment would go a great deal further, and practically place the small authorities in a position of much greater independence, and reduce the 911 County Councils to the position of subordinate authorities. He did not think that was a proper thing to do, and he hoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea, District)
asked what would be the position of a borough like that of Neath, which, under Clause 3, had power to levy a rate of 1d. in the £ for the purposes of Part 11 of the Bill. Could the County Council of Glamorgan levy a rate of 2d. for similar purposes in the area of the borough of Neath, and the municipal corporation of Neath levy another rate of 1d?
MR. BRYNMOR JONES
said that in that case, if the borough of Neath raised a penny rate to develop the secondary schools within its area, they would have only a very moderate control over the action of the County Council in regard to the two penny rate. He thought that was hardly a sound position in which to leave these matters.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
pointed out that that was the law at present; it was not a change made by this Bill. The powers in regard to secondary education were concurrent in the County Council and the municipal authority.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES
said the case to which he referred was one in which there was already a rating power vested in the County Council for the purposes of secondary education quite apart from the Technical Instruction Act. In Neath they had a county school, and the borough contributed its share of the halfpenny rate under the Act of 1889. Was it a statesmanlike proposition to introduce this kind of divergence between the people who happened to live in Neath and those in, say, Briton Ferry, two places between which there was hardly any distinction to be drawn, but the latter of which did not come under Clause 3 of the Bill?
§ Mr. WALTER LONG
said that no doubt distinctions would arise as between localities which in themselves were very similar, but that question was fully 912 debated at an earlier stage of the proceedings on the Bill. These authorities and areas possessing certain powers were in existence in many cases, and in any reform it had always been found impossible to ignore them, no matter from which party in the House the reform proceeded. In this particular case he did not think Neath was in reality a sufferer. In one respect it was better off than the remainder of the district, because, although it might pay more for it, it had the power to spend money in its own interest and according to its own inclination.
§ MR. CHANNING
recognised that, after the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, it would be useless to press the Amendment. His intention, however, was not in any way to interfere with the method of control or the co-ordinating power of the County Council as regarded the general work of education, but simply to make an adjustment of the incidence of rating as between one district and another.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Elland Division of Yorkshire, was as follows:—
In Clause 13, page 5, line 26, at end, to insert '(a) the Council shall make an estimate of the amount of their expenses under this Act, and exemptions under The Agricultural Rates Act, The Tithe Rent-Charge (Rates) Act. 1899, and paragraph (b) of sub-Section one of Section two hundred and eleven of The Public Health Act, 1875, shall not apply to so much of any rate as is required to raise that amount.'
Of the next Amendment only the first line and part of the second line are in order. The portion providing that certain exemptions should not apply is not in order.
It is an Amendment of the Rating Act.
It is no use reading that. I have already given a 913 similar ruling once or twice in the course of these debates. On June 30th there were two Amendments to exactly the same effect, and I ruled them both out of order on the ground that they were Amendments, in the one case, to the Agricultural Rates Act, and in the other to the Tithe Rent-Charge Act.
§ MR TREVELYAN
pointed out that the Agricultural Rates Act provided that "the occupier of agricultural land should be liable in the case of every rate to which this Act applies." As under the present Bill a new rate was being levied, he submitted that they had the power of saying whether the Act applied or not.
It is not a new rate, it is an increase of the existing rate. That is not in order. The next Amendment of the hon. Member is in order.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
thought the local authority ought to be called upon to give an estimate of their expenses. Unless some Amendment was inserted, it would be absolutely impossible to know how the Act was working. If hon. Members opposite had confidence in the Act, it was to their interests that they should know what the schools were costing. There was at present an annual return made to the Board of Education, and it was published consequently they could easily find out what the schools were costing. They had also a system of voluntary subscriptions, but once they got the two systems mixed up it would be impossible to distinguish, except by very minute examination between the two. Consequently the advocates of the system would cast the blame for any increase in the cost of education upon the other. What possible objection could the Government have to making a clear and distinct estimate of what the expenses really were? That was all they wanted. He begged to move the Amendment standing in the name of his hon. friend the Member for the Elland Division.
In page 5, line 26. at end, to insert the words '(a) the Council shall make an estimate of the amount of their expenses meter this Act.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
(5.5.) Lose EDMUND FITLMALURICE
said he thought it was the legal duty of the Council to present an estimate of their expenditure.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
asked the Committee, in the absence of any definite assurance to the contrary, not to draw a distinction between the work of education and the other work of the county.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
asked would it be necessary in the accounts to distinguish between the provided and the non-provided schools.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
I am afraid I can hardly answer a conundrum of that kind. I should imagine that the estimate would have to be a complete one, and as the expenditure would vary, I should think that any budget to be complete must distinguish between the two. I should have thought it would have been better to leave this to the general inter pretation of the law rather than introduce an Amendment here.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said it was essential that they should know how much money was provided by the Education Department for the two purposes, which were distinct, because the management of one set of schools was in one hand and the other set in another. It was essential that they should ask the Government to impose the duty of showing the expenditure required for the existing voluntary schools and un-provided schools and also for the provided schools, otherwise the country would be quite in the dark as to how much the voluntary system cost to carry out. It would be necessary to see how the bargain now described as equitable would work out when it came to be tested by the actual facts. There was another matter which he desired to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to in regard to the Amendment. They knew that under the present law the portion of the rate which was raised for School Board purposes was separately put upon the demand note. He wished to know whether the demand note in the future would distinguish as to how much 915 was required for education. He should like, it if possible, to distinguish between the two classes of schools.
§ SIR JOHN DORINGTON (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury)
said that at the beginning of April in each year the County Council had to present a budget. In his county this budget was set out in very great detail. They knew exactly the amount they were going to spend for roads managed by themselves and for roads managed for them; and in education it would be of the greatest possible interest to know how much they were going to spend on board schools and how much on voluntary schools. At the end of the year it was quite certain they had to produce, their accounts for public inspection and he could not imagine why they should do otherwise. This was in everybody's interest. He thought the Amendment was entirely unnecessary.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES
said he wished to know exactly if in the Local Government Act of 1888 there was any absolute obligation placed upon the Council to make an estimate of the amount of their expenses under the Act.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES
said he had looked through the Act, and he did not find that any proper statutory direction had been given by Parliament in the matter. After the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carnarvon he wished to add the words, "distinguishing the amount to be expended upon schools provided and schools not provided by the local education authority."
Amendment proposed to the Amendment proposed—
In line 2, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words distinguishing, the amount to be expended upon schools prodded and schools not provided by the local education authority.'"—(Mr. Brynmor Jones.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in, the proposed Amendment."
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE
said that there was possibly a direction in the 916 Act which compelled the Council to prepare a budget. There were some Clauses which provided for special duties larger than those which existed under the Municipal Corporations Act upon the Finance Committee in all these matters. Therefore he did not think there was any doubt that under the Local Government Act there was a clear duty on the part of the County Council to prepare a budget and proper estimates. The County Council would, no doubt, pursue the same course in the future, but there could be no objection to the insertion of these words. They were all agreed that it was right and necessary that the expenditure of the provided and the non-provided schools should be carefully distinguished. Although he did not think it was necessary to insert the words, it might be that they would conduce to the clearness of the Clause, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the matter.
§ MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE
said that the words were obviously unnecessary. Under Section 74 of the Act of 1888, the County Council were bound to prepare an estimate of the expenditure for the year. Unnecessary words in any Act of Parliament were objectionable, because they gave rise to confusion. As regarded the necessity of distinguishing between the expenses caused by provided and non-provided schools, he thought they would be drafting the Act in a loose and objectionable way if they drew special attention to that and left out other items of expenditure equally important.
§ SIR CHARLES DILKE
said the whole point of this discussion lay in the Amendment to the Amendment. It was moved on the grounds admirably stated by the hon. Member for Carnarvon. With regard to the suggestion of his noble friend the Member for the Cricklade Division, he maintained that the estimate was an entirely different from the audit. The question dealt with in the Amendment was not covered by the audit at all. He thought the Amendment as amended by his hon. friend was one on which the sense of the Committee ought to be taken.
§ MR. BRIGG (Yorkshire, W.R., Keighley)
said it would be perfectly easy to separate the estimates for the two classes of schools. It would be satisfactory to know what additional expense was incurred by the new schools. He had in his possession estimates of what would be the expenditure on the voluntary schools in his district. He did not think there would be the slightest difficulty in carrying out what was proposed, and. therefore, tie Amendment to the Amendment should be inserted.
said the object of the Amendment would not be fully attained unless the estimate was not only made but published. He did not know whether or not there would be a legal obligation to publish it, but, al any rate, he supposed that any menthe of the County Council would be able to insist that there should be publication It was very important that the people who paid the county rate should know how it was applied. He did not know whether on the demand note the two classes of schools could be distinguished, but if practicable, it was desirable that the amount for each should be specified.
§ SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire. Northwich)
said the Act of 1888, to which the hon. Member for East Somerset had referred, did not apply to this particular case. He hoped the cost of the two classes of schools would he estimated separately, and that duty should be provided for in the Bill.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said an appeal had been made to the Government to accept the words of the Amendment because there might be some doubt about the Clause, or because they would make it clearer, or do no harm. He agreed with his hon. friend the Member for the Tewkesbury Division that, unless it could be clearly shown that the words in Section 74 of the 1888 Act were not sufficient for the purpose, it was undesirable and wrong to put in words simply because they might explain something to somebody which that somebody might not
§ otherwise know. The 1888 Act was perfectly clear so far as estimates were concerned, and, therefore, the existing law was sufficient. The question raised by the hon. Member for North Mon-mouthshire as to the character of the demand note was a somewhat different one. It would not be possible to enforce conditions in regard to the character of the demand note by the Amendment under consideration. All the Committee had now to consider was whether, having various ditties to perform and large expenses to incur, the County Council should, in respect of one particular detail of expenditure, have laid on them a separate duty which was not laid upon them with regard to the whole of the rest of their financial duties.
§ MR. LLOYD- GEORGE
said it was true that by the Act of 1888 the County Council was bound to prepare an estimate of the expenditure for the year, but they were not bound to distinguish between provided and non-provided schools. In the preparation of their budget all they would have to say would be that the estimate, in respect of education for the county was say £5,000, and once they had dime that they would have exhausted their function under the Section, but they were not hound to say that £10,000 would he for voluntary schools and £5.000 for provided schools. They wanted to know what these two separate systems were to cost. He thought it rather significant that the Government were not prepared to accept an Amendment that would allow the ratepayers to get at the secret of what they were paying in respect of particular schools.
§ (5.28.) Question put, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 127: Noes, 239. (Division List No. 504.)921
|Allan, Sir William(Gateshead)||Atherley-Jones, L.||Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshine)|
|Allen, Charles P(Gloue.,Stroud||Barlow, John Emmott||Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Barran, Roland Hirst||Bell, Richard|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Brigg, John||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Jacoby, James Alfred||Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Kitson, Sir James||Shackleton, David James|
|Burt, Thomas||Langley, Batty||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Caldwell, James||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Cameron, Robert||Leng, Sir .John||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Levy, Maurice||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Lewis, John Herbert||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lloyd George, David||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Logan, John William||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Lough, Thomas||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Cremer, William Randal||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||M'Crae, George||Tennant, Harold John|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)||M'Kenna, Reginald||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Thomas, Sir A .(Glamorgan, E.)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Markham, Arthur Basil||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Mather, Sir William||Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan, Gower|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)|
|Dunn, Sir William||Moss, Samuel||Tomkinson, James|
|Edwards, Frank||Moulton, John Fletcher||Toulmin, George|
|Elibank, Master of||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Wallace, Robert|
|Emmott, Alfred||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Palmer, George Win. (Reading)||Wason, Eugene|
|Fenwick, Charles||Partington, Oswald||Weir, James Galloway|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Paulton, James Mellor||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||White, Luke (York, E. R|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Philipps, John Wynford||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Pickard, Benjamin||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John||Pirie, Duncan V.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Price, Robert John||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.|
|Grant, Corrie||Priestley, Arthur||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)||Rea, Russell||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries||Woodhouse, Sir J. T(Huddersf'd|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Rickett, J. Compton||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)|
|Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Robson, William Snowdon||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Roe, Sir Thomas||Mr. Brynmor Jones and|
|Horniman Frederick John||Runciman, Walter||Mr. Trevelyan.|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Carew, James Laurence||Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.|
|Aird, Sir John||Carlile, William Walter||Doughty, George|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir, Edw. H.||Doxford, Sir William Theodore|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Cautley, Henry Strother||Duke, Henry Edward|
|Arnold-Forster, 'Hugh O.||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin|
|Arrol, Sir William||Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.||Fardell, Sir T. George|
|Balcarres, Lord||Chamberlain, Rt Hn.J.A.(Wore.||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Chapman, Edward||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r.||Clare, Octavius Leigh||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds||Clive, Captain Percy A.||Finch, George H.|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Beckett, Ernest William||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Fison, Frederick William|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Fitzroy, Hon. Ed ward Algernon|
|Bignold, Arthur||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Flannery, Sir Fortescue|
|Bigwood, James||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Flower, Ernest|
|Bond, Edward||Cranborne, Viscount||Forster, Henry William|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S.W|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)||Crossley, Sir Savile||Gardner, Ernest|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Garfit, William|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Cust, Henry John C.||Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(Cityof Lond.|
|Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'mlets|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon|
|Butcher, John George||Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cock field||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Gray Ernest, (West, Ham)||Macartney, Rt Hn. W.G Ellison||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Greene, Sir EW. (B'rySEdm'nds||Macdona, John Cumming||Rutherford, John|
|Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)||Maconochie, A. W.||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Gretton, John||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Malcolm, Ian||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn LordG(Midd'x||Maxwell, WJH. (Dumfriesshire||Sharpe, William Edward T|
|Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Haslett, Sir James Horner||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Milvain, Thomas||Smith, H C(North'mb. Tyneside|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)|
|Helder, Augustus||More Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)||Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk|
|Hickman, Sir Alfred||Morgan, David (Walth'mstow||Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset|
|Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset, E.||Morrell, George Herbert||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Morrison James Archibald||Stock, James Henry|
|Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside||Morton. Arthur H. Aylmer||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Horner, Frederick William||Mount, William Arthur||Stroyan, John|
|Hoult, Joseph||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Strutt, Hon. Charles Holley|
|Howard John,(Kent. Faversh'm||Murray, Rt HnA. Graham(Bute||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham||Myers, William Henry||Talbot, Rt Hn.J.G(Oxf'd Univ.|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Nicholson, William Graham||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Thompson, Dr. EC(Monagh'n,N|
|Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)||Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Jebb Sir Richard Claverhouse||O'Doherty, William||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Kemp, George||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Kennedy, Patrick James||Parker, Sir Gilbert||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Kimber, Henry||Parkes, Ebenezer||Valentia, Viscount,|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour||Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley||Vincent, Col. Sir C.EH(Sheffield|
|Knowles, Lees||Percy, Earl||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Plummer, Walter R.||Warde, Col. C. E.|
|Lawrence, Sir. Joseph (Monm'th||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Welby, Lt. -Col. A.C.E(Taunton|
|Lawrence, Wm, F. (Liverpool)||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.||Purvis, Robert||Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne|
|Lee Arthur H (Hants, Fareham||Randles, John S.||Williams, Rt Hn J Powell (Birm.|
|Legge, Col Hon. Heneage||Rankin, sir James||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)|
|Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Ratcliff R F.||Wilson John (Glasgow)|
|Lockie, John||Rattigan, Sir William, Henry||Wilson-Todd Wm. H. (Yorks)|
|Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Reid, James (Greenock)||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)|
|Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Renshaw, Charles Binc||Worsley-Taylor, Henry 'Wilson|
|Long, Col Charles W.(Evesham||Renwick George||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Long, Rt Hn. Walter(Bristol,S||Ridley, Hon. M.W(Stalybridge||Wylie Alexander|
|Lowther, Rt. Hon James (Kent)||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth||Ropner, Colonel Robert||Sir Alexander Acland|
|Lyttelton Hon. Alfred||Round, Rt. Hon. James||Hood and Mr. Anstruther|
Question put and agreed to.
§ (5.40.) MR. TREVELYAN
said that the omission of sub-Section (a) of tins Clause, which he proposed to move, raised a very important point in rating. He thought that. the fact that the hon. Member for East Somerset had got an Amendment on the Paper which would partly effect what he proposed to do, was sufficient evidence of its importance. The sub-Section permitted the County Council to saddle different parts of the county with separate charges for technical and secondary education, but the effect of his proposal to omit the sub-Section would be that all the expenses of higher education in the county would fall on the county rate. Many hon. Members had a great deal in common with part of the 922 speech of the hon. Member for Stretford when that hon. Gentleman said that they could not have anything more unfair than putting a national service on a small locality. What they expected from this Bill was that the County Councils and the local authorities were to be actuated by a large and energetic policy in providing secondary education throughout the county. He thought that they ought to do everything they could to induce the County Councils to adopt not merely a sectional scheme of building schools and providing secondary education, but so to lay out the counties educationally as to have them available to everyone—that was to say, 923 to afford the same opportunity to everyone in the county to obtain the same quality of teaching. As things stood at present, secondary schools were scattered over the different counties under no system, as the result of private enterprise or the historical chance of the pious founder. What was wanted was a regular system by which secondary education of an advanced kind should be available for every child in all parts of the county. He was afraid that the Government proposal to allow the county authority to put the rate for secondary education, if they pleased, upon the special localities which would be served by the secondary schools, was likely to perpetuate a sectional and parochial way of dealing with secondary education in the different counties. Every poor district would naturally resist having a secondary school if the policy was adopted of making the locality pay for the secondary rate. What was likely to happen in many counties was something of this kind; supposing a large part of the county was agricultural, and the other part urban, in the urban districts there would be a keenness a bout technical and secondary education; whereas in the agricultural districts there would be no enthusiasm at all. It was clear that, if the latitude at present given in the Bill was retained, it would be extremely likely that the policy that the County Council would adopt would be to let the urban districts rate themselves for secondary education, leaving the agricultural districts without any secondary schools at all. He wished to ask whether that was the policy which the Committee had in its mind in connection with the Bill. He did not think it was. He thought the policy enunciated by the Government was the systematic provision of secondary schools throughout the country, and he was afraid that the proposal of the Government would be to induce counties to adopt a sectional system where there was little enthusiasm about secondary education, with the result that large parts of the country would be left without any secondary education at all. There was a practical difficulty of a rather serious kind which applied equally to the proposal of the Government and to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member 924 for East Somerset. It was very easy to lay down what the boundaries of a district should be for the purposes of elementary education, as schools would have to be provided everywhere for all children, but in the case of secondary education, where there was no compulsion, the area from which any secondary-school would draw the children attending it would vary very much with its excellence. If at one period the master of the school was a bad master, it would be extremely likely that that school would only draw the children from its immediate neighbourhood, but if a better master were appointed the school would immediately begin to supply instruction to a much wider area. A very difficult practical problem would face any County Council that tried to put into operation any such Clause as was now proposed, from the very fact that it would not be able to limit the sphere of any particular school. Therefore, because it was a difficult proposal to work, and, above all, because it dictated the wrong policy to the County Councils, who ought to have a general policy for secondary education, and ought not to have the option of leaving any part of the county out of the scheme, he hoped. the sub-Section would be dropped.
In page 5, to leave out sub-Section (a)."— (Mr Trevelyan.)
§ Question proposed, "That sub-Section (a) stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said that the Government, in inserting the sub-Section, were animated by precisely the same reasons which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman as a justification for his Amendment. The hon. Gentleman said that the sub-Section would limit the power of the new local authorities in regard to secondary education and that it would retard their efforts in the right direction. He could not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There were a great many counties in Great Britain in which the population, conditions of life, and general circumstances varied enormously as between different parts of each county. The hon. Gentleman could not have had a very great experience of 925 County Council administration if he did not know that one of the greatest difficulties which County Councillors who favoured a progressive policy would have to meet would be the difficulty of those who would participate very slightly in the advantages of the new institutions, and who would be constantly urging that they ought not to be calledupon to pay for them. The hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the sub-Section imposed an absolute duty on the County Councils, whereas all it did was to give the County Councils, if they thought fit, in the interests of higher education, power to establish particular schools in particular areas, charging those areas for them. It would not prevent or interfere with the adoption of a general policy applicable to the whole county where that was thought desirable, and it did not prevent the adoption of a policy applicable to two-thirds of the county and another policy applicable to the remaining third. It should be remembered that, although a school was specially charged on the part of a county, there was nothing in the sub-Section to prevent what the hon. Gentleman desired, namely the right of an individual pupil to attend a particular school which he or his parents thought more suitable. He believed that the sub-Section was a most valuable extension of the County Councils; that it would strengthen and not weaken their hands, and enable them, in certain circumstances, where they thought it desirable, to rate a special area for a particular school; whereas, if they did not think it desirable the Act would enable them to adopt the other alternative. He thought that was a power which the County Council would find useful in certain eases, and the Government thought it desirable to leave to the County Council discretion as to which of the two alternatives they should adopt.
§ SIR CHARLES DILKE
said that the right him. Gentleman had confined himself strictly to looking at localisation as it was effected by sub-Section (a); but it ran through the whole Clause. The sub-Section raised the general principle as to whether they ought to look at the matter as a county matter or whether they ought to have different rates fir different parts of the county, each part of the county being charged in accordance with the benefits it formerly, but no longer, received.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said there was a very wide distinction between sub-Section (a) and sub-Sections (c) and (d). Sub-Section (a) dealt with future administration, whereas the other sub-Sections dealt with the existing condition of things.
§ SIR CHARLES DILKE
said that the sub-Sections dealt partly with both. What he wished to point out was that sub-Section (a) was the first sub-Section which raised the question of treating different parts of a county differently. A great many hon. Members objected to the larger areas, and would have preferred smaller areas; but that was now past; and, looking at the Bill as it stood, many hon. Members thought that there ought to be a uniform charge over the whole county. If the sub-Section were to pass, he thought it would require some Amendment; and he would propose to put in words of limitation after the word "fit," because otherwise the sub-Section might be worked in such a way as to create great injustice without anything being known about it. They had no fixed principle up to the present time in regard to the areas for either elementary or secondary education. They varied size in an almost incredible manner without any reason. It was a mere accident under the Act of 1870 that the areas were enormous in some places and quite small in others. In due present Bill, he thought they ought to look at the general interests they of the county as a whole, and treat the charge as a county charge; and with that view strike out sub-Sections (a) (c) and (d) which were inconsistent with that principle.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
said that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade stated that the Government put down the Clause with the same object his hon. friend had, namely, to encourage secondary education. But be was afraid that there was a great deal of truth in what the right hon. Gentleman said—that a great many County Councils would be by no means anxious to carry out the Act in its entirety.
§ SYDNEY BUXTON
said he understood that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that some of the County Councils would be by no means anxious to carry out the Act.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said that what he stated was that many County Councillors anxious to adopt a progressive policy would find a great difficulty in connection with districts which would derive no benefit from that policy, and would object to pay for it. In such cases, the County Council would be able to localise the expenditure, and the hon. Gentleman knew that that was frequently done.
said that if the proposal were carried out, the consent of the locality would be required for the extra rate. What he feared from the proposal, if carried, was that it would lay down the principle, which would be acted upon by all County Councils, that there was to be an extra charge thrown on the locality. It was because he had this fear that he should rote for the Amendment. If these words were left in, there would be not only the objection of a particular County Council to the adoption of the first part of the Act, but there would be the additional opposition of a particular locality owing to this charge being thrown upon them.
§ (6.5.) MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE
said he agreed, to a large extent, with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Poplar. He should be sorry to see anything done in the direction of encouraging County Councils to work the secondary part of this Act in a sectional manner. But this sub-Section was really a re-enactment of the existing law relating to technical instruction. The power had not been extensively used, but it had been used when rural distrits had come to the County Council and offered to contribute towards a technical school if the County Council would erect it in their district. He thought the hon. Member for Elland should not persist in his Amendment to strike out the sub-Clause altogether. It was most important that the area of higher education should be kept as wide and large as possible, 928 and before the sub-Section was finally passed he should be glad to see some words inserted with that object.
§ MR. EMMOTT
said the real case against this sub-Section was that put forward by the right hon. Baronet—that the areas chosen by this Bill were by no means the best that might have been chosen for the purposes of education. Some were too large and some were too small. The effect of the words in the Bill was to make a strong and distinct suggestion to the local education authority that they should differentiate in regard to the expenses of their secondary schools. In the Welsh Act, as to the working of which a good deal had been said, there was no provision of this kind, nor was any differentiation made in any particular. It seemed to him quite impossible to decide on what parishes the expenses should be charged, because, when a new school was built, the scholars attending it would come from various districts. Oldham, for instance, drew the scholars for its technical school from four counties, and how in a case of that hind was it possible to say from where the scholars would come, and what would be the expense to be charged? In his opinion the tendency of this sub-Clause would be to encourage local squabbles, and infinitely less harm would be done by leaving, it out altogether. He should therefore support the Amendment.
§ SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)
said he was strongly in favour of the Clause, which was a facilitating Clause of the greatest value. When they came to deal with such a condition of things as they found in Yorkshire, where on the one hand there was a great manufacturing district in the South and on the other there was one of our most valuable agricultural districts in the North, he did not think justice would be done to the latter unless something was done upon the lines of this sub-Section. There was the greatest difficulty at the present time in obtaining any outlay of money in remote parts where such an outlay was urgently required, and he felt sure that a provision of this kind would be of the greatest service in such an instance as he had given.
§ MR. BARRAN (Leeds, N.)
said he supported this Amendment. It seemed to him the first part of the Bill in which they came into direct contact with the question of the foreign competition which they had to meet in regard to education. It seemed to him that already in the Bill they had taken too narrow a view of 'secondary education. He would be glad if they were to treat it more on a national ground, and if a larger proportion of the expense for our secondary education were to be defrayed by. the nation, as was the case in many of the competing countries. He thought it would be very unfortunate if, instead of making it more a national question, they brought it down to be less than a county question. In Yorkshire, if they were to have effective secondary schools hey must have them in the great centres, and it would be practically impossible to locate the cost of them on different districts. The scholars would not come only from one district, and they would not return from the school only to one district. It would be a great waste of money and of energy if secondary schools were established in small centres for narrow requirements. That would necessitate an unnecessary and wasteful number of schools. The difficulty of getting these schools provided would be aggravated if there was a fear that some particular district was going to be rated for a school from which it would not receive the whole benefit. It was to the advantage of the county, and also to the advantage of the country, that they should try to draw the scholars for these secondary schools from the whole of the elementary schools of the county, and that the effect should be felt by their distributing themselves over the whole county. It was always a difficulty in our great cities to get rid of the feeling of jealousy between ward and ward; and the same difficulty would be experienced in greater force in the counties if they had to face opposition not only from one district but many districts. By compelling the whole county to take a broad view of the matter, and to concentrate their schools in the most convenient localities, irrespective of the requirements and wishes of particular districts, they would best help in meeting that competition in secondary education 930 which they in Yorkshire felt so strongly —the competition of other countries which had more of a national, and less of a local system of education than existed in England.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY,
after congratulating the hon. Member on his maiden speech, pointed out that this was a purely permissive provision, to be used only in exceptional circumstances. In normal conditions, secondary education would be a county charge; but there might be special cases where without this power of differentiation the County Council would be prevented from supplying the special want of a particular locality. In some cases, a particular part of a county had a special want. Without such a power as was here proposed, the County Council might very well hesitate to provide for that special want, because it would involve throwing upon the rest of the county an expenditure by which it did not in any way benefit. This power, however, would prevent the infliction of any such injustice.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
admitted that in some cases it might be desirable there should be a power of differentiation, but he thought it ought to be confined to capital expenditure. Under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, a common rate was levied over the whole county for the maintenance of the schools. In that there was no power of discrimination. but there was a certain amount of discrimination allowed in regard to, capital expenditure. Where a school had to be built the County Council called upon the locality to contribute something like one half of the expenditure. A secondary or technical school added to the status and position of the particular town, and even improved the value of property therein, and upon the principle of betterment the town ought to contribute a larger share of the capital expenditure than was placed on the county at large. The experience in Wales was that the scholars. were not drawn even proportionately from the town in which the school was situated. Every inducement ought to be given to have a certain number of good schools in a district rather than a multiplication 931 of small and bad ones, and the power of placing part of the capital expenditure on the town would work in that direction. Every county in Wales provided travelling scholarships, and it would be very unfair to cast upon the towns any portion of the maintenance, because, so far from getting any advantage, the burden of the cost of the travelling scholarships fell on each district equally, and there was a levelling up in those cases. If this power of levying special contributions was limited to capital expenditure, he thought it would meet the views of the majority of the Committee.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)
said that in some counties such a power as was given under this sub-Section would be altogether unnecessary, but there were other counties in which it would be eminently useful. In his own county there were strictly defined districts, each containing a large town, and in that town there was provided an excellent secondary school, which was resorted to by the children of the parishes in that particular division. Grants were made by the County Council to the districts according to their requirements. There was a clear advantage in the possession of such a power, and he should vote for it.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE
hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment. He desired to associate himself with the Attorney General in congratulating the hon. Member for North Leeds on his maiden speech, and to express the hope, winch he was sure was shared by all the Committee, that it was but the first of many admirable contributions to the debates of the House. As to the question before the Committee, he was not able to agree to some of the arguments which had been advanced. He knew from actual experience the excellent results which had been achieved in a backward county through the existence of this power of differentiation. After all, this power was only the continuation of one that already existed. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire had recently stated that he was in the proud position of representing the only 932 Parliamentary Division in England which was rated right through for the purposes of technical and secondary education. That had been done under the powers of the Technical Instruction Act. By an. arrangement between the Wiltshire County Council and al the Urban and Rural District Councils, a county rate was levied with the consent of all concerned, and as a result they had succeeded in building a set of very good secondary and technical schools, covering the whole of the district. Without this power those schools would not have been in existence. They had not, however, levied the rate for ordinary annual maintenance, but to cover expenditure on buildings, and expensive apparatus for physical and chemical laboratories, and matters of that sort. That being so, he hoped the Committee would succeed in coming to an agreement on the point, and that the Government would agree to an Amendment limiting this provision to capital expenditure. It would be a very great mistake to enable a differential rate to be levied for that purpose. He might remind the Committee that under the Act of 1891, in regard to main roads it was agreed to distribute expenditure in certain proportions amongst all the Councils concerned when it was necessary to undertake any extensive work.
§ (6.30.) MR. HERBERT LEWIS
said this was not in any sense a Party question, and the line laid down by his noble friend who had just spoken and the right hon. Member for East Somerset was one which the Committee would be wise in adopting. It had been assumed that differentiation could only take place by means of rating, but it was possible to give considerable compensation to the rural districts by giving, as was done in a large number of cases, bursaries and scholarships, and paying the cost of the travelling of the scholars to the towns where the schools existed. The system of giving help by way of capital expenditure to the towns which worked the school had proved an admirable one, but it would only increase the complexity of county accounts if the principle put forward by the Government were adopted in this case.
§ SIR JOHN DORINGTON
said he did not see why County Councils should be deprived of the liberty which he thought 933 might sometimes be usefully exercised. Generally, he thought, the special rate should be limited to capital expenditure, but there might be circumstances in which it might be very desirable that the county, as a whole, should not be so charged. They might leave that to the County Councils in their discretion. He strongly advocated the greatest possible liberty in regard to this matter. He knew a case in which, if they had had the power under the Technical Education Act to raise a special rate, they would have founded a very desirable school to the great satisfaction of the locality. He said "Why did you not levy your own rate?" and they replied "We dare not do it, but you can." He said "Yes, you ask me to levy a rate on the whole county for your benefit. If I could levy a special rate for your district, I should be willing to do so." They were afraid of their own ratepayers in their own special district, and suggested that if he had power he should levy a special rate for them. Whether in that case maintenance would he provided as well would be a matter of consideration.
asked whether the Government would assent to the insertion of words limiting the power of differentiation to capital expenditure.
§ MR. WHARTON
said he wished to suggest what might possibly be the result of this proposal. Suppose they had a very excellent school with good appliances, and the principal object was to encourage the study of engineering, and this school involved a large expenditure of capital. If the maintenance of that school was to be distributed over the whole county, would it not be rather hard that a school instituted for the benefit of one corner of the county should be paid for by the whole county The result of this proposal would be that many very excellent schools would not be maintained. In the county of Northumberland four-fifths of the county was devoted to agriculture, and the other one-fifth constituted a very wealthy miming district. Was it suggested that the other four-fifths of the county of Northumberland should be mulcted to keep up an excellent technical school for the benefit of the rich mining centre which existed in the other one-fifth of the county? He hoped the Committee would trust the County Councils in this matter.
§ MR. BRYCE
said the answer to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite was that these schools were for the benefit of the whole county, and not simply for the mining part. The students would resort to those schools from all parts of the county. If the right hon. Gentleman would only read the Report of the Commission on Secondary Education he would see that one of the things which they considered was most needed in the English counties was the establishment of central schools for the whole county, and if such schools were properly organised and placed, they would be very valuable indeed to every part of the county. It was clear that, as the county as a whole would derive the benefit, the county ought to pay. He thought the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for East Somerset rested upon a sound foundation.
§ MR. RUNCIMAN (Dewsbury)
said that in Northumberland the agricultural class were the very people who would be most likely to use the schools founded by the County Council. Furthermore, the distinction between the poor four-fifths and the rich one-fifth was really a good instance of the way inn which the wealthy portions of the county would be able to help the poor portion. There was very little reason to suppose that in the wealthy portion of the county the schools would be devoted to mining only, for no doubt many other subjects would be taught. The boys and girls who used the technical and secondary schools would be drawn from all over the counties, and it was impossible to cut up the counties of England into separate industries as would be necessary under this Clause. His hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said he thought the reason why they ought to suppress their opinions upon this question was that the majority of the Committee were against them.
§ MR. RUNCIMAN
said that all the Commissions which had sat upon this question had urged that education was a national and not a parochial interest, and he heartily endorsed the speech made by his hon. friend the Member for North Leeds. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept the modifications 935 suggested by the right hon. Member for East Somerset and limit this proposal to capital expenditure only.
§ SIR CHARLES DILKE,
in moving the next Amendment, said the danger of sub-Section (a) as it stood was that considerable injustice might be done under it without the knowledge of the locality. He thought what was being done should be in the knowledge of the locality.
In page 5, line 27, after the word 'fit,' to insert the words 'subject to notice to the minor local antherity."—(Sir. Charles Dilke.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said the words proposed by the right hon. Baronet might have a more extended meaning than appeared on the face of them. He would consider between now and the Report Stage whether the words should be introduced.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. BRYCE
said he desired to move the Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for East Somersetshire, who did not intended to propose it himself. Many hon. Members thought when they saw it on the Paper that it was an excellent Amendment. It was to insert in page 5, line 29, after "elementary," the words "and in respect of capital expenditure." He thought it could be defended very clearly on the grounds indicated in the debate on the previous Amendment. There was a fast line between capital expenditure and maintenance expenditure. Where capital expenditure was for the erection of a
§ school for the service of the place selected the charge should be borne by that place, but where a school was erected by the county authority to serve all parts of the county he thought the charge should be borne by the county as a whole.
In page 5, line 29, after the word 'elementary,' to insert the words 'and in respect of capital expenditure.'"—(Mr. Bryce.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said the objection the Government took to this Amendment was exactly the same as that which they took to the previous Amendment. They did not compel the County Council to exercise power in this direction. The sub-Section was not mandatory, but gave discretionary power to the County Council which they could exercise if they believed it would be in the interest of the education of the county. In the cases referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the. Member for South Aberdeen, where schools were provided for the benefit of the whole county, the County Council would undoubtedly, under the powers they had in the Act, he able to rate the whole area, but there might be cases in which schools of a special character were required in a particular part of the county for the advantage of the local industries, and if in such cases the whole area were rated either in respect of capital or maintenance expenditure there would be opposition raised to the scheme. The experience of his right hon. friend the Member for the Tewkesbury Division, who was Chairman of the Gloucestershire County Council, testified to the truth of what he was now saying. The Government could not assent to the Amendment.
§ (6.53.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 122; Noes, 223. (Division List No. 505).939
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead||Bell, Richard||Caldwell, James|
|Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud||Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Cameron, Robert|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Brigg, John||Causton, Richard Knight|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Broadhurst, Henry||Cawley, Frederick|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Channing, Francis Allston|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Craig, Robert Hunter|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Burt, Thomas||Cremer, William Randal|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Buxton, Sydney Charles||Dalziel, James Henry|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Levy, Maurice||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Davies.M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Lewis, John Herbert||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Dewar. John A. (Inverness-sh.||Lloyd-George. David||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Dilke Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Logan, John William||Soames Althur Wellesley|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||M'Crae, George||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Duncan J. Hastings||M'Kenna Reginald||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Dunn, Sir William||Mapping Sir Frederick Thorpe||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Edwards. Frank||Markham, Arthur Basil||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe|
|Elibank. Master of||Mather, Sir William||Tennant, Harold John|
|Evans. SirFrancisH (Maidstone||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Moss, Samuel||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr|
|Fenwick. Charles||Newnes, Sir George||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Norman, Henry||Thomson, F. W. (York, W,R.)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Tomkinson, James|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Palmer, George Wm. (Reading||Toulmin, George|
|Grant, Corrie||Partington, Oswald||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Grey. Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick||Paulton, James Mellor||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Philipps John Wynford||Wason, Eugene|
|Hayne Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Pickard, Benjamin||Weir, James Galloway|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Priestley, Arthur.||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Rea, Russell||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries||Whiteley, George (York ,W. R.)|
|Horniman, Frederick John||Rickett J Compton||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Humphreys-Owen. Arthur C.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Hutton Alfred E. (Morley)||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||Robson, William Snowdon||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Kitson. Sir James||Runciman, Walter||Woodhouse, Sir J T.(Huddersf'd|
|Langley, Batty||Samuel Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Shackleton, David James||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Leigh. Sir Joseph||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Mr. Herbert Gladstoneand|
|Leng, Sir John||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)||Mr. William M'Arthur.|
|Agnew. Sir Andrew Noel||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Aird, Sir John||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J A.(Worc.||Forster, Henry William|
|Anson. Sir William Reynell||Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton||Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Chapman, Edward||Garfit, William|
|Arnold Forster, Hugh O.||Charrington, Spencer||Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(City of Lond.|
|Arrol, Sir William||Clare, Octavius Leigh||Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Coghill. Douglas Harry||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim|
|Balcarres, Lord||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Gouloing, Edward Alfred|
|Baldwin. Alfred||Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Gretton, John|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r)||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Groves, James Grimble|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Crimps, Charles Alfred||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Crossley, Sir Savile||Haslett, Sir James Horner|
|Beckett, Ernest William||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M.M.||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Bignold, Arthur||Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham||Helder, Augustus|
|Bigwood. James||Dickinson. Robert Edmond||Hickman, Sir Alfred|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P||Hoare, Sir Samuel|
|Bond, Edward||Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield||Hogg, Lindsay|
|Bousfield, William Robert,||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Dorington, Rt. Hon. SirJohnE.||Hoult, Joseph|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Doughty, George||Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsh'm|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Duke, Henry Edward||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Egerton, Hon. A de Tatton||Hudson, George Bickersteth|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Faber, Edmund (Hants, W)||Hutton. John (Yorks, N.R.)|
|Butcher. John George||Fardell, Sir T. George||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Glasgow||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton|
|Carew, James Laurence||Fergusson, Rt. Hn, Sir J.(Manc'r||Kemp, George|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Finch, George H.||Kennedy, Patrick James|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Kimber, Henry|
|Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire||Fisher William Hayes||King, Sir Henry Seymour|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Fison, Frederick William||Knowles, Lees|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Lambton. Hon. Frederick Wm.|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)|
|Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand|
|Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H||O'Doherty, William||Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)|
|Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Stock, James Henry|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Parkes, Ebenezer||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Percy, Earl||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxf' Univ.|
|Lockie, John||Platt-Higgins Frederick||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Loiter, General Walter Erskine||Plummer, Walter R.||Thompson ,Dr EC (Monagh'n, N|
|Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.||Pretyman, Ernest George||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Lowe, Francis William||Purvis, Robert||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)||Pym C. Guy||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)||Handles, John S.||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Rankin, Sir James||Valentia, Viscount|
|Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H(Sheffi'ld|
|Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Ratcliff, R. F.||Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.|
|Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison||Rattigan, Sir William Henry||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Reid, James (Greenock)||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Remnant, James Farquharson||Welby, Lt. -Col. A. C.E (Taunt'n|
|M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Renshaw, Charles Bine||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Renwick, George||Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne|
|Majendle, James A. H||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge||Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm|
|Malcolm, Ian||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Maxwell, W. J.H.(Dumfriessh.||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Meysey-Thompson. Sir H. M.||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Ropner, Colonel Robert||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.|
|Milvain, Thomas||Round, Ht. Hon. James||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)|
|Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire||Rutherford, John||Worley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Wylie, Alexander|
|Morrison, James Archibald||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Mount, William Arthur||Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(lsle of Wight||Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.|
|Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Murray, Rt. Hn A .Graham (Bute||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Myers, William Henry||Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside||Sir Alexander Acland-|
|Nicholson, William Graham||Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)||Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
§ SIR CHARLES DILKE
said he wished to move the omission of sub-Sections (c) and (d). He believed that some of his friends attached great importance to the excision of sub-Section (e), particularly on the ground that, in their opinion, it promoted the policy of denominational schools as against provided schools. He knew that Nonconformists entertained that feeling very strongly. His own ground for the excision of sub-Sections (c) and (d) was that which had been held against sub-Section (a). He objected very strongly to the localisation of rating parish by parish the whole control had been given to the county authority. Under the scheme of the Clause they might have a rate of I s. 4d in some parishes against 4d. in other parishes. Special provision was made by the House four years ago for the poorest or necessitous school districts, and that provision would be affected by this Clause in a curious way. The Act making the grants to the necessitous school districts would be virtually repealed by the Clause as proposed, and the result would 940 be to leave a load of debt on these educational localities in the future. He maintained that there was no ground why these parishes should be punished for what was no fault of their own. Exceptionally hard eases would also arise under these sub-Sections. For instance, where two parishes had been linked together by the Board of Education for the purpose of forming a sufficiently large area for educational rating purposes, one of these parishes might be laid under a special charge while it received no benefit from it whatever. That was entirely contrary to the principle of the Bill; and the only war to get rid of this unequal treatment was by snaking a charge over the whole county instead of on parish by parish. Time operation of sills-Sections (c) and (d) would, in many parishes be regarded as an injustice, and would add to the unpopularity of the Bill.
In page 5, line 35, to leave out the words from the word part,' to the end of line 44.' —(Sir Charles Dilke.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words and the County Council' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said it was evident that the Government could not accept so very revolutionary a change as that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. What he wished was to throw upon the county at large all the cost now borne by special localities in respect to their board schools or in respect to schools which private liberality had given to the community. He could not believe that that would be a tolerable thing for a moment. The right hon. Gentleman argued that cases of injustice would happen in certain rural parishes. That might be, and on the face of it it might seem not very equitable, but that was not a system which would be encouraged by this Bill. On the contrary, the Bill provided that in the future the County Council Was only to levy a special rate upon the district served by the school, and he thought that the particular cases of hardship to which the right hon. Gentleman referred should in no way prejudice the Committee against keeping these sub-Sections. The right hon. Gentleman had argued that the necessity of charging the major part of the cost upon the locality would prove a great discouragement to the locality in building schools; but if the sub-Section had any effect at all he thought it would have an effect precisely the other way. What he wished to say was that at the present time they could not really defend in the House the equity of distributing over the whole county, not only the maintenance charge, but the capital expenditure to winch some districts were liable and others were not liable. With regard to School Board areas, at all events they would he benefited by the Bill. Their burdens were being lightened, and he thought that ought not to be accompanied by an immense imposition upon districts of the county which at present had no education rate to bear at all. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
§ MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomeryshire)
opposed the retention of this sub-Section on grounds not precisely similar. to those advanced by the right hon. Baronet. He opposed it for two reasons. In the first place he was convinced that the education of the country would be 942 better forwarded by schools provided by the local authority than by denominational schools. In the second place, and this argument was equally strong, by imposing the cost of new schools on the parish itself, they directly discouraged the improvement of the educational equipment of the comity. The great reason always put forward for establishing a voluntary school was that it would save a parochial rate, and if new buildings or efficient buildings were required in a particular district which the County Councils would be compelled to charge upon the rates, there would always be the greatest opposition to them.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Morley)
said this was a sub-Section which could not be allowed to pass without further protest. It had to be read in conjunction with Clauses 9 and 10, which, according to the First Lord of the Treasury, had been put into the Bill to remove the Nonconformist grievance. No authority was likely to put Clauses 9 and 10 into force except under the most extraordinary conditions. It was obvious that the County Council would hestitate long before they decided to erect a new school in a parish, the whole burden of the cost of which was to be put upon the parish. Certain persons in the parish would at once take advantage of the appeal to the Education Department and ask them to consider the matter, and those in favour of opening a denominational school as a day school would receive the support of the Board. He further pointed out that by reducing the period for the repayment of loans the Bill made it more difficult for the County Council to impose on parishes the cost involved in the erection' of new schools. He should support the Amendment.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
thought the sub-Section of such importance that it deserved far more consideration than it had received. If that consideration was given to it, the Committee would see how deeply this Clause cut into the very foundations of the system now being set up. A good deal had been heard as to whether it would not be better to leave this matter to the discretion of the County Councils, but now it was proposed to compel the County Councils to charge all the expense incurred by 943 them both in providing new schools and in extending old schools to the particular parish. It was hardly necessary to argue in favour of the relief of small and needy-parishes at the expense of the important commercial centres of the county. He failed to understand the distinction drawn by the Leader of the House between the equity of distributing the cost of maintenance over the whole county and that of distributing the capital expenditure over the whole county. In his opinion it would be far more equitable to put the maintenance on the particular parish rather than the capital charge. The practical effect on the education of a particular parish if this sub-section was allowed to pass would be to raise the non-ratepaying people of the parish up in arms, and they would naturally say "We will put up with the schools we have rather than bear this charge."
§ It being half-past seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again tins evening.