HC Deb 22 October 1902 vol 113 cc492-550

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

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

Clause 8:—

(3.0) MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.) moved— In page 3, line 7, after 'conditions,' to insert 'and provisions.'

The right hon. Gentleman said that 'provisions" appeared to be the more appropriate term as far as some of the items were concerned.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)

formally moved— In page 3, line 7, after 'conditions,' to insert 'are complied with.'

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BRYCE

had on the Paper the following Amendment— In page 3, line 7, at end, insert—(a) The managers or trustees of any school which, by its trust deed, is to be used for the purposes of instruction as an elementary school shall transfer the school buildings to the local education authority either by way of lease for a term of years renewable for ever or absolutely, pursuant to Section 23 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and shall not be entitled to receive any consideration for such transfer other than a nominal rent by way of acknowledgment in case such buildings are transferred by lease. Provided that such managers or trustees may reserve, out of such transfer, to trustees to be nominated by them for that purpose, the use of the school buildings when the same are not being used for school purposes, and may provide for the giving of any religious instruction, over and above that which may be given by the teachers, either before the opening or after the close, or both before the opening and after the close, of the ordinary school hours under the direction either of the last hereinbefore mentioned trustees or of such person or persons as the last-mentioned trustees may from time to time appoint.

* THE CHAIRMAN

said that this Amendment was not in order, because it would negative what has gone before. The local education authority are to maintain the schools on certain conditions, but the first condition the right hon. Gentleman proposes to insert is that the schools should cease to exist.

MR. BRYCE

said that the Amendment need not necessarily carry that interpretation. He was dealing simply with the question of the property in the schools, and the Amendment did not raise the question which the Chairman seemed to apprehend.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)

said that the phrase "provided by" was accepted, subject to a definition to be inserted later.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)

said he desired, on a point of order, to submit that the Amendment was inconsistent with words which had been already passed. They were now dealing with schools not provided by the local authority, and the effect of the Amendment, which referred specifically to Section 23 of the Act of 1870, would be to make such schools provided schools.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea, District)

said he did not think that the Attorney General could justify the point he had taken. There was nothing in the Amendment which affected the trust under which the property was held by the trustees. It was really a question as to where the legal estate in the schools should be vested; and, therefore, he submitted that the Amendment was in order.

* THE CHAIRMAN

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, because the Amendment states that any school, which by its trust deed is to be used for the purposes of instruction as an elementary school, shall be used for other purposes. It seems to me as if I had undertaken to keep something alive on certain conditions, and that the first condition I proposed was that it should be killed.

MR. BRYCE

said that the Amendment would not have that effect. It provided that the buildings should continue to be held under the trust, but in the particular manner indicated. There was nothing more in the Amendment than was in Section 23 of the Act of 1870.

* THE CHAIRMAN

I think it would convert non-provided schools into provided schools.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

asked if the Amendment would not be in order if it read that the managers "shall, if the local authority think fit." That would give the local authority power to exercise an option, and if the option were not exercised the Amendment would be necessary.

MR. BRYCE

said he would be prepared to accept that Amendment to his Amendment.

* THE CHAIRMAN

I think that would be a very fine difference. It seems to me it would be ridiculous, when defining the conditions under which a school is to be kept alive, to propose as the first condition that it should cease to exist.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he saw that point, and accepted the ruling of the Chair with reference to it. The Amendment of his right hon. friend, according to the ruling of the Chair, was, in effect, that the schools should be extinguished; but the proposal he (Mr. Lloyd-George) proposed to submit was an entirely different one. It was simply to give to the local authority the option of taking over the schools, not that the schools should be extinguished. In that case the provision would be necessary in order to conduct the schools not taken over.

MR. A. T. BALFOUR

said that if the Amendment were accepted, it would give the local authority the option of not maintaining, but destroying, the non-provided schools.

MR. BRYCE

said that his Amendment intended that non-provided schools should be maintained. The Amendment which he desired to move only related to the building—it related to nothing but the building. Consequently, what the Committee had already determined with regard to provided schools did not touch this point.

* THE CHAIRMAN

I think that if there is to be an option in the local education authority the option ought to be inserted after the words "local education authority." We had a discussion as to whether there should be an option or not when the discussion took place on the question to leave out "shall" and insert "may," and the Committee decided that there should be no option.

* MR. CORRIE GRANT (Warwickshire, Rugby)

said the Amendment standing in the name of his hon. friend the Member for the Otley Division which he proposed to move dealt with an important point, and ought to have the consideration of the House. It was— In page 3, line 7, at end insert—(a) If the managers of any such school shall not fulfil the conditions which must be fulfilled in order that the annual Parliamentary grant may be obtained, the liability of the local education authority to maintain such school shall cease, and such school shall no longer be deemed to be a public elementary school. But, before moving that Amendment, he desired to ask, upon a point of order, whether the raising of this question here would prevent the subsequent discussion which might take place upon an Amendment, which was put down upon the Paper to come in at the end of the Clause, as to the general penalties to be imposed for failing to comply with any of the conditions in Clause 8. He raised that point of order because he did not wish to exclude the discussion on sub-Section 2.

* THE CHAIRMAN

Which Amendment is the hon. Gentleman referring to?

* MR. CORRIE GRANT

said he referred to the last Amendment but one on page 42 of the White Paper, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rossendale, namely— In page 3, line 35, at end, add—(4) If the persons providing the school make default in performing the duties imposed upon them by sub-section (1) (d) of this section, the local authority may, with the consent of the Board of Education, undertake the discharge of such duties, and shall be entitled thereafter, so long as they shall think fit, to use the school buildings and premises for the purposes of a public elementary school, paying nevertheless for such use to the persons providing the school a fair rent, to be determined in case of dispute by the Board of Education, and the school shall thenceforth be deemed to have been provided by the local education authority.

* THE CHAIRMAN

It is quite clear that it would be useless to have the discussion twice over, but I must leave the hon. Member to decide whether he takes the discussion now or later. So far as the point of order goes, I see no objection to moving that if certain things are not conditions they shall be made so.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said the Committee had already passed words providing that the liability to maintain existed only so long as these conditions were complied with.

MR. BRIGG (Yorkshire, W. R., Keighley)

called attention to the fact that he also had an Amendment down on page 38 of the Paper dealing with the same matter.

MR. DUNCAN (Yorkshire, W. R., Otley)

said that, as the Amendment proposed to be moved by his hon. friend the Member for Rugby stood in his name, he would like to say that, as he understood, the conditions which had been discussed on a previous occasion were not quite the same as those in the Amendment which he had put down, but related rather to the conditions to be observed for obtaining the Parliamentary grant.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

explained that this matter also was dealt with, because the Committee passed the words "public elementary schools," and under the Act of 1870 a school ceased to be a public elementary school if the conditions necessary to obtain the grant were not observed.

* THE CHAIRMAN

That is the law as it at present exists. If a school docs not fulfil the conditions necessary in order to obtain the Parliamentary grant it ceases to be a public elementary school; therefore the Amendment is unnecessary.

MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)

submitted that the present position was that if a school violated the conditions necessary for obtaining the Parliamentary grant it did not get the grant. What happened then was that the local authority was still liable to maintain it, and the fine was upon the ratepayers, who lost the grant but had still to maintain the school.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said the words of the Section already passed made it obligatory for the local authority to maintain public elementary schools. If the conditions were not observed the school ceased to be a public elementary school.

SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

said the school would not cease to be a public elementary school simply because it lost its grant.

SIR WILLIAM MATHER (Lancashire, Rossendale)

said his Amendment carried the question much further. It provided that if a school did not obtain its grant it should still be maintained by the local authority, and so become a school provided by the authority.

* THE CHAIRMAN

That does not arise out of this Amendment. This Amendment does not alter the present state of the law, and if it does not alter the present state of the law it appears to be unnecessary. The first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Sowerby Division ought to come up as a separate question. The second Amendment has been already determined by Clause 7. The next Amendment on the Paper has also been determined by Amendment made. Then, there is an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rugby to insert, at the end of line 7, (a) The managers of the school shall make provision to the satisfaction of the local education authority for religious instruction based upon reading of the Bible: provided that no religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught or used. The Committee has already decided that the local authorities have no control over religious instruction.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

asked would it be in order for the hon. Member to move the second part of the Amendment. The first part had been disposed of but not the second, and he submitted that it would be in order to move the second part.

* THE CHAIRMAN

The local education authority would have to decide whether any "religious catechism or religious formulary" was used. That would give the control. It ought not to be inserted here.

MR. M'KENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)

said it had nowhere been decided that there should not be control over religious instruction.

* THE CHAIRMAN

That question was raised and debated on a Motion made to leave out the word "secular."

MR. M'KENNA

said that that would be complete control over religious instruction. What was proposed here was partial control.

* THE CHAIRMAN

The debate was taken upon the question whether religious and secular instruction were both to be under the control of the local authority.

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

said he rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, because he thought sub-Section (a) raised the point upon which they came to close quarters as to what was the position of the managers under this Bill. The number of managers was settled by Clause 7, but there was no definition there of the things they had power to do and what they had not power to do. That was intended to be settled by Clause 8, but the structure of the Bill had been altered by the reconstruction of Clause 7. As the Clause originally stood there was a reference to the position of the managers under the Act of 1870, but that had now disappeared from the Bill, and therefore there was no indication that the managers under the Bill were in any respect in the situation of the managers under the Act of 1870. The Act of 1870 gave no particular powers to the managers, who were usually the proprietors of the schools, and they were only in the position of private persons who earned grants by the fulfilment of the conditions proposed. The situation was now altogether altered. The managers admittedly were not managers in the sense that was understood under the Act of 1870, and it was to be regretted that the word "managers" should have been applied in this case. These persons were a totally different class of persons, with different attributes and different duties altogether. What the Committee desired to know exactly was, what were the powers of these managers, and what were their duties, and whether they had any powers or duties except those contained in Section 8. The practical working of the Bill, especially in the rural districts, would depend entirely upon the managers. Anyone who considered the character and situation of the rural schools was bound to see that the management must be conducted by the people on the spot. The education authority would meet in the county town, many miles from most of the rural schools. The Committee who were to be the legislative authority of the County Council would also in all probability meet in the county town; they could not be distributed among the thousands of rural parishes. The direction of the business of the schools would therefore have to be done by the managers. What he wanted to know was in whose hands that management was to be. With reference to the provided schools, it was entirely in the hands of the education authority, as that authority would appoint its own managers and masters. But in half the schools of England, according to the Bill, the management was not to be in the hands of persons appointed by the education authority. In his speech at Manchester, the First Lord of the Treasury, referring to the existing state of education, asked what any foreign nation would think of such a system. They would, of course, object to any system under which half the elementary schools in the country were private concerns, but they would be even more astonished that when the Government were setting up a national system of public education they did not give the education authority the right to appoint the managers and teachers in the schools. That, however, was the system proposed by the Bill. In half the elementary schools in the country the education authority, so far from having any general control, was so constituted that, in regard to religious education, it was to have no control at all. A statutory majority of the managers, appointed entirely outside the national education authority, was to deal with the question of religious education, and the education authority, both in its entirety and through its representative upon the management, was to have nothing to say in the matter. Sub-Clause (a) dealt with the managers and secular education, and the Committee were told that in regard to secular education the managers were to be under the control of the education authority. But how would the scheme actually work? The education authority was to have one representative out of six on the management. The remaining five were not to be under its control at all, and yet the education authority was said to have sole control of the secular education. The first question he desired to ask was, as the education authority was to have no right of interference with religious education, what right or authority were the private managers to have over secular education? What was to be their function in the matter? The Attorney General had said the managers would act as a whole. If they acted as a whole they would place the education authority in a statutory minority. Was it intended that the managers, who were in no respect under the appointment of the education authority, should interfere with secular education? That was really a critical question when they came to consider the meaning of the assertion that the control of secular education was in the hands of the education authority, and it was one upon which everybody wanted to be informed. This authority was not derived from anything that formerly existed, because in former times these were private venture schools, receiving certain grants on certain conditions, but in all other respects entirely their own masters. That, professedly, was not to be the case in future. There was to be a national system under a central education authority. The only way in which the education authority could have complete control was through its own agents or representatives. That control was impossible if the work was to be carried on through agents, with regard to whom the education authority had no executive power or power of dismissal. That complete control ought to be in the hands of managers representing the education authority, whereas it was obvious on the face of the Bill itself that the control was in the hands of persons not representative of the authority. But let the Committee consider how the scheme would work. The education authority would give instructions to its representatives on the management to propose certain things in regard to secular education. Suppose the management by its majority refused to accept those directions, by what right could that statutory majority dispute the instructions? By sub-Section 2 any dispute between the managers and the authority was to be referred to the Board of Education, so that the right of the managers to dispute the directions was assumed. But if the sole control of secular education was to be in the education authority, what right had those who were not representatives of that authority to interfere in the matter at all? Secular education was the main business of the school, religious education being confined to a very limited portion of school hours. If in regard to that secular education the local authority was to have undisputed and indisputable control, what were the other managers to do during the greater part of the day? What voice or authority were they to have? If the Bill intended to give the sole control to the education authority, the other managers had no business or authority whatever during the main portion of school hours. That was the religious education with which they did not allow the education authority to interfere. By what right were those persons to interfere in secular education which the Government said was to be entirely at the disposal and under the control of the education authority, and therefore their representatives and agents? The other managers were not the agents of the education authority at all. It was said that they were to carry out the instructions given to them, but those instructions ought to be carried out by the persons who were the usual channel of instruction. This involved the daily work of the secular education of the school, upon which questions would arise and must arise. He was aware that the First Lord of the Treasury had put down an Amendment in the following terms— Where the managers of a school fail to carry out any direction of the local education authority under this section as to the secular instruction to be given in the school, that authority shall, in addition to their other powers, have the power themselves to carry out the direction in question as if they were the managers. The only way in which the education authority could carry out such a direction would be for them to carry it out themselves, as if they were the managers. How were they to carry out such a direction except by an agent or a representative of their own? Who was to determine whether the managers of the school had failed to carry out that direction? How was that going to be ascertained? Was this Amendment to supersede sub-Section 2, because that sub-Section allowed a dispute to be raised upon the question of whether the directions were or were not right which were given by the education authority to the managers, and that was to go to the Education Department at Whitehall. What right had the managers to raise the question at all? If the education authority was supreme, then the directions of the representative of that authority ought to be unquestioned. When this Bill was first launched, it was said that the education authority would have sole control, and that they would be able to bring public opinion to bear as against the action of the majority of the managers, but calling public opinion to bear against the executive was not having sole control. Therefore, the whole conception of this proposal was contrary to the idea of control being given to the education authority. He had put this Amendment down in order that they might have a clear statement from the Government of what they considered to be the rights, if any, of intervention or interference on the part of any of those managers, except the representative of the Education Department with regard to secular education. There was another point which he thought had not yet received a satisfactory explanation, and that was how far the Education Department under their Code would still govern secular education in those schools. They had not yet had a clear statement upon that point. The late representative of the Education Department in this House said it was a very good thing that each education authority should form its own opinion as to the subjects to be taught. If that were so, he should like to have a clear answer upon it. In answer to an observation reminding the right hon. Gentleman of a statement he made in a speech at Bradford, he said that he wanted the education authority to have a variety in their subjects, but the Education Department would fix the standard. But supposing that the education authority fixed a very low list of subjects, was the Education Department in London to interfere with regard to the subjects taught as well as in the standards to be applied to the subjects? That was a very important matter, upon which they had not yet had any information. He wanted to know whether the authority of the representative of the education authority was to be as exclusive in respect of secular education as the authority of the denominational managers in respect of religious education? With regard to secular education, was the main business of the schools to be conducted solely under the direction of the education authority? That seemed to him to be the only condition which fulfilled the statement made by the Government which enabled them to have entire control in secular matters. Upon this Amendment he thought they ought to arrive at some conclusion on that subject, and he specially wished to know the effect under sub-Section 2 of this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman had studied sub-Section 2, and he had begun to see some difficulty in it which had induced him to put down his Amendment on page 40. He must have seen that if sub-Section 2 meant what it said, it allowed the managers, or a majority of the managers, to question upon every subject the instructions of the education authority and report to Whitehall. They had been told that this only referred to questions of secular education which trenched upon religious education. That was a very large subject. He had always regarded with the highest respect and admiration the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Education Department, but he was the child of the champion of denominationalism, and before he sat on the Front Bench he was a convinced denominationalist. That would be a great advantage to the denominational managers in matters of this kind. There was the further question of the instructions of the Education Department with regard to secular education. That was a question upon which they ought to have a distinct declaration. It seemed to him that such a proceeding as he had alluded to was absolutely inconsistent with the declaration in Clause 5 of the Bill that the education authority was to be responsible for and have control of all secular education in public elementary schools. If the Government intended that the majority of the denominational managers was to have any voice whatever in the secular instruction and management of the school, it would be an absolute contravention of the declaration in Clause 5, and the instruction to them to carry out directions of the local education authority meant nothing at all. He moved the Amendment in order that the Committee might test the validity of the assertion, that the absolute control of secular education would be left to the education authority.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 8, after the word 'managers' to insert the words 'or managers representing the local education authority.'

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was largely directed towards extracting information from the Government on a point which I honestly thought had been explained, and admirably explained, over and over again. I am not fortunate in my attempts to make the right hon. Gentleman understand the position of the Government, but I will make one more effort, to the very best of my ability, to give a clear and popular account of the position in which I think this manager question stands. Let it be remembered that the Government, in taking up the problem of education, found a system based on the Act of 1870, under which Act there are two kinds of managers. There are tire managers of the board schools and the managers of the voluntary schools. These two sets of managers had separate powers and occupied different positions. The managers of the board schools were the creatures of the School Board, could be removed by the School Board, and had to carry out the directions of the School Board. On the other hand, the managers of the voluntary schools had, subject to the Education Department, not only the management but the control of their schools. Well, we had to deal with the two different classes of managers we found in existence. As regards the managers of the School Boards, we have left them practically as we found them, putting in the place of the School Board the education authority; but the managers of the provided schools will bear the same relation to the education authority as the managers under the School Boards now bear to those School Boards. Very well, so much for the managers of the provided schools. Now I come to the other description of managers—the managers of the voluntary schools. Their powers which we found in existence we have not left unchanged by this Bill. On the contrary, we have excised from some of those powers certain very great responsibilities, and we have excised from further powers certain large fragments. We have left to them the appointment of teachers, as the House knows, because we regard that as essential to the denominational character of the school, which we mean to preserve. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like that arrangement. They desire not to preserve the denominational character of the school, but I am not going to enter into that at present. We think it ought to be preserved, and we think a convenient way of preserving it is to leave one essential—the appointment of the teachers—to those managers, and to see that among the managers there shall be a majority representative of the denomination. But we have taken away from the managers in the first place the right to be a homogeneous body representing the denomination, because we have provided that two of their number shall not necessarily represent the denomination at all, but shall, on the contrary, represent either the major or the minor local authority. We have, in the second place, taken away from them the control of secular education, and it is on that, apparently, that the right hon. Gentleman's mind is so deeply exercised. If I rightly apprehend him, he feels two great difficulties on that subject. One is the reference to Whitehall, which he appears to think is given under sub-Section 2, and which causes him the greatest anxiety—anxiety so great that I do not think he has addressed us once on any topic in connection with the Bill without referring to it. His other anxiety is lest the control we have avowedly given to the education authority over secular education should, though strongly given in words, be ineffective in fact, and it is in these circumstances that the education authority have to act through a body of managers, of whom a majority would represent the denomination. The difficulty as regards the reference to Whitehall will, I venture to think, be more properly dealt with when we come to sub-Section 2, instead of in this preliminary discussion. Let me repeat now what I stated before, that without going into minutiae and refinements, the broad principle we desire to see adopted with regard to secular education, is that the education authority shall be the sole controlling power, subject, in the first place, to the minimum requirements laid down by Whitehall, which, I presume, the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to abolish, and which I think no Gentleman on that side of the House who supports him wishes to abolish. In the second place, the appeal to Whitehall is not on the subject of the control of secular education, but on any dispute as to whether a thing is secular education or not.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

That is not in the Clause.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It is in. I am, in response to the right hon. Gentleman, giving the view of the Government. I am endeavouring to give a general view of our intentions. We desire within the sphere of secular education that the education authority shall be supreme, but it is evident that, as you preserve the denominational character of the school—and we mean to preserve that, it is part of our policy—there might conceivably be a collision between the managers and the education authority in which the managers would say, "We are quite willing to obey the education authority in regard to matters of secular education, but this is going beyond their province, and they are trespassing into the region of religious education." Hon. Gentlemen may object to that view, but I think that that may happen, and we think that the House cannot leave it there. We think you cannot make the education authority judge in its own case as to the exact limitation of power, and you must, therefore, give it to some third party, and we say that you should give it to the Education Department. Therefore, I hope I have made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that the reference to the Education Department is not as to the manner in which the education authority is controlling secular education, but only as to whether the controlling authority, as regards secular education, is or is not trespassing beyond its legal function. Then I come to the second difficulty. The second difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman, if I may respectfully say so, is the only one which seems to be distinctly and clearly germane to the Amendment put on the Paper. It is as to whether those managers, being by hypothesis, as regards two thirds of their number, representative, not of the education authority but of the denomination, will prove the proper instrument or machine for carrying out the directions of the education authority as regards secular education. Well, I do not think the danger is a real or practical danger, but if it be, I venture to say that it will be absolutely provided for by the Amendment I have put on the Paper, and to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. I think that is a much better method of dealing with it than the one he has proposed.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was to be a substitute for sub-Section 2.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It wants a much more lucid power of expression than I have to make my statements clear to the right hon. Gentleman. I have explained that sub-Section 2 is not intended to interfere with the power of the education authority as regards secular education at all. Therefore, my Amendment on page 40 has nothing whatever to do with sub-Section 2. It is not a substitute for it, but is in addition to it, and it is, in my opinion, a better way of meeting the difficulty than that of the right hon. Gentleman. While I do not describe the precise methods by which the education authority is to carry out its views, the right hon. Gentleman, if I understand him rightly, says that it is to be done by means of two managers who do not necessarily belong to the denomination.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

Two managers who are appointed by the education authority.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

They are not appointed necessarily by the education authority.

SIR. WILLIAM HARCOURT

My Amendment is that they are to be "managers representing the education authority."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That is not the most convenient way. I daresay it would produce a great deal more friction. I venture to think that my way of dealing with the matter is the better way, but I will defer the discussion of it until I move the Amendment.

MR. BRYCE

said that the First Lord had given what he said was a popular sketch of this Clause and of his proposed Amendment. When he listened to the right hon. Gentleman the impression which was on his mind was "What an extraordinary, ridiculous, cumbrous, inconvenient system! He could not conceive a system which, in working, would be more certain to lead to friction, difficulties and delays. The right hon. Gentleman began by telling the Committee that there were two sets of managers—the managers of the School Boards, and the independent managers of the voluntary schools. As regarded the School Board managers the change which the right hon. Gentleman had made was enormously for the worse, because the School Board system was perfectly convenient in towns where the School Board was at hand, and could keep the managers under its hand, and pull them up if they were doing wrong. That was not a system which could be put in force where the managers were at a great distance, and where the education authority could not keep them under its direction in the same way as in a town. Therefore, as regarded provided schools the change was clearly for the worse. Then, when they came to the non-provided schools, the right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that the arrangement he proposed was adopted in order to secure denominational control, and therefore the managers were to retain the appointment of the teachers. What did that mean? It meant that they were to have a second set of managers who were neither to be independent nor dependent—monstrous creatures combining something of both independence and dependence. They were to split up education and make a difference between religious and secular instruction, and appoint a set of managers with power over the one and not over the other—a set of managers who by the very terms of their appointment must be divided into two hostile factions. They would be a semi-independent body with dependence in name on the local authority at a distance, but they would be practically independent, not only because one part of their functions had been withdrawn from the local authority, but because it would be impossible for the local authority to exercise effective control over them. Now surely the simple course would have been to do one of two things—either to have the managers entirely independent or else a smaller area should have been chosen. Either they could have taken an area in which they would have had an independent body of managers, such as in the existing areas, or else have made the managers absolutely dependent on the central authority for all purposes. There was a large range of questions which lay on the borderland of secular and religious instruction, and the Clause, as proposed to be amended, provided for friction between the two sets of authorities. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to his Amendment, which it would be out of order to discuss at present, but that Amendment did not appear to him to meet the difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman only said that if the managers did not obey the local authority they would be superseded. But what machinery was there in the Bill to do that? The local authority would have to act through these managers—that was, to tell the managers who were already disobedient to obey the orders which they disobeyed, or that the local authority would carry out the orders themselves. Who were "they"? They were managers in office at a distance, it might be, of forty miles from the education authority which had no direct power to compel them to carry out their orders. He thought, in the whole circumstances, the suggestion of his right hon. friend, that the local authority was to depute managers as their agents to compel the other managers to carry out their orders, was a perfectly practical suggestion. The difficulty was one which the right hon. Gentleman had not faced. It was a difficulty inherent in the nature of the case, and inherent in an attempt to set up an authority which was to be at the same time independent and dependent. The right hon. Gentleman said that they must not make the education authority the judge in their own case. What did that imply? It implied that the managers were not to be under the control of the education authority.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said ho had never denied or concealed that the Government meant the managers to have control over religious education, which was outside the sphere of the education authority. There were two spheres of education—religious and secular.

MR. BRYCE

said he denied that these spheres could be separated as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. The teachers were to give both religious and secular instruction, and it would be perfectly impossible to prevent questions arising constantly in which the two spheres would collide, and in which the managers would defy the local education authority. The control of the education authority would not be an effective control, and that was the reason why, from the first, he had felt that the plan of the right hon. Gentleman could not be a final settlement. It would be impossible for the education authority to give the kind of control which was needed. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the religious question as the only question in which difficulty could arise, he forgot all the other items of Clause 8. Controversies would arise about the accounts, with regard to repairs and many other points; and, therefore, by providing, under sub-Section 2, an appeal on all questions—because its terms were perfectly general—they were encouraging the managers to set up their authority against the local education authority. Therefore he could not receive either Clause 8 as it stood, or as amended by the right hon. Gentlemen, as meeting the difficulty. He believed that when they came to sub-Section 2 they should find that the difficulties would be greatest in regard to the financial part of the work, because the managers would have no motive of economy. If all the managers were to be appointed by the education authority, they could choose men who would carry out economic administration; but the majority would be independent, and not liable to be dismissed like School Board managers. Therefore, there was neither one security nor the other. He knew that that was very largely in the minds of the County Councils. He had received many communications pointing out that the greatest difficulty in the Bill would be the impossibility of enforcing economic administration on the managers. It was quite impossible that a proper control over expenditure would be effective. The only way that could be done was to make the managers absolutely dependent on the education authority, and until that was done the system proposed in this Clause would remain a standing difficulty and an obstacle to the proper working of the Bill.

(4.25) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that he had made an explanation which went beyond the rigid limits of the Amendment, but he hoped that that would not be taken as an excuse for discussing the whole matter.

* SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

said he wished to ask the leave of the Committee to make a few remarks on what had fallen from the Leader of the House, in what the right hon. Gentleman called his popular exposition of the working of the Bill. The words of sub-Section 2 raised the question of how the control of education was to be carried out. The right hon. Gentleman was no doubt perfectly clear as regarded what was in his own mind, but he was not clear as to what was in the Bill; and that was one of the great difficulties hon. Members were in, and which led to anticipations of future confusion. The right hon. Gentleman in his popular exposition spoke of the managers as if they were in some degree the present managers, rather than a new body. What were they now? In the ordinary rural parish in a county in the South of England these gentlemen were acting under trust deeds which made them necessarily communicant members of the Church of England. They were four in number including the Chairman, but, under the Bill in the agricultural counties, they would be strengthened to five communicants of the Church of England by the election of one by the County Council. The appointment of the head master of the school was left in the hands of the managers—which meant really the Chairman. Up to the present time the managers had never been called together, and the Chairman and the head master conducted the whole business of the school. The managers were only called in to sign the accounts of the school. How then was the county authority to be maintained? The finances of these schools were not of a character for which the county authority would like to be responsible, and they would have to be closely scrutinized? But how was the authority of the education authority to be exercised? In the ordinary rural county when a conflict came it would be between the majority of five managers, who were communicant members of the Church of England, and the representative of the Parish Council. The right hon. Gentleman assumed in his popular exposition that, while he gave the appointment of the teachers to the majority of the managers, in every other matter the education authority would be supreme; but they did not find words to that effect in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman arbitrarily told the Committee that his opinion was perfectly clear that, for example, the county authority would have the choice of the books to be used in the school, and yet the managers, and not the county authority, were to have the choice of the teachers. But that was not in the Bill itself. The right hon. Gentleman had so clearly expressed his view as to the limitation being expressed in the sub-Section which had been asked for on the previous day, that it was impossible to say which power was a part of secular control and which was not. It was a difficult matter to discuss, and he would not anticipate the discussion. Obviously, the question of finance was the greatest difficulty that would arise.

MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)

said a large number of the schools now managed by the School Boards were leased to them for short periods. The moment the School Boards were swept away, those buildings would revert to the educational bodies which built them. His point was that those buildings for some time past had been maintained, and their furniture and fittings would have been provided, by the local authority. Upon the question of the administration of these adjuncts to education, a dispute might arise, which dispute would be settled by the four denominational managers appointed under the Bill. He thought such a dispute ought to be settled not by the representatives of the denominational managers, but by the local authority who had had to provide the school. In the small country School Board area in which he resided there was a great apprehension as to what would occur when these schools, which had been filled up and maintained by the School Board, were handed over to the control of the denominational owners.

* THK CHAIRMAN

That point does not seem to arise here.

MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE

thought it arose on that part of the Amendment that, in the event of any disputes arising they should be settled by the representatives of the local authority. He wished them to have the authority.

* THE CHAIRMAN

That point is not covered by this Amendment; it will require an Amendment dealing with that class of schools.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid.)

said that nothing could be clearer than the statement of the Prime Minister as to the intention of the Government, but he desired to emphasise what had been said by his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, that the intention of the Government was not put into the Bill. Everybody knew that when the Bill became an Act it would be construed from what appeared on the face of the Act itself, and no one was allowed to go behind it and look into the statements of the right hon. Gentleman to see what was intended. There were two ways in which the matter might be dealt with. The first was by limiting the power and authority to be given to the education authority and giving greater powers to the managers; the second, and he submitted the better way, would be to give uncontrolled power to the education authority, and carve out of that the powers to be given to the managers. The powers of control over the denominational schools were in the hands of trustees, and the intention was that the trustees should no longer bind the new statutory body if it was a new statutory body subordinate to the education authority. If that was so it ought to be made plain in the Act what the powers of the new statutory body were to be. That was done in the Act of 1870, and it should be borne in mind that in Clause 7, as altered, there was no reference to the Act of 1870, although there was a reference to it in the clause as originally drawn. He did not know whether this new statutory body, the new managers of the "not provided" schools, were to have any of the powers which managers had under the Act of 1870. In that Act there were powers given to the managers of the denominational schools to require a public inquiry when the Education Department said there was not accommodation enough for the education of the children. Did that power vest in this new statutory body? He did not know, but if it did it ought to appear in the Bill. They also had powers in certain cases to acquire land under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. Were all these powers to be vested in this new statutory body? He did not know. It had been stated that they did, but the Bill did not say so. It would be quite as open to the Prime Minister to say they had to fix the salaries of the teachers. Nothing was said about that, but it was well known that the intention of the Government was that the local authority should fix the salaries of the teachers, and therefore that would not come within the power of this new statutory body. Nothing had been said about the appointment of the teachers. If they were to have the control of the appointment of the teachers, it would appear to follow that they should also control the salary of the teachers; but the fact of the Prime Minister having stated the intention of the Government showed that the powers of I this new statutory body were absolutely undefined. The Government having created this body had not defined its powers. According to the provisions of the Bill it was open to anybody to argue that they had or had not the appointment of the teachers or the fixing of their salaries, and it was therefore necessary that these powers should be defined.

MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN

maintained that there ought to be a clear understanding of the principle on which they were going to proceed. He thought there ought to be a complete transfer of all the schools to the new authority. At present the Bill left the matter absolutely vague. The draftsmen of the Bill ought to let the Committee know clearly what the authority was. If these schools and managers were to occupy their present position, except so far as the position was modified by the modifications of the Statute, it would be necessary to discuss at length every point with regard to the rights of managers. If on the other hand it was proposed to transfer these properties to the local education authority, then the attention of the Committee could be devoted to the Clause which it would be necessary to insert in the Bill to preserve the right of a denomination to deal with the school simply for the purpose of giving denominational teaching.

MR. LLYOD-GEOEGE

said the Committee could not discuss in detail the matters which the Prime Minister had touched upon, but there were one or two particular questions upon which they were entitled to get an answer. The Committee were on the threshold of the position of the managers in their relation to the education authority, and they ought to know what were the views of the Government. From the statement of the Prime Minister they presumably did know, but the right hon. Gentleman's statements were not upheld by the Bill as drafted. He was sorry to think that the Prime Minister had gone back upon a statement he made yesterday, and rather suggested now that there should be an appeal not only on the question of ultra vires but also upon such matters as repairs and structural altera-ations. That showed that the Prime Minister had not clearly thought out in his own mind what the relations were to be between the managers and the local education authority. As far as secular instruction was concerned, would the control of the local education authority over the managers be as complete as the control of the same authority over the managers of board schools?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

If I understand the question, the hon. Member asks me whether the education authority will have the same complete control over secular education in the non-provided as in the provided schools. I answer in the affirmative. If he asks me whether the control is the same in both cases, it clearly is not, because they cannot dismiss the foundation managers.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that that was a point they could not now discuss. He wanted to know whether the managers were merely the agents of the education authority in the case of secular education. Supposing the education authority were not satisfied with the staff of the denominational managers, could they order them to recast the staff?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

And if they refuse, the new Amendment of the Prime Minister will come into operation, and the managers can be suppressed.

MR A. J. BALFOUR

So far as I understand the question, the education authority can say "We think your teachers are inefficient."

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

Or unfit.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes. "You must dismiss them, or some of them, because they cannot carry on the secular work of the school," and they can call upon them to reorganise their staff. If they refuse, then the education authority can do as it pleases without them.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

submitted that that could not be done, except by some such means as the Amendment before the House proposed. Then there was the case of promotion. If a teacher did his work extremely well, could the education authority order his promotion? That was a very important question. The Prime Minister had said the education authority was given complete control over secular, and the managers over religious, education, but who was to have control over subjects lying between the secular and religious spheres, as, for example, what had been called civics, or the teaching of the duties of citizenship? The Prime Minister must surely begin to realise that the whole scheme of the Bill as it stood now must break down in practice. It was a dual system, it would lead to friction and quarrels, and the whole thing would end in confusion.

(4.55.) SIR ROBERT FINLAY

expressed the opinion that in practice the scheme would work with great smoothness. All the difficulties started by learned Gentlemen opposite did credit to their ingenuity, but they were not difficulties that would be experienced in practice, He thought that the Opposition had no reason to complain of any want of definiteness on the part of the Government in answering the point which had been raised. The hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan said it was extraordinary that there was nothing in the Bill to show that the managers might not fix the teachers' salaries. It was clear that the hon. Member had not read the words which had been inserted at the opening of the Clause, stating that the local education authority should have control of all expenditure required for the maintenance and efficiency of all public elementary schools "other than expenditure for which, under this Act, provision is to be made by the managers." If those words did not give the fixing of the teachers' salaries to the education authority, he really did not know what words would. Hon. Members opposite had presented a succession of difficulties in the way of understanding the Bill. He had the greatest respect for the powers of mind and intellect possessed by those hon. Members, but if those powers were devoted to not understanding the Bill, he defied any draftsman to make the measure clear. The Amendment proposed that in the event of the managers not carrying out the directions of the local authority the manager or managers representing the authority should carry them out. But suppose the representative of the minor authority was in entire sympathy with the foundation managers: surely it would be most unreasonable to say that the local education authority, if the managers as a whole were recalcitrant, were to be compelled to put the carrying out of their directions into the hands of two men, one of whom might have declared himself to be in entire sympathy with the foundation managers.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The Attorney General does not understand what I meant by the Amendment. I did not mean to include anybody who was not a representative of the Board of Education. I put in the words "manager or managers" because it is not yet determined how many representatives of the education authority there should be. My Amendment proposes that the carrying out of the directions of the authority should be in the hands of a manager or managers representing the education authority.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

accepted the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and was sorry if he had misunderstood him. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to make it compulsory on the education authority to carry out their desires through their own representative—if there was only one—on the board of managers. Surely it would be inexpedient to make that compulsory. That representative might not be the fittest person for the purpose, and he certainly failed to see the sense of so tying the hands of the authority. They were to have the right of carrying out their directions through anyone they chose to appoint as their agent. Why in the name of common sense should they be restricted to choosing this one man? The proposal was not a good one, and he hoped the Committee would not accept it.

MR. M'KENNA

said the First Lord of the Treasury had now made a statement as accurate as his speech at Manchester was misleading. The right hon. Gentleman now laid the power of the voluntary managers on the trustees; they were to have the same powers as the old managers, subject to such deductions as were made under the Bill. A day or two previously the First Lord had declared a certain amount to be unnecessary because the local authority had control over the expenditure as the Clause then stood, but the Attorney General had now stated that what gave that control were words which had since been added.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

I never said anything in the slightest degree resembling that. What I said was that these words made it perfectly clear beyond the risk of any possible misapprehension.

MR. M'KENNA

said they now came to the excised part of the powers of the managers. They were now to obey the directions of the local education authority. He submitted that those directions would represent no greater power than the Board of Education at present possessed. The Board could already insist upon the qualification of teachers, require particular subjects to be taught, demand a certain standard of efficiency, and insist on the suitability of the buildings and the sufficiency of the accommodation. Those were the subjects, and those only, which would come under the definition of "matters relating to secular education." The great matter relating to secular instruction, viz., the appointment of the teacher to give that instruction, was admittedly to remain in the hands of the voluntary managers. Did the sub-Clause mean that the local authority could regulate the duties of the teachers? Was it proposed to give the voluntary managers a right of appeal to the Board of Education on the question of financial control?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I rise to order. I have done my best to make the position of the Government clear, and, perhaps, in doing so travelled somewhat beyond the Amendment Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to go on discussing questions which have nothing whatever to do with the Amendment?

MR. M'KENNA

said he was only endeavouring to get at the facts, but if the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to answer the question, he would not press it. The position would be that the education authority would have only such powers over education as now belonged to the Board of Education. They would have no control as to the appointment or the duties of the teachers; they would have no real control over the school at all.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

As I understand the matter, the Amendment is one, not to say in what respect the control of the education authority should exist, but to improve the machinery by which it should be exercised. The hon. Member is discussing the area of the control, not the machinery.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

My Amendment is not a question of ma chinery exclusively.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Entirely.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Not so. It is a complaint that under the present system the control itself is too limited.

MR. M'KENNA frankly

admitted that the speech he wished to make went beyond the strict terms of the Amendment, but he was only following the lines taken by previous speakers.

* THE CHAIRMAN

The discussion has taken a somewhat wide range, but I thought it had narrowed down again, and I was hoping it would remain within the narrower limits. It is desirable that it should do so.

MR. M'KENNA

said he would confine himself to the single point that the local authority, in case the managers disagreed, were to operate through the single managers appointed by them. The authority, having the power of the purse, could stop the salary of any teacher, but the managers could refuse to obey the local authority, and retain the teacher in their employ, although he would not be able to recover his salary. The Amendment proposed that in such a case the power of the existing foundation managers should be ousted, and the manager appointed by the authority have sole control. That was essential. It was perfectly clear that, if the scheme was to be carried on at all, power must be given to somebody—whether this particular manager or someone else—under the control of the education authority to dismiss the teacher and pay his salary to some suitable person. He should therefore support the Amendment.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said he wished to say a word on the merits of the Amendment itself. He thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be calculated to defeat the original purpose of the Bill. He did not think the Bill would work if this Amendment were accepted, for the object of the Government was to bring the control of education under the local

authority; they had already provided for the managers of the schools; there was to be the Education Committee, of which they knew nothing; the Education Department were to have certain directing powers; and now this Amendment introduced a fifth authority. He aw no reason for setting up a representative of the local authority, which would impair the original purpose of the Bill, namely, the handing over of education to a single authority. He agreed that they should entrust the local authority with all the powers they could. As to the passing of the Bill, he had rarely seen such slow progress made with a measure, and it did not look as though the Bill was meant to pass. He would certainly commend to His Majesty's Government the advisability of being conciliatory and make all the concessions they could which would not affect the principle of the Bill. Although he wished to be conciliatory, he should be unable to support the present Amendment.

(5.18.) Question put—

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 140; Noes, 256. (Division List No. 404.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Duncan, J. Hastings Kitson, Sir James
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead Dunn, Sir William Langley, Batty
Allen, Charles P Glouc., Stroud Edwards, Frank Layland-Barratt, Francis
Ashton, Thomas Gair Emmott, Alfred Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington
Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan Leigh, Sir Joseph
Barlow, John Emmott Farquharson, Dr. Robert Leng, Sir John
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. Levy, Maurice
Beaumont, Went worth C. B. Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lewis, John Herbert
Bell, Richard Fuller, J. M. F. Lloyd-George, David
Black, Alexander William Goddard, Daniel Ford Lough, Thomas
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Grant, Corrie M'Kenna, Reginald
Brigg, John Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick) M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin
Broadhurst, Henry Griffith, Ellis J. Mansfield, Horace Rendall
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Markham, Arthur Basil
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William Mather, Sir William
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Harmsworth, R. Leicester Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen
Burns, John Harwood, George Morley, Charles (Breconshire)
Burt, Thomas Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- Morley, Rt Hon. John(Montrose
Buxton, Sydney Charles Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D. Moss, Samuel
Caine, William Sproston Helme, Norval Watson Newnes, Sir George
Caldwell, James Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Norman, Henry
Cameron, Robert Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Holland, Sir William Henry Nussey, Thomas Willans
Causton, Richard Knight Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham
Cawley, Frederick Horniman, Frederick John Partington, Oswald
Craig, Robert Hunter Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Paulton, James Mellor
Cremer, William Randal Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Crombie, John William Jacoby, James Alfred Philipps, John Wynford
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Joicey, Sir James Pickard, Benjamin
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a Pirie, Duncan V.
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Jones, William(Carnarv'nshire Price, Robert John
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth Rea, Russell
Reckitt, Harold James Stevenson, Francis S. Weir, James Galloway
Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries Strachey, Sir Edward White, George (Norfolk)
Rickett, J. Compton Taylor, Theodore Cooke White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Rigg, Richard Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E. Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) Whitley, J. H. (Halitax)
Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Roe, Sir Thomas Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan, Gower Williams Osmond (Merioneth)
Runciman, Walter Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.
Schwann, Charles E. Tomkinson, James Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) Toulmin, George Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Shackleton, David James Trevelyan, Charles Philips Wood house, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Wallace, Robert Yoxall, James Henry
Shipman, Dr. John G. Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Soares, Ernest J. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. Mr. Herbert Gladstone
Spencer, Rt Hn C. R.(Northants Wason, Eugene and Mr. William M 'Arthur
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Hare, Thomas Leigh
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Harris, Frederick Leverton
Aird, Sir John Compton, Lord Alwyne Haslam, Sir Alfred S.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Hay, Hon. Claude George
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Healy, Timothy Michael
Arrol, Sir William Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cubitt, Hon. Henry Helder, Augustus
Bailey, James (Walworth) Cust, Henry John C. Henderson, Sir Alexander
Bain, Colonel James Robert Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hickman, Sir Alfred
Baird, John George Alexander Davenport, William Bromley- Higginbottom, S. W.
Balcarres, Lord Denny, Colonel Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.
Baldwin, Alfred Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Hogg, Lindsay
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Digby, John K. D. Wing field- Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Hornby, Sir William Henry
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. Horner, Frederick William
Banbury, Frederick George Doughty, George Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Hoult, Joseph
Bartley, George C. T. Doxford, Sir William Theodore Houston, Robert Paterson
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Duke, Henry Edward Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Durning Lawrence, Sir Edwin Hudson, George Bickersteth
Bignold, Arthur Dyke, Rt. Hon, Sir William Hart Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)
Bigwood, James Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse
Blundell, Colonel Henry Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W. Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.
Bond, Edward Faber, George Denison (York) Johnstone, Heywood
Boulnois, Edmund Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Kemp, George
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.
Brassey, Albert Finch, George H. Kennedy, Patrick James
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Fisher, William Hayes Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.
Brotherton, Edward Allen Fison, Frederick William Kimber, Henry
Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh. FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- King, Sir Henry Seymour
Brymer, William Ernest Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Knowles, Lees
Bullard, Sir Harry Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Butcher, John George Flower, Ernest Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow Forster, Henry William Lawson, John Grant
Carew, James Laurence Foster, Philip S) Warwick, S. W. Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Galloway, William Johnson Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Garfit, William Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) Godson, Sir Augustus Fred'rick Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Graham, Henry Robert Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Lowe, Francis William
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Chamberlain, Rt Hon J A (Worc. Greene, Hemy D. (Shrewsbury Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Chapman, Edward Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs. Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth
Charrington, Spencer Greville, Hon. Ronald Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison
Churchill, Winston Spencer Groves, James Grimble Macdona, John Cumming
Clare, Octavius Leigh Gunter, Sir Robert Maclver, David (Liverpool
Clive, Captain Percy A. Hain, Edward M'Arthur Charles (Liverpool)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hall, Edward Marshall M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E(Wigt'n
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd Milvain, Thomas
More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Morrell, George Herbert Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Thorburn, Sir Walter
Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Thornton, Percy M.
Myers, William Henry Robinson, Brooke Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Newdegate, Francis A. N. Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Tritton, Charles Ernest
Nicol, Donald Ninian Ropner, Colonel Robert Valentia, Viscount
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter Vincent, Col. Sir C E H. (Sheffield
Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Round, Rt. Hon. James Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Parker, Sir Gilbert Royds, Clement Molyneux Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.
Peel, Hn Wm Robert Wellesley Rutherford, John Wanklyn, James Leslie
Pemberton, John S. G. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n
Percy, Earl Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.
Pierpoint, Robert Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight) Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund, Lyne
Platt-Higgins, Frederick Seton-Karr, Henry Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Plummer, Walter R. Sharpe, William Edward T. Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew) Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord
Pretyman, Ernest George Simeon, Sir Barrington Willox, Sir John Archibald
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Pym, C. Guy Smith, H C (North'mb, Tyneside Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Smith, James Parker (Lanarks Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Randles, John S. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Rankin, Sir James Spear, John Ward Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Ratcliff, R. F. Stanley, Edwards Jas. (Somerset Younger, William
Rattigan, Sir William Henry Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Reid, James (Greenock) Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Remnant, James Farquharson Stone, Sir Benjamin TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Renwick, George Stroyan, John Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Richards, Henry Charles Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
(5.32.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the words of the Clause to the word "school," in line 10, inclusive, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question, 'That the words of the clause to the word "school," in line 10, inclusive, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 254; Noes, 143. (Division List, No. 405.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Brymer, William Ernest Cust, Henry John C
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Bullard, Sir Harry Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Aird, Sir John Butcher, John George Davenport, William Bromley-
Anson, Sir William Reynell Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow Denny, Colonel
Arkwright, John Stanhope Carew, James Lawrence Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-
Arrol, Sir William Cavendish, R F. (N. Lancs.) Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Dorington, Rt, Hon. Sir John E.
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy Cayzer, Sir Charles William Doughty, George
Bailey, James (Walworth) Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Bain, Colonel James Robert Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Baird, John George Alexander Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. Duke, Henry Edward
Balcarres, Lord Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A (Worc. Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin
Baldwin, Alfred Chapman, Edward Dvke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart
Balfour, Rt Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Charrington, Spencer Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds Churchill, Winston Spencer Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Clare, Octavius Leigh Faber, George Denison (York)
Banbury, Frederick George Clive, Captain Percy A. Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Bartley, George C. T. Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Cohen, Benjamin Louis Finch, George H.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Bignold, Arthur Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Fisher, William Hayes
Bigwood, James Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Fison, Frederick William
Blundell, Colonel Henry Compton, Lord Alwyne FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-
Bond, Edward Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow Fitzroy Hon. Edward Algernon
Boulnois Edmund Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Brassey, Albert Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Flower, Ernest
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Forster, Henry William
Brotherton, Edward Allen Crossley, Sir Savile Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W
Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh. Cubitt, Hon. Henry Galloway, William Johnson
Garfit, William Llewellyn, Evan Henry Round, Rt. Hon. James
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Royds, Clement Molyneux
Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Rutherford, John
Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby (Salop Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon Lowe, Francis William Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Graham, Henry Robert Loyd, Archie Kirkman Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Greene, Sir E W (Bu'y S Edm'nds Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (I. of Wight)
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison Seton-Karr, Henry
Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) MacIver, David (Liverpool) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Greville, Hon. Roland M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Groves, James Grimble M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Simeon, Sir Barrington
Gunter, Sir Robert Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E(Wigt'n Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Hain, Edward Mildmay, Francis Bingham Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside
Hall, Edward Marshall Milvain, Thomas Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x Morrell, (George Herbert Spear, Hon Ward
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfo'd Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Hare, Thomas Leigh Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Harris, Frederick Leverton Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Myers, William Henry Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Newdegate, Francis A. N Stone, Sir Benjamin
Hay, Hon. Claude George Nicol, Donald Ninian Stroyan, John
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Strutt, John. Charles Hedley
Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.) Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Helder, Augustus Parker, Sir Gilbert Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Henderson, Sir Alexander Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ
Hickman, Sir Alfred Pemberton, John S. G. Thorburn, Sir Walter
Higginbottom, S. W Percy, Earl Thornton, Percy M.
Hobhonse, Henry (Somerset, E. Pierpoint, Robert Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Hogg, Lindsay Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside Platt-Higgins, Frederick Valentia, Viscount
Hornby, Sir William Henry Plummer, Walter R. Vincent, Col Sir C E H (Sheffield
Horner, Frederick William Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Pretyman, Ernest George Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Hoult, Joseph Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Wanklyn, James Leslie
Houston, Robert paterson Pym, C Guy Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Hudson, George Bickersteth Randles, John S. Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.) Rankin, Sir James Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lloyd
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Johnstone, Heywood Ratcliff, R. F. Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Kemp, John Rattigan, Sir William Henry Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Reid, James (Grecnock) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Kennedy, Patrick James Remnant, James Farquharson Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)
Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Renwick, George Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. Richards, Henry Charles Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)
Kimber, Henry Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
King, Sir Henry Seymour Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Knowles, Lees Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Younger, William
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th Robinson, Brooke
Lawson, John Grant Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareh'm Ropner, Colonel Robert Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Burns, John Duncan, J. Hastings
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead Burt, Thomas Dunn, Sir William
Allen Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud Buxton, Sydney Charles Edwards, Frank
Ashton, Thomas Gair Caine, William Sproston Emmott, Alferd
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Caldwell, James Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan
Barlow, John Emmott Cameron, Robert Farquharson, Dr. Robert
Bayley, Thomas(Derbyshire) Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)
Bell, Richard Causton, Richard Knight Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Black, Alexander William Cawley, Frederick Fuller, J. M. F.
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Craig, Robert Hunter Goddard, Daniel Ford
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Cremer, William Randal Grant, Corrie
Brigg, John Crombie, John William Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)
Broadhurst, Henry Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Griffith, Ellis J.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Brunner, Sir John Tomhnson Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Harmsworth, R, Leicester
Harwood, George Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Stevenson, Francis S.
Hayter, Rt. Hon, Sir Arthur D. Morley, Rt. Hn. Jno. (Montrose Strachey, Sir Edward
Helme, Norval Watson Moss Samuel Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Newnes, Sir George Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.
Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E. Norman, Henry Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Holland, Sir William Henry Norton, Capt. Cecil William Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West Nussey, Thomas Willans Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Horniman, Frederick John Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham) Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Partington, Oswald Tomkinson, James
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Paulton, James Mellor Toulmin, George
Jacoby, James Alfred Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Joicey, Sir James Perks, Robert William Wallace, Robert
Jones, David Brynmor(Swans'a Philipps, John Wynford Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Pickard, Benjamin Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth Pirie, Duncan V. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Kitson, Sir James Price, Robert John Wason, Eugene
Langley, Batty Rea, Russell Weir, James Galloway
Layland-Barratt, Francis Reckitt, Harold James White, George (Norfolk)
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Leigh, Sir Joseph Rickett, J. Compton Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Leng, Sir John Rigg, Richard Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Levy, Maurice Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Lewis, John Herbert Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Lloyd-George, David Roe, Sir Thomas Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid
Lough, Thomas Runciman, Walter Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Schwann, Charles E. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
M'Kenna, Reginald Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) Woodhouse, Sir. J. T (Huddersf'd
M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Shackleton, David James Yoxall, James Henry
M'Laren, Horace Rendall Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Shipman, Dr. John G. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Markham, Arthur Basil Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Mr. Herbert Gladstone
Mather, Sir William Soares, Ernest, J. and Mr. Wm. M'Arthur

(5.48.) Question put accordingly, "That the words of the Clause to the word 'school,' in line 10, inclusive, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes,267; Noes, 135. (Division List, No. 406.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Brotherton, Edward Allen Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh. Cust, Henry John C.
Aird, Sir John Brymer, William Ernest Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Anson, Sir William Reynell Bullard, Sir Harry Davenport, William Bromley-
Arkwright, John Stanhope Butcher, John George Denny, Colonel
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Arrol, Sir William Carew, James Laurence Digby, John K. D. (Wingfield-
Ashton, Thomas Gair Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dix'n
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Doughty, George
Bain, Colonel James Robert Cayzer, Sir Charles William Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Baird, Colonel James Robert Cecil, Evelyn (Ashton Manor) Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Balcarres, Lord Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Duke, Henry Edward
Baldwin, Alfred Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc. Dyke, Rt. Hn, Sir William Hart
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Chapman, Edward Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Charrington, Spencer Emmott, Alfred
Banbury, Frederick George Churchill, Winston Spencer Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.
Bartley, George C. T. Clare, Octavius Leigh Faber, George Denison (York)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Clive, Captain Percy A. Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r
Bignold, Arthur Cohen, Benjamin Louis Finch, George H.
Bigwood, James Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Blundell, Colonel Henry Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Fisher, William Hayes
Bond, Edward Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Fison, Frederick William
Boulnois, Edmund Compton, Lord Alwyne FitzGerald Sir Robert Penrose-
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Brassey, Albert Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Flower, Ernest
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton Forster, Henry William
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Crossley, Sir Savile Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W
Galloway, William Johnson Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham Ropner, Colonel Robert
Garfit, William Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead) Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Round, Rt. Hon. James
Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Royds, Clement Molyneux
Gore, Hn G. R.C. Ormsby-(Salop Llewellyn, Evan Henry Runciman, Walter
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Rutherford, John
Graham, Henry Robert Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Greene Sir EW (B'rySEdm'nds Lowe, Francis William Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury Loyd, Archie Kirkman Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs. Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight)
Grenfell, Hon. Ronald Lucas, Regmald J. (Portsmouth Seton-Karr, Henry
Greville, Hon. Roland Macaroney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison Sharpe, William Edward T.
Groves, James Grimble MacIver, David (Liverpool) Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Gunter, Sir Robert Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Simeon, Sir Barrington
Hain, Edward M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Hall, Edward Marshall Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Mildmay, Francis Bingham Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)
Hamilton, Rt. HnL'rd G(Midd'x Milvain, Thomas Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Spear, John Ward
Hare, Thomas Leigh Morrell, George Herbert Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Harris, Frederick Leverton Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Stanley, Edwd Jas. (Somerset)
Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart
Hay, Hon. Claude George Myers, William Henry Stone, Sir Benjamin
Healy, Timothy Michael Newdegate, Francis A. N. Stroyan, John
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Nicol, Donald Ninian Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Sturt, Hon. Humphry Naiper
Helder, Augustus Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Henderson, Sir Alexander Parker, Sir Gilbert Talbot, Rt. Hn. JG.(Oxf'dUniv
Hickman, Sir Alfred Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley Thorburn, Sir Walter
Higginbottom, S. W. Pemberton, John S. G. Thornton, Percy M.
Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. Percy, Earl Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Hogg Lindsay Pier point, Robert Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard Valentia, Viscount
Hornby, Sir William Henry Platt-Higgins, Frederick Vincent, Col Sir CEH (Sheffield
Horner, Frederick William Plummer, Walter R. Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Walrond Rt. Hn. Sir William H
Hoult, Joseph Pretyman, Ernest George Wanklyn, James Leslie
Houston, Robert Paterson Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n
Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Pym, C. Guy Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts
Hudson, George Bickersteth Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) Randles, John S. Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Rankin, Sir James Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Johnstone, Heywood Ratcliff, R. F. Willoughby de Eresby. Lord
Kemp, George Rattigan, Sir William Henry Willox, Sir John Archibald
Kennway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H Reid, James (Greenock) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Kennedy, Patrick James Remnant, James Farquharson Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh Renwick, George Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop Richards, Henry Charles Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Kimber, Henry Ridley, Hn M. W. (Stalybridge Wrightson, Sir Thomas
King, Sir Henry Seymour Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green Wyndhanm, Rt. Hon. George
Knowles, Lees Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson Younger, William
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th Robinson, Brooke Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Lawson, John Grant Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Burns, John Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) Burt, Thomas Duncan, J. Hastings
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud Buxton, Sydney Charles Dunn, Sir William
Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry Caine, William Sproston Edwards, Frank
Barlow, John Emmott Caldwell, James Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Cameron, Robert Farqubarson, Dr. Robert
Bell, Richard Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)
Black, Alexander, William Causton, Richard Knight Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Cawley, Frederick Fuller, J. M. F.
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Craig, Robert Hunter Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Brigg, John Cremer, William Randal Goddard, Daniel Ford
Broadhurst, Henry Crombie, John William Grant, Corrie
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Griffith, Ellis J.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Soares, Ernest, J.
Harmsworth, R. Leicester Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants
Harwood, George Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose Stevenson, Francis S.
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Moss, Samuel. Strachey, Sir Edward
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Newnes, Sir George Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Helme, Norval Watson Norman, Henry Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Norton, Capt. Cecil William Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Holland, Sir William Henry Nussey, Thomas Willans Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Palmer, Sir Charles, M. (Durham Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.
Horniman, Frederick John Partington, Oswald Tomkinson, James
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Paulton, James Mellor Toulmin, George
Jacoby, James Alfred Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Joicey, Sir James Perks, Robert William Wallace, Robert
Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea Philipps, John Wynford Walton John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Jones, William (Carnarv'shire Pickard, Benjamin Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth Pirie, Duncan V. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Kitson, Sir James Price, Robert John Wason, Eugene
Langley, Batty Rea, Russell Weir, James Galloway
Layland-Barratt, Francis Reckitt, Harold James White, George (Norfolk)
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Leigh, Sir Joseph Rickett, J. Compton Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Leng, Sir John Rigg, Richard Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Levy, Maurice Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Lewis, John Herbert Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Lloyd-George, David Roe, Sir Thomas Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Lough, Thomas Schwann, Charles E. Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Shackleton, David James Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd
Mansfield, Horace Rendall Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Shipman, Dr. John G. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Markham, Arthur Basil Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Mr. M'Kenna and Mr. Charles Hobhouse.
Mather, Sir William Sloan, Thomas Henry
(6.0.) MR. M'KENNA

said his task in moving the Amendment he now proposed to move had been rendered easier by the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury. They now knew what the functions of the managers, under the Bill as it stood, were to be. They were to have all the powers of the old voluntary school managers except those destroyed by Clause 8. It had been urged that the only way to preserve the denominational character of these schools was to give them the management of all matters save secular instruction. The First Lord had reminded the Committee that all instruction was either religious or secular, but as a matter of fact there was a large body of instruction which could not be described as either one or the other, and it was with the powers in connection with that instruction that his Amendment proposed to deal. The Amendment would give to the local education authority full power over the management of the schools in everything outside denominational instruction; it would give, for instance, to the authority which found the money the control of the articles purchased with its own money. The Amendment was one that could hardly be resisted. It did not touch the question of the appointment of the teachers, which was a matter appertaining alike to religious and secular instruction. He merely asked, in order to make the position of the local authority clear, that in matters relating to the management of the schools, other than religious instruction, the local education authority should be supreme. In view of the frequent declarations made by the First Lord of the Treasury that he desired to give full control to the education authority over secular education he could not see what grounds could be found for resisting the Amendment.

Amendment proposed. In page 3, line 10, after the word 'school' to insert the word 'and as to all matters relating to the management of the school other than the religious instruction given therein.' "—(Mr. M'Kenna.)

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the hon. Gentleman wanted to reverse the procedure adopted in the Bill, which was to work on the plan provided by the Act of 1870 and to excise from the existing powers of the managers those which might interfere with the proper control of secular education by the education authority. He thought the plan provided in the Bill was a better plan than that provided in the Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

asked where in the Bill the existing powers of the managers under the Act of 1870 were preserved? There were no words giving these new bodies the powers possessed by the old managers. Orginally there was a reference in Clause 7, but that had been cut out of the Bill.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said they had to deal with the question of managers on a later Clause; it was not relevant to this Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at the new Clause which he had put down on the Paper, he would see that the point was touched on there.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

thought the right hon. Gentleman was proceeding in an extraordinary way. The proper course surely would have been to excise the smaller powers from the greater and not the greater from the smaller. The sphere of the denominational managers was much smaller than that of the educational authority. There were a great many questions as to which the Committee were entirely in the dark as to whether they came under secular or religious instruction, and those matters should undoubtedly and without qualification be controlled by the local education authority. With regard to furniture that had to be provided for religious as well as secular purposes, which head did that come under? The provision of school books admittedly came within the sphere of secular instruction, but there was nothing in the Bill to show it. Did the granting of prizes and certificates come within the sphere of secular instruction? In his opinion all these matters should be controlled by the secular authority. Would the granting of holidays on saints' days come under religious or secular instruction? That, he imagined, would appertain to both; but surely the right to grant holidays ought to be in the hands of the local authority; yet there was nothing in the Bill with regard to matters of that kind. Unless the Amendment was adopted there would be innumerable cases of friction between the two bodies. The promotion of teachers was certainly a matter within the sphere of the secular control, and also the imposition and remission of fees, as it was possible to discriminate in matters of this kind distinctly to the advantage of those attending a particular school. These questions ought to be cleared up. The Committee ought not to discuss this matter with their hands tied, as they were at the present time. The question of the exclusion of scholars from the schools should also be left to the local education authority. He appealed to the Prime Minister to free the country and the local education authorities from the difficulties in which they would be placed for many years to come if these matters were not dealt with, and trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not leave the ultimate decision to the Board of Education, which, with great respect, was under a political head and subject to partizan control.

MR. BRYCE

did not think this Amendment ought to be regarded in a controversial spirit. The first part of the Amendment was to secure that the division between secular and religious instruction should be an exhaustive one. The proper way for the Government to provide for it would be to declare that everything except religious instruction should be under the local education authority. Some Amendment of that kind would crystallise the position. Another point as to which it was desirable to have a clear understanding was, who should have control of the timetable. That was a matter of great importance to the schools, because on it depended the times for religious and secular instruction. He supposed the local education authority would have complete control.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON (Yorkshire, W. R., Morley)

thought there was real substance in the Amendment. At present the managers of the denominational schools had both the management and the control, but when the control was to be given to one body and the management to another it was important that a distinction should be made between the duties which were to be given to each body. The present managers were responsible to the Education Department alone and all the powers which were not taken out of their hands by this Clause would, by presumption, be left in the hands of the managers. It was most important to make clear all the matters for which the managers were responsible. What he asked was that where this Clause did not make over any specific duties the residuary duties should he in the hands of the managers through the local authorities.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

urged that some general words should be added which, whilst not touching religious instruction, would in a general way cover the whole of school management. Otherwise there would be much friction between managers and local authorities. He had had ten year experience on the London School Board, and he had brought with him the code of management which the London School Board had found it necessary to compile, which he would hand to the Prime Minister, who, he thought, would find it instructive.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

did not believe that in practice much difficulty would arise from the division proposed. He thought the best course would be to adhere to the Bill.

MR. MOSS (Denbighshire, E.)

thought that most of the discussion might have been avoided if the duties of the two powers had been defined exactly. If the powers to be exercised were left vague there would be discussions throughout the Hill as to what the duties of the bodies concerned should be. If the right hon. Gentleman would follow the Amendment he would see that everything except religious instruction was left to the local educational authority, which was exactly what he himself wished apparently. If that was so the right hon. Gentleman could not have any objection to his own intentions being expressed in the Bill.

MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W. R., Elland)

said that to those who had had something to do with the management of schools the points raised by his hon. friend were of eminently practical importance. Outside the ordinary school work, nothing was of more importance than the encouragement of the children by the giving of prizes. He instanced a case in which out of 159 Prizes given in a particular school only nine were for secular subjects, the other 150 being awarded for religious knowledge. Surely hon. Gentlemen who had sons at public or other schools would not be satisfied if the only prizes they won were Scripture prizes. Why should a system be allowed to continue which permitted managers to offer rewards in such a lop-sided way? All sides of education, not merely the religious, ought to be considered, and the local authority ought to have power to adopt a different practice if they found managers acting in the manner he had instanced. Reference had been made to the selection of text-books, but what about the pictures on the walls of the school? Pictures now played a very important part in education. The education authority would pay for those pictures: who would choose them? Many of those in voluntary schools were extremely obnoxious to the parents of Nonconformist children. Were the public to have no control in such a matter? Satisfactorily to work this Clause would be impossible unless some definite system were laid down as to who was to control matters of this kind.

MR. RICHARDS (Finsbury, E.)

said he knew of a country School Board which was trying to empty a voluntary school by giving, at the expense of the ratepayers, an excessive number of prizes.

* THE CHAIRMAN

That is not relevant to the Amendment.

MR. RICHARDS

, referring to the pictures, asked whether the hon. Member suggested there were any pictures in voluntary schools which were not accurate representations of history.

* THK CHAIRMAN

I do not think that that question either is relevant.

MR. RICHARDS

asked then whether the Board of Education would make a list of pictures which might not appear because they were obnoxious to Nonconformist parents.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said the meaning of the Amendment was perfectly clear. The managers would be managers with regard to both secular and religious education. The whole of the management would be in their hands. All the Amendment asked was that the managers should obey the directions of the education authority, except in matters relating to religious education. Put in that way, he thought there was no answer to the case of his hon, friend

MR. M'KENNA

said that in consequence of the perfunctory answer he had received, he felt bound to go to a division. The local education authority paid the bill, and therefore ought to have the control of the school.

(6.38.) Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 265. (Division List, No. 407.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Rickett, J. Compton
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud Helme, Norval Watson Rigg, Richard
Ashton, Thomas Gair Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Atherley-Jones, L. Hobhouse, C.E.H. (Bristol, E) Roe, Sir Thomas
Barlow, John Emmott Holland, Sir William Henry Runciman, Walter
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Schwann, Charles E.
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Horniman, Frederick John Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Bell, Richard Humphreys Owen, Arthur C. Shackleton, David James
Black, Alexander William Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Jacoby, James Alfred Shipman, Dr. John G.
Brigg, John Joicey, Sir James Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Broadhurst, Henry Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea Soares, Ernest J.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth Stevenson, Francis S.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Kitson, Sir James Strachey, Sir Edward
Burns, John Langley, Batty Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Burt, Thomas Layland-Barratt, Francis Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.
Caine, William Sproston Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Caldwell, James Leigh, Sir Joseph Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Cameron, Robert Leng, Sir John Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower.)
Campbell-John Bannerman, Sir H. Levy, Maurice Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.
Causton, Richard Knight Lloyd-George, David Tomkinson, James
Cawley, Frederick Lough, Thomas Toulmin, George
Craig, Robert Hunter Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Cremer, William Randal M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Wallace, Robert
Crombie, John William M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Mansfield, Horace Rendall Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Markham, Arthur Basil Wason, Eugene
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Mather, Sir William Weir, James Galloway
Duncan, J. Hastings Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) White, George (Norfolk)
Dunn, Sir William Morley, Charles (Breconshire) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Edwards, Frank Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Emmott, Alfred Moss, Samuel. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan Newnes, Sir George Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Norman, Henry Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Norton, Capt. Cecil William Wilson Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid
Flower, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Nussey, Thomas Willans Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Fuller, J. M. F. Palmer, Sir Charles. M. (Durham Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John Partington, Oswald Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Paulton, James Mellor Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Grant, Corrie Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Yoxall, James Henry
Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick) Perks, Robert William
Griffith, Ellis J. Pickard, Benjamin
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Pirie, Duncan V. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. M'Kenna and Mr. Herbert Lews.
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William Price, Robert John
Harmsworth, R. Leicester Rea, Russell
Harwood, George Reckitt, Harold James
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Bain, Colonel James Robert
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Arrol, Sir William Baird, John George Alexander
Aird, Sir John Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Balcarres, Lord
Anson, Sir William Reynell Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy Baldwin, Alfred
Arkwright, John Stanhope Bailey, James (Walworth) Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Garfit, William M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E(Wigt'n
Banbury, Frederick George Gordon Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlet Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Bartley, George C. T. Gore, Hn G R. C. Ormsby-(Salop Milvain, Thomas
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Bignold, Arthur Goulding, Edward Alfred More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Graham, Henry Robert Morgan, David J (Walthamstow
Boulnois, Edmund Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Morrell, (George Herbert
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S, Edm'nds Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Brassey, Altert Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) Murray, Rt HnA. Graham (Bute)
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Grenfell, William Henry Myers, William Henry
Brotherton, Edward Allen Gretton, John Newdegate, Francis A. N
Brown, Alexander H. (shropsh. Greville, Hon. Roland Nicol, Donald Ninian
Brymer, William Ernest Groves, James Grimble O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Bullard, Sir Harry Gunter, Sir Robert Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Butcher, John George Hain, Edward Parker, Sir Gilbert
Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow Hall, Edward Marshall Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n
Carew, James Lawrence Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hamilton. Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x Pemberton, John S. G.
Carvill, Patrick Goe. Hamilton Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd Percy, Earl
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs) Hare, Thomas Leigh Pierpoint, Robert
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Harris, Frederick Leverton Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Plummer, Walter R.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hay, Hon. Claude George Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. Healy, Timothy Michael Pretyman, Ernest George
Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc. Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Chapman, Edward Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.) Purvis, Robert
Charrington, Spencer Heaton, John Henniker Pym, C. Guy
Churchill, Winston Spencer Helder, Augustus Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Clare, Octavius Leigh Henderson, Sir Alexander Randles, John S.
Clive, Captain Percy A. Hickman, Sir Alfred Rankin, Sir James
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Higginbottom, S. W. Ratcliff, R. F
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Hogg, Lindsay Reid, James (Greenock)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside Remnant, James Farquharson
Compton, Lord Alwyne Hornby, Sir William Henry Renwick, George
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Richards, Henry Charles
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Hoult, Joseph Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge
Cranborne, Viscount Houston, Robert Paterson Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Crossley, Sir Savile Hudson, George Bickersteth Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) Robinson, Brooke
Cust, Henry John C. Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Ropner, Colonel Robert
Davenport, William Bromley- Johnstone, Heywood Round, Rt. Hon. James
Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham Kemp, George Royds, Clement Molyneux
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Rutherford, John
Digby, John K. D. (Wingfield- Kennedy, Patrick James Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon Kenyon, Hon, Geo. T (Denbigh) Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Kimber, Henry Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Seely, Maj J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)
Duke, Henry Edward Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Seton-Karr, Henry
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th Sharpe, William Edward T.
Dyke, Rt. Hn, Sir William Hart Lawson, John Grant Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham Simeon, Sir Barrington
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Faber, George Denison (York) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Sloan, Thomas Henry
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Llewellyn, Evan Henry Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside
Finch, George H. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Fisher, William Hayes Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol S) Spear, John Ward
Fison, Frederick William Lonsdale, John Brownlee Stanly, Hn. Arthur (Ormskird
Fitz Gerald Sir Robert Penrose- Lowe, Francis William Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Loyd, Archie Kirkman Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Stone, Sir Benjamin
Flower, Ernest Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison Stroyan, John
Forster, Henry William Macdona, John Cumming Strutt, John Charles Helley
Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W MacIver, David (Liverpool) Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Galloway, William Johnson M'Arhur, Charles (Liverpool) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE. (Taunton Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)
Thorburn, Sir Walter Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Thornton, Percy M. Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd Wriglitson, Sir Thomas
Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Valentia, Vicount Whitmore, Charles Algernon Younger, William
Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H. (Shef'ld Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) Willox, Sir John Archibald TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Wanklyn, James Leslie Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Question put and agreed to.

(6.55.) MR. WHITLEY

said the Amendment standing in his name would not have been necessary if the Government had accepted the Amendment which had just been voted upon. The Government having declined to allow the education authority to lay down rules to guide the managers, it had become necessary to raise this point. At the present time the methods of voluntary school managers were exceedingly lax. He did not think he would be stepping beyond the mark if he said that in three-fourths of the voluntary schools there was no regular meeting of the managers, and one-half of them did not attend. The one act which these managers had to do as a rule was simply to sign Form 9 when taken round to them either by the vicar or the head teacher. If the managers were going to have these important duties without the local authority having power to lay down what methods they should follow, then the Committee should introduce some words which would give regularity to the meetings and methods of the managers. He asked that the managers should be obliged to hold at least one meeting per month, with the exception of the month of August, and that they should keep proper minutes of their proceedings. It was extremely desirable when any decision was arrived at that there should be a record as to who was present at that meeting. Unless some such Amendment was accepted it would be quite possible for managers to go on in the old lax way with only one manager present at a meeting, and there was no security that the decisions would be arrived at by the full meeting of managers. He had an Amendment on the Paper providing for a quorum of three. On this point he thought the proper thing for the Committee to do was to lay down a certain time once a month for meetings, and it was not too much to ask the managers to meet once a month for eleven months in the year, and they should appoint a secretary to keep a record of their proceedings which, he presumed, would be open to the inspection of the local authority. This was so reasonable an Amendment that it did not require any further argument, and he begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 10, at end, to insert the words 'shall hold at least one meeting in each month excepting August, and shall keep proper minutes of their proceedings.' "—(Mr. Whitley.)

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the objection raised by the hon. Member was that under the present system the managers, or a majority of them, absented themselves from their duty and left matters very much to the clergyman of the parish. That could not happen after this Bill was passed. If it were true that denominational managers did treat their duties in the lax manner suggested, he did not believe there was any danger that the duties to be discharged by the managers would be left to one of their number, because he would find himself conjoined with two other managers. The result would be that the school would not be managed by one single individual, because he would find himself conjoined by two other members. He thought it was not necessary to add such a minute provision to the Bill.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

asked whether there was any provision in the Bill at all to compel the managers to meet. If the did not meet there could not possibly be a majority. His hon. friend said that they should meet, and if the denominational managers did not attend the other members would be able to congratulate themselves on having a majority. There were at present five or six managers in every parish, but, as a matter of fact, they did not meet, and there was nothing in the Bill to prevent that system continuing. The clergyman took upon himself the whole functions of the managers, and he was the correspondent of the Education Department-There was nothing in the Bill to prevent him doing exactly as he had done in the past. What was wanted in the Rill was a provision to compel the summoning of a meeting. The right hon. Gentleman was proceeding on the assumption that his Bill was all right. He intended fairly, but he was dealing with a number of men he knew nothing about, and once there was the slightest difficulty they would act up to the letter of the law. There was not a single syllable in the Bill to compel the clergyman to summon a meeting of the managers from one year's end to the other. The right hon. Gentleman had said that practically the Amendment was embodied in the Bill.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I never said the Bill did anything so absurd as to prescribe the number of meetings.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that really showed how much the right hon. Gentleman knew about local government. He talked of the absurdity of prescribing the number of meetings the local authority should have. Did not the right hon. Gentleman know that the Local Government Acts prescribed when meetings were to be held, and even the times of meetings had been laid down by Statute. It was something like trifling with the House to suggest that a proposal of this sort should not be incorporated in the Bill.

MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE

said the Local Government Act of 1S88, introduced by a colleague of the Prime Minister, prescribed when meetings of County Councils were to be held, and similar provision was made in the Act of 1892, introduced by a Liberal Government, in regard to parish councils. The last-mentioned Act provided that no parish council meeting should be held before six o'clock in the evening. In view of these facts, what was there absurd in the request of his hon. friend the Member for Halifax? He thought the committee through which the local authority was to act should also be compelled to meet. There was nothing in the Bill compelling the committee to meet.

MR. BRYCE

hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would give serious attention to the proposal. With many denominational schools there was no system of regular meetings of managers, but simply a meeting to pass accounts, and a resolution delegating to the Chairman all the functions of the managerial body for the rest of the year. They should not allow that state of things to arise in future. He suggested that there were three ways of dealing with this matter. The right hon. Gentleman could accept the Amendment, but if he liked he could make the meetings quarterly instead of monthly; the second way was to give power to the local education authority to make bye-laws fixing the time when the managers should meet; or, thirdly, a schedule could be put in the Bill, containing a sort of code for the direction of managers in this and other matters.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

did not wish to treat this in a perfunctory manner. He could not understand how, with a body of representative managers, the work could be carried on without meetings.

MR. BRYCE

said it was no unusual practice for no meetings to be summoned except for passing the annual accounts.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

admitted that there were Members in the House more practically acquainted with these affairs than himself. His work had lain in other directions, but he should have thought that when Parliament entrusted a body of managers with certain work it would not be competent for that body to delegate its functions to one member. It seemed to him clear that a clergyman could not act without the representative managers. He really could not see that there was any practical danger at all. Were they seriously to suppose that the education authority were going to hand over all their money to be illegally distributed by a single individual without the consent of the whole body of managers? He believed the Amendment useless, as he ventured to think he had shown, but he would be willing to consider, at a later singe of the Bill, whether it might not be possible to provide that, where an education authority thought it necessary to require a meeting, that meeting should be called.

SIR EDWARD GREY (Northumberland, Berwick)

said he thought the right hon the First Lord of the Treasury had considerably under-rated the evils that were going on at the present time. He knew of a case where no meeting was ever summoned, and all that needed to be done was to get the accounts signed by two individuals. Such a practice could be carried on still, unless the local authority was empowered to withhold grants from the schools. He understood the First Lord to say that that danger would be averted by the fact that one of the representative managers would write up to the education authority that he was not being consulted in the management of the schools, and that then the education authority would withhold the grants, and so bring the managers to reason. That was a most important statement, although it was not in the Bill just now. The First Lord had argued that this was too minute n point for much controversy. He was disposed to agree with that, but he again pressed on the right hon. Gentleman the suggestion urged by the hon. Member for North Camberwell that some general power should be given to secure that all these minute points should be met either by the managers or the local education authority. There would be a number of questions which would come up in the debatable land, which did not come, as this did not come, directly under the head either of religious or of secular instruction. To whom did this debatable land belong? Who was to be the residuary legatee of powers that did not come under any special definition in the Bill? Were they to make the education authority or the managers residuary legatee? Of course those who agreed with him would like it to be the local education authority.

MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)

said he was glad to hear his right hon. friend promise to give further consideration to this point. It was a very real one. He quite agreed that the conditions in the future would differ very materially from those in the past; but they must recollect that large numbers of conditions were laid down in existing trust deeds. Many trust deeds made full provision for calling meetings, the person who was to call them, and the way in which they were to be conducted. Now, they were not rescinding these arrangements by this Clause. There was nothing, so far as he had noticed, in the Bill itself, or in the proposed Amendment, which would set at naught such provisions. It had been suggested that if the two appointed representatives were not called to a meeting they should take steps to call one themselves. He should have thought himself that the Clause which gave the local authority control over secondary education included the power to call meetings of the managers; but if there was any doubt about it, it should be made clear. He hoped the managers would not have much control, but they would have a guiding influence over the schools; and, if Churchmen and Nonconformists were-to work together, it should be under well-considered regulations, so that there should be no feeling of unfair dealing on the one side or the other. Let the appointed managers realise that whatever was done by the majority was done in accordance with rules fixed by the House of Commons. He knew full well many a school that had gone to utter ruin through the failure of the managers to meet, and there was a possibility of a school drifting into evil ways unless provision was made for regular meetings. He trusted that every local education authority would be charged with the duty of laving down regulations which should prevail throughout the whole of their area for the proper conduct of every school under their control.

* SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

said that this matter had been a subject of judicial decision. It had been laid down by the courts of law that unless the visiting committee of a board of guardians, which had very important duties to discharge, was properly summoned by the Chairman, that committee had no power to act. The right hon. Gentleman was not justified in assuming that this matter was too minute for the House of Commons to deal with. It was thoroughly discussed in 1870, and in the Education Act of that year it was laid down in the Schedule in the strongest manner, that the smallest School Boards in the country were bound by these Schedules. Not only that, but the provisions were found inadequate, and they were further laid down with the utmost minuteness in the Act of 1873. If Parliament now deliberately neglected to lay down similar provisions with regard to the other schools, it would undoubtedly be held that this was a purposed neglect, and that they were not subject to rules for the proper convening and holding of meetings.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean had undoubtedly a very wide knowledge of these matters. He would carefully consider whether, as regarded meetings of managers where secular education was concerned, anything should be done by way of a Schedule to the Bill.

MR. WHITLEY

said he wanted to ask the First Lord what objection there was to the Amendment being inserted at tins point. In all the words the right hon. Gentleman had addressed to the Committee he gave no hint as to why this modest request should not be granted, or as to why the managers should not be Compelled to keep minutes of their proceedings.

* THE CHAIRMAN

said he wished to point out to the hon. Member that if his Amendment was dealt with now the matter could not be dealt with when the Committee came to the Schedule.

MR. WHITLEY

said he was willing to withdraw his Amendment on the assurance of the First Lord; but he asked that the words to be inserted in the Schedule should be put down on the Paper at an early day. If that were done it would prevent many Amendments on the Paper being moved.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he could not give the exact day when he would place the Amendment on the Paper, but he would do it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Committee report Progress, to sit again Tomorrow.