HC Deb 24 October 1902 vol 113 cc728-88

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

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

Clause 8:—


In reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Nottingham to insert in Clause 8, page 3, line 12, after "school" the words "as well as the minutes or other records of meetings and decisions by the managers," I must point out that this is covered by the words giving power to inspect.

MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)

pointed out that meetings of managers of schools were seldom held in the school buildings, and the teacher was not always present. He submitted that it was desirable to specify that there should be power to inspect these minutes.

MR. CORRIE GRANT (Warwickshire, Rugby)

added that the minutes would in all probability, be in the custody of a member of the committee who was not an official under the control of the local education authority, and therefore the power to inspect the school would not necessarily imply power to inspect the minutes of the Managing Committee.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

said that no doubt in the case of School Boards their power over managers did extend to matters of this kind. But now they were dealing with what had hitherto been private bodies upon which certain public duties were in the future to devolve. It was quite possible they might not consider it their duty to throw the records of their meetings open to inspection, and it was, therefore, desirable to place this right of examination beyond all possibility of doubt.


These possibilities might be indefinitely multiplied. Are you going to give power to inspect furniture and pictures.


I think this is one of those things which should be dealt with in the schedule.


said that if the right hon. Gentleman would deal with it in the schedule, that would be satisfactory. He was encouraged by what had fallen from the Government on more than one occasion to hope that they would accept this Amendment he now rose to move, because they had repeatedly said that they were very anxious for decentralisation and to relieve the Board of Education of a number of functions it now exercised, but which could well be relegated to the new education authority. Over and over again had the complaint been made that that Board was overburdened, and surely this was a matter which might well be left to the judgment of the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed himself confident that the new authorities would be jealous in carrying out the Act, and he hoped that confidence would be justified by results. The question whether cases of infraction of the Conscience Clause were frequent, was one on which there might be a difference of opinion, but, undoubtedly, they did occur, and it was desirable to devise some means of dealing with them. The object of the Amendment was to give the local authority power to deal with the question of complaints under what was commonly called the Cowper-Temple Clause. A question of the infraction of the Conscience Clause could not be said in any sense to belong to the sphere of religious instruction. It might be a question of law, of fact, or of both, but it was a question, at any rate, as to whether the provisions of the law had been obeyed. He thought, as he had said before, that such cases would be rare; but the local authority, having its own representative on the body of local managers, would be able to inform itself as to the facts, and there was much to be said for allowing them to have this power. This provision, indeed, appeared to him to be almost the corollary of the right of inspection which had been conceded.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 12, after the word 'school,' to insert the words 'and to receive, inquire into, AND deal with any complaints addressed to them regarding infractions of Section 7 of The Elementary Education Act, 1870.'"—(Mr. Bryce.)

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


said he was in harmony with the right hon. Gentleman in hoping that the infractions of this sub-Section were extremely rare. He believed, indeed, that that was so. But he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the authority which should adjudicate upon these questions. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would see that his proposal was either impracticable or unfair. One of two things must happen if his Amendment was carried. The first alternative was that there would be two authorities adjudicating on this question of the Conscience Clause, the local authority as regards voluntary schools, and the Education Department as regards provided schools; he thought that would be most inconvenient. Then, if they considered it would be too cumbrous and absurd to have two different bodies both examining into the question of infractions of the Conscience Clause, and abolished the authority which the Education Department now had over provided schools, there would be nobody to adjudicate or take any action if the Conscience Clause was infringed in a provided school. They must, if the Amendment were carried, have one of those alternatives, and as both of them seemed impossible and intolerable, he hoped the proposal would not be pressed.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

suggested that there was still another alternative, and that was, that the county authority should also deal with complaints from the non-provided schools.


I pointed out that the Amendment only allowed two alternatives. I think it would be intolerable to have one authority dealing with the provided schools, and a second authority dealing with the voluntary.


By this Clause we can only deal with the non-provided schools.


But we must consider the consequences of accepting the Amendment.


thought the difficulty was not as great as the right hon. Gentleman imagined. No one suggested that even if the power were given to the county authority that already possessed by the Board of Education would be abrogated. The Education Department must have supreme control over all secular education in the country, and if there was any infraction of the Conscience Clause, whether in provided or non-provided schools, and whether the county authority had the right to examine them or not, the Education Department must necessarily have the same power vested in it. All that was wanted was that the same power should be given to the county authority over the non-provided schools as they must necessarily have over the provided schools. The Amendment, so far from destroying the symmetry of the Bill, would make it more symmetrical. Clause 6 gave the local authority all the powers and duties of a School Board. Now it was part of the duty to examine into complaints of this character. Under this Bill it became not merely the right, but the duty, of the county authority to investigate such complaints from provided schools, and all the Amendment asked was that the authority should be entrusted with a similar power in regard to non-provided schools.

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

urged that the power must be in the hands of an authority which could enforce its own decisions in this matter. The power of the Education Department in cases of infractions of the Conscience Clause, consisted in depriving the school of the Parliamentary grant should the managers refuse to comply with their orders. But under this Bill the power of the Department to withdraw the grant ceased, because the financial control was to pass to the local education authority.


was understood to dissent from this view.


Would the local education authority have power to withhold from a particular school a grant, when they were under an obligation to keep that school efficient?


A school would cease to be a public elementary school if it ceased to qualify for the Parliamentary grant. It would so cease to qualify if it broke the Conscience Clause, and the local education authority would no longer be under an obligation to maintain it.


What a cumbrous piece of machinery in order to secure the right of a child to be exempted from religious teaching‡ The school would cease to be a public elementary school, and presumably the local education authority would have to build a new one to take its place. It would be a much simpler plan to accept the Amendment.

(12.30.) SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

said they must look at this question from a practical point of view. Although he had heard of a great many cases of infraction of the Conscience Clause in denominational schools, he had never heard of a case in a board school. Indeed, it seemed to him almost impossible for such a case to arise in a board school. He personally believed that the deliberate infraction of the Conscience Clause was not a frequent event. It was due either to stupidity or bigotry, or to both causes combined. The man who wilfully violated the Clause was not only a bigot, he was something which he need not mention. But what the Committee had to deal with was the working of the Clause in the small country villages. It had to be a very gross infraction of the Conscience Clause for the Education Department to interfere. He did not know whether the Secretary to the Board of Education would follow the example of his predecessor in this matter, but they were familiar with the form of reply of the Education Department when a case had been stated which aroused the indignation of both sides of the House. "The Education Department have no power to interfere." This was a question of daily work—it was not only the Conscience Clause, but it was also the administration of it, which they had to watch. It was provided that where children at the request of their parents were withdrawn from religious teaching, they should be put in a separate room, and be give a secular instruction. But many hon. Members must have heard cases of cruel administration of the Clause, cases of children who were taking the benefit of the Clause being obliged to remain out in the rain or snow during the religious lesson. It was these little things, done by little men in little schools, which created a great deal of the irritation and conflict with which they were now confronted in reference to the present Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Government had stated again and again that they recognised that in these single school parishes there was a religious difficulty so farasthe Nonconformists were concerned, and that they were prepared to agree to any remedy which would not encroach on the rights of denominational schools; but if they were to be met on these small matters with this absolute non possumus on every occasion on account of some theoretical or lawyer's difficulty, he thought they would not be carrying out in the spirit, although they might in the letter, their desire to remove all reasonable Nonconformist grievances. He could not conceive why the Government should not concede this Amendment, for he could not conceive a better or more independent tribunal to inquire into these cases than the county authority. He could not understand the refusal of the Government to give the power to the authority to deal with grievances which were impeding and irritating our local educational systems. If they could not accept this particular Amendment, would they be willing to introduce a better form of words in a more convenient part of the Bill?


said the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly accurate in saying that the Government had recognised that there was a grievance to be dealt with as regards the single school areas, and the Government proposed to do that. But this was a different matter. He thought that these cases of violation of the Conscience Clause were extremely rare, and he ventured to say that they would be impossible when they had a body of managers of voluntary schools such as was constituted under the Bill. He wished, however, to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Board of Education had full power to deal with any infraction of the Conscience Clause. The observance of that Clause was a condition of a school's receiving the Parliamentary grant, and if that did not give the Board of Education power to see that the Conscience Clause was enforced, he did not know what could. If the attention of the Board of Education were called to a case of this kind, it would certainly warn the school that the grant would be withdrawn if the objectionable policy were persisted in. He did not believe there would be any want of disposition on the part of the Board to deal with these cases. Whatever Party might be in power, he was sure the Board of Education would fearlessly do its duty in putting an end to any abuses of the Clause. The course proposed under the Amendment would be most inconvenient, for two authorities to decide the same question would be set up. Under the Bill as it stood the county authority would have full power to draw the attention of the Board of Education to infractions of the Conscience Clause.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

said this grievance was eminently a local grievance, and any one who knew the condition of a country district knew that the Conscience Clause, as it was worked at present, was no protection at all. Why should a child who was wrongly dealt with be compelled to go to Whitehall for redress? Why should not the local education authority on the spot have power to deal with it? That education authority was obviously the body to which complaints in this matter ought to be made. He could not conceive what was the objection to allowing the education authority to inquire into breaches, whether they were numerous or rare. It would create a very bad impression if the Government refused to the local education authority the power of giving effect to the Conscience Clause. They said practically that the only person who was to enforce the Conscience Clause was the Secretary to the Education Department. That was virtually the issue put by the Attorney General. The local education authority ought to have the power of enforcing that which was put forward as the only protection of Nonconformists. Was the education authority to have no cognisance or authority in the case of the Conscience Clause, and were they to be compelled to pay the rate when the Conscience Clause was not observed? If ever there was any justification for refusing to pay the rates it would be in such circumstances as those.

SIR JOHN DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

entirely sympathised with the intentions of the Amendment, but pressed the Committee to look at the matter from a practical point of view. No doubt the local authority would exercise this very power under sub-Section (a). Whether they could enforce it by legal means was another matter. Anybody who had a complaint to make would inform the County Council, instead of sending the information in a letter addressed to the Secretary of the Education Department. The Council would then interfere, and if they had not full legal rights they could communicate with the Department, who had. Surely that would afford a much more speedy remedy than complaining to Whitehall. He objected very much to encumbering the Act with too many delegations, which tended, in his opinion, to destroy that simplicity of administration which was so eminently desirable.

MR. M'KENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)

said the hon. Baronet had left the Committee in some doubt as to how he intended to vote.


I shall I vote with the Government.


And yet the hon. Baronet approved of the Amendment. He thought they were all agreed that the means of punishing any infraction of the Conscience Clause ought to be made as ready as possible, and that the local authority was therefore to be preferred to the Board of Education. The remedy which had existed for the last thirty years had been found to be insufficient. What was the objection of the Government to giving power in this matter to the local education authority? There was nothing in the Bill to provide that the majority of the managers of a school should be laymen; on the contrary, one was bound to assume that if they were technically laymen they would be ecclesiastically-minded, and he certainly preferred the regular parson to the ecclesiastically-minded layman. All the Amendment asked was that an aggrieved party should have a ready remedy, and he submitted that to give the power to the local education authority was thoroughly consistent with the principle of the Bill.

MR. SEELY (Lincoln)

opposed the Amendment, which he contended would have an effect exactly the reverse of that which hon. Gentlemen desired. All, of course, wished to avoid infractions of the Conscience Clause, and under the Bill as it stood nothing could prevent the County Council, which had a representative on the board of managers, from receiving and inquiring into complaints about such infractions. He could see no possible risk of the Board of Education—which was responsible to Parliament—failing to do its duty in this matter; but he could conceive that there was a possibility—he believed it to be very improbable, however—that, after a bitter party and religious fight, the successful party might refuse to carry out the Conscience Clause in the spirit in which it was regarded by every Member of this House. He hoped that for the sake of simplicity, and in order to avoid trouble in the future, the Committee would reject the Amendment.


said the Attorney General had asserted that the Amendment was impracticable, inconvenient and unnecessary. What did he mean by the last suggestion?


Under the Bill as it stands the local authority have power to bring these matters before the Board of Education; hence the Amendment is unnecessary.


asserted that there was nothing in the Bill which conferred on the local education authority either the power or the duty of interfering with respect to infractions of the Conscience Clause. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that the managers had the power specified in the Amendment? Suppose the Conscience Clause were infringed by a teacher; would the board of managers have power to deal with complaints in the manner suggested in the Amendment? It was only reasonable that they should have it.


said it was admitted that the alleged cases were extremely rare. ["No."] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton said expressly that such cases were rare.


said the question was not as to the rarity of the cases, but as to the expected character of the board of managers under the new law. The Attorney General said that under the new law things would be quite different. But they did not yet know how the majority of the board of management was to be constituted. There were to be four foundation managers, but no further definition had been given. It could only be inferred that the four new managers were to be somewhat of the same character as those under the existing trust deeds. According to the trust deed, of which he had a copy, there would be the principal clergyman of the parish, his curate——


Really, the hon. Member is now discussing the character of the board of managers in detail.


said he was answering the argument of the Attorney General that there was no need of the Amendment because the managers would be of a certain kind. He was going on to show that that kind consisted of the clergyman, his curate, and two persons who were willing to swear that for the last two years they had been communicating members of the Church of England. He did not know that that was a board more to be trusted than the local authority.

MR. BLACK (Banffshire)

asked whether, supposing an admitted infraction of the Conscience Clause were brought to the attention of the local education authority, it would constitute a good ground for the dismissal of the offending teacher under the previous portion of the Clause. If that question were answered in the affirmative, the Government might reasonably claim to have the best of the argument. If, however, the answer were in the negative, those whose consciences had been outraged by the infraction of the Conscience Clause would be a great deal worse off than before. At present the Board of Education had power to suspend the grant straight away, and the offending school suffered a direct loss, and the managers had to maintain it out of their own pockets. The Clause would have to do with people who wished to go as far as they could in the direction of infringing the Conscience Clause, and consequently, knowing the local education authority would not go the length of putting them out of the list of public elementary schools and building a school at the ratepayers' expense, the offending parties would push the infraction of the Conscience Clause a great deal further than they would otherwise do.


thought the hon. Member had misunderstood the objection of his hon. friends to the Amendment. They thought it unnecessary because the local education authority, as the Bill stood, undoubtedly had power to report to the Board of Education. The case supposed was that of a teacher who was so active that the Government grant to the school was lost. Whether that was an "educational ground" he did not like to be too certain, but it seemed to be uncommonly near it, because if the teacher continued in his courses the Government grant would be forfeited. But the way in which the scheme would work in such a case was, that the local authority would call the attention of the managers to what was going on, and to the fact that the school would lose the Government grant, and be no longer maintained out of the rates if the practices were continued.


said the hon. and learned Member had hardly answered his question; he would really like a "yes" or "no" answer.


said that, while it might be true that cases of infraction of Clause 7 and the Conscience Clause might be very rare, when they did occur they occurred not through the fault of the teacher of his own instance and option, but as the result of stress and influence placed upon him by the managers—particularly the clerical manager. The Committee would, therefore, do well to consider the matter from the point of view of what the clerical managers would do in this respect. So long as the typical trust deed of the National Society was accepted, the sole authority in the last resort would be the incumbent of the parish. Of late years there had been growing up in the denominational schools, a new difficulty with regard to the Conscience Clause—a difficulty not as between the Established Church teacher and the child of a Dissenter, but as between the child of a Low Churchman and the teaching imposed on the school by a High Church clergyman. The Clause under consideration and the Conscience Clause dependent upon it, hardly met that situation. A separate class-room and some kind of separate teaching could be provided for the children withdrawn because their parents were Nonconformists or Jews, but that provision could not be made for half the children in the Church schools who might be withdrawn from the teaching in the religious hour because that teaching had become imbued by the instructions of a clergyman of High Church character. The appeal to the Board of Education was not efficacious, and it seemed to him that there was a good case made out for carrying the existing law farther than had been the case in the past.


pointed out that the remarks of the hon. Member were not relevant to the Amendment.


said he thought it was the duty of the Committee to see that a better method of putting the existing law into operation was obtained.

*(1.15.) SIR W. HART DYKE (Kent, Dartford)

said that so far as the discussion had gone it paid high testimony to the utility of the operation of the Bill. Whatever difficulties there might have been in the past with regard to parents, at all events, when this Bill became law, they would not fail to disappear. As he understood the matter, hon. Members opposite were not satisfied with the Bill as it stood, and they wanted to know how it would operate in the case of difficulties raised by the parents. Hon. Members opposite seemed to forget that whatever happened the Board of Education would not part with the absolute control they had over elementary education. Control must be absolute with them, for they held the purse strings, and wherever a case existed which was detrimental to good education they would retain in the future the power which they had today. The local education authority, so far as the Bill was concerned, were absolutely supreme in dealing with all secular education, but he apprehended that where a chaotic state of things existed in regard to religious differences the local education authority would have power to interfere.


The Attorney General has told us the opposite.


said the local authority were responsible for good education in every school in their district, and if a state of things existed through the action of the managers which produced strong religious feelings of bitterness, that would be hostile to education n that school and destructive of its success. There must be unity of action between the two authorities, and hon. Members opposite seemed to forget that the first general Clause laid down distinctly that this authority was to act in accordance with a scheme which had to be approved by the Board of Education. Therefore there must be unity of action between these two bodies as regarded all difficulties. Both these bodies were responsible for public funds, one to the locality and the other at Whitehall, and they were also responsible for providing a good education and for the conducting of education in every school in England and Wales. The first thing that would happen in a case of difficulty would be that the representative of the local authority would at once call attention to the state of affairs existing in that particular school. There would be an inquiry. The local authority would say to the Education Committee: "There are very great grievances in connection with this school, and we have had complaints." They would have to make an inquiry, and if their investigations satisfied them that the state of things existing in that school was injurious to education, they would call the attention of the head authority at Whitehall, which would be responsible for the scheme, to the matter. What would be the result? The education authority at Whitehall would immediately call the attention of the managers to the same thing, and say to them "This state of thing cannot continue, and if it does we shall refuse your grant." That was not an unfair description of what would take place. When the hon. Member mentioned the grievances of all these parents with respect to the religious difficulty, he must again remind the Committee of the earnest speech made by the head representative of the Union of Teachers, in which he stated emphatically that after twenty years' experience as a teacher in board schools and voluntary schools in this country, he knew of no case of complaint in regard to religious education. He had tried to explain to the Committee what he thought would be the common-sense arrangement under the Act.


said he should like to put a concrete case, which he had already alluded to upon a former occasion. In this instance the children had been withdrawn from religious teaching at the commencement of the school on account of the conscientious objection of their parents. The children had already walked miles upon a pouring wet morning, and upon presenting themselves at the school these children were told by the manager of the school or the teacher—"No, you are not entitled to come in now; the school has not commenced yet for secular education. You must remain outside until the religious instruction is over." Could the commencement of the school be set apart for religious instruction, and would the local managers of that school be entitled to say, "You have nothing whatever to do with the time table. This is religious education, and we can do what we like. "What power had they got to deal with that case under this Bill? The Attorney General said there were certain powers which would obviate this complaint. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury said it would be illegal to do it, but that a common-sense Board of Managers would do it. His right hon. friend the Member for Dartford had drawn a picture of what would take place, and that was very much what they wanted to take place; but it would be prevented from taking place by these very conditions. In the case he had given the managers of the school did not violate the Conscience Clause.


said if there was no violation of the Conscience Clause it had no bearing opon the Amendment. The question as to what would happen under those circumstances, it being admitted that there was no infraction of the Conscience Clause, was one which he had better not deal with on this Amendment.

(1.25.) MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

said the Attorney-General said this case was not legally a breach of the Conscience Clause.


I did not say that. I said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton put a case assuming that there was no breach of the Conscience Clause. This Amendment deals only with cases in which there has been a breach of the Conscience Clause.


said that when a person complained about this breach of the Conscience Clause the Education Department were entitled to say, "It is not a distinct breach and we are not entitled to interfere." If such complaints were made to the local authority they could go and see the managers, and the grievances could be immediately remedied. They might not have the actual legal right, but being the local authority and having the power to see into it, they would see that the particular complaint was remedied. The great advantage of this Amendment would be that these grievances would be dealt with at once by the education authority. Everybody admitted that the Education Department had full power to deal with this matter, but it did not follow that they were necessarily in a position to deal with it. These disputes were very much personal questions, and turned upon a very slight difference of evidence; and it was the most difficult thing in the world to deal with a religious question. The Education Department had very often to deal with these questions upon paper evidence, and this method was so difficult that very often the Department felt obliged not to take any action, because it would involve the whole cessation of grants to that particular school. On the other hand, when it came to the local authority sending one of their body to talk the matter over with the teachers and parents, it was obvious they would be able to deal with many of these difficulties. He thought the most valuable contribution in favour of this Amendment was the speech of the right hon. Member for Dartford. They desired that the local authority should have power to deal with these matters. The Attorney-General had argued that they could not give this power to two different authorities, and that therefore it must remain, as at present, in the hands of the Department. The speech of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury seemed to be absolutely sound in favour of the Amendment. They should put into the Bill what the local authority was to do where there was a breach of the Conscience Clause.


appealed to the Committee to bring this discussion to a close. He thought the arguments on both sides had now been placed before the Committee.

SIR JOSEPH LEESE (Lancashire, Accrington)

said that cases were very rare under the Conscience Clause, but everybody was aware that they did sometimes occur. When they did arise the local authority should be in a position to receive complaints and make inquiry. He ventured to say that it was a condition precedent to the inquiry that the local authority should have power to receive complaints in regard to the matter to be inquired into.

MR. SPEAR (Devonshire, Tavistock)

said he believed the control originally provided in the Bill was sufficient for all purposes, but the Committee had seen fit to amplify that control in certain particulars. Having made that departure he thought they were now dealing with one of the most important points that could come up. While he did not share the fears of the Nonconformists in connection with this Bill, he thought it would be a concession to the spirit of perhaps unreasonable suspicion and would remove some feeling of uneasiness if the Amendment were accepted. He held that eight Churchmen out of ten were as anxious as Nonconformists to deal justly with the claims of Nonconformists, but here and there they had unreasonable clergymen or Churchmen who did not appreciate the conscientious feelings of the Nonconformists. The acceptance of the Amendment would secure that whatever that unwise clergyman sought to deal disrespectfully with the conscientious feelings of Nonconformists the local authority would have specific directions to deal with the case. Consequently, he, as a warm supporter of the main principles of the Bill, believed that the acceptance of the Amendment or of similar words, would remove the feeling of anxiety and tend to promote the cordial co-operation which they all hoped would be shown in carrying out the provision of the Bill.

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

said he would state facts in his own experience, which would, he thought, be much more convincing than some of the speeches the Committee had heard, He knew a village, partly manufacturing, partly farming, in which it had been the custom of the clergymen from time to time to take the children out of the school—it was a one-school village—into the church at eleven o'clock on certain saints' days. Who these saints were he did not know. The largest proportion of the children in this Church school were those of Nonconformist parents. He took upon himself to inquire why those Nonconformist parents did not withdraw their children from school or complain of their being brought into church to be taught the Church catechism and other things. They said they did not want to make complaints. A blacksmith in the village said to him, "Oh, you know our customers are farmers in the district, and it would not do to make these complaints. Another man, a grocer, said, "I do take an active part in the chapel, but there are plenty of farmers round here who are customers. They come and get things in my shop and I do not want to offend them." That was the state of things they wanted to deal with by the Amendment. The inspector would come in contact with the cases in the schools, and complaints might be made to him by the parents, though they would not venture to complain, direct to the Department in Whitehall.

MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)

said anyone who knew anything whatever of the strong position taken up by the Nonconformists with regard to this Bill must recognise the fact that one of the results of passing the Bill would be an increase of sectarian bitterness in every parish throughout the kingdom. One of the results also would be that more people would avail themselves of the Conscience Clause than in the past. On the other hand, when they had small men as managers of schools a certain amount of reprisals would be undertaken, and there might be more petty tyranny than in the past. He did not say that there would be many of those tyrannies. His own experience was that the managers and clergymen were broad-minded men, but there was no doubt whatever that there was an intolerant minority, and it was their duty to protect the children against that minority when there was any infraction of the Conscience Clause. It seemed to him that there was only one way proposed by the Bill, namely, to threaten the managers that the grant would be withdrawn and a new school built. That was an utterly absurd threat to make. It was using a steam-hammer to crush an egg-shell. He would support the Amendment.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

said Section 7 of the Act of 1870 had worked very well indeed. The infractions had been rare. He believed the whole Committee would accept that view. [Cries of "No."] Then he believed the great bulk of the Committee would admit that the infractions had been rare. Notwithstanding that he suggested to the Prime Minister the extreme desirableness of accepting the substance of the Amendment at any rate. Under Clause 6 of this Bill the local authority would have all the powers and duties of the School Board affecting their own schools. They would do exactly what School Boards had done in the past under Section 7 of the Act of 1870. What was to be done with regard to the non-provided schools? They had given to local authority full control over secular education, but this was not secular education. He was dealing with the non-provided schools, and under the law, as it stood, which would be incorporated in the present Bill, the local education authority would have no right to make any inquiry in regard to any complaint.


said that the appointed managers would look after them.


said he understood the other night that the managers were to work as a whole. Two of the managers had no right to inquire into this matter and the other four had. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no"] Well, all the six managers had, and they were to represent their complaint to the Board of Education. [Cries of "Yes."] Very well, now they were getting this matter cleared up. The two public representatives and the four trust managers could inquire into any infraction of sub-Sections 1 and 2 of the Act of 1870, and make representations to the Board of Education, but they were not to make their representations to the local education authority. [Cries from the Ministerial Benches of "No, no."] No, because the education authority would have no power.


said that if that view was enforced, the Amendment was out of order.


said that that was not a matter for him. At the bottom of the sub-Section it was set forth that any scholar might be withdrawn by his parent from religious instruction without forfeiting any benefits of the scholar. Well, if the scholar was withdrawn that was a matter on which the education authority would have no control, although they had control over secular education. He contended that the system of the provided schools and the non-provided schools should be exactly the same. He would ask the Prime Minister to accept this form of Amendment, viz., to leave out the words "deal with," and to make it read "and to receive, inquire into, and represent to the Education Department any complaints," etc. That would leave the law absolutely fair with regard to both sets of schools, and the procedure would be in both what it was now in regard to the board schools.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— To leave out the words 'deal with,' and insert the words 'represent to the Board of Education.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)

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


said he could not agree quite with his hon. friend that the local authority could not now, or should not, under the Bill, have the power to deal with complaints of this kind; and he confessed he preferred the words as moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen. All that they asked was that the same powers should be given in the case of the non-provided schools as in the case of the provided schools. They wanted to have the same power that if a teacher, paid by the local authority, was guilty of an infraction of the Conscience Clause he could be dismissed by the local authority. He understood from the Attorney-General that the local authority had a power of inquiry. He would put a case of this sort. Suppose the local authority called for an explanation from the Board of Managers, and that they said "You have nothing to do with it; this is purely a religious question." Take another point. Suppose that a local inquiry was to be held, and that the managers were called upon to attend, but refused. What means had the county authority of compelling them?


How could we confer any power to compel managers to answer questions? If the managers did not answer questions, they would be self-condemned.


said he could not agree with his right hon. friend. If it was not made part of the function of the local authority to deal with those complaints, but if it was the business of the Board of Education, they would have a perfect right to refuse to answer questions or to give an explanation. That was the whole point. This discussion was becoming simply farcical when it was suggested that the Bill was to be administered by means of complaints through the penny post to the Education Department by any one out of thirty-five millions of people. Was that the administration and control of secular education? What they wanted to know was if there was to be an effective right of inquiry, and to call for evidence or explanations on the part of the managers in their defence. As the Bill stood, the managers might say "This is no business of yours." The Prime Minister constantly replied, "You have your own managers, and they can make inquiry," but they were in a permanent minority.


said that even a minority could take independent action.


said that it struck him sometimes that a minority

might have a monoply of administration. All that they asked for was that the minority should have the right of a proper inquiry into the facts when the majority of the managers did not want inquiry. The two representative managers could only act as a part of the body to which they belonged, and the moment they began to act on their own initiative they ceased to act as managers, and only acted as individuals. They had no power. Here was one of the best tests as to whether the Nonconformists of the country were going to be protected by this Bill. He was glad that this Amendment had been moved; it showed that all the talk about complete control was really not intended, and that the position would be in the future as it had been in the past.

(1.58.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

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

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 18; Noes, 79. (Division List No. 418.)

Anson, Sir William Reynell Cohen, Benjamin Louis Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Godson,SirAugustusFrederick
Bailey, James (Walworth) Colomb,SirJohnCharlesReady Gore,HnG.R.C.Ormsby-(Salop
Bain, colonel James Robert Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Goulding, Edward Alfred
Baird, John George Alexander Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Graham, Henry Robert
Balcarres, Lord Cranborne, Viscount Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Cripps, Charles Alfred Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Greville, Hon. Ronald
Balfour,RtHnGerald W.(Leeds Cubitt, Hon. Henry Gunter, Sir Robert
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hall, Edward Marshall
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Hamilton,RtHnLordG(Midd'x
Bartley, George C. T. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Doxford, Sir William Theodore Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford
Beckett, Ernest William Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Hare, Thomas Leigh
Bignold, Arthur Dyke,Rt.Hon.SirWilliamHart Harris, Frederick Leverton
Bill, Charles Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Healy, Timothy Michael
Blundell, Colonel Henry Fardell, Sir T. George Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Helder, Augustus
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Fergusson, Rt Hn. SirJ.(Manc'r Hobhouse Henry (Somerset,E.
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside
Brymer, William Ernest Finch, George H. Horner, Frederick William
Burdett-Coutts, W. Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Hudson, George Bickersteth
Campbell,RtHn.J. A.(Glasgow Fisher, William Hayes Kemp, George
Carew, James Lawrence FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose- Kennedy, Patrick James
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Lawson, John Grant
Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbyshire Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareh'm
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Flower, Ernest Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Chamberlain,RtHon,J.(Brim.) Foster, Henry William Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Chamberlain,RtHnJ.A.(Worc. Foster,PhilipS.(Warwick,S.W Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham
Chapman, Edward Galloway, William Johnson Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Garfit, William Lowe, Francis William
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Pretyman, Ernest George Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Stone, Sir Benjamin
Lucas,ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth Purvis, Robert Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Macartney,RtHn.W.G.Ellison Pym, C. Guy Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Macdona, John Cumming Randles, John S. Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.
Majendie, James A. H. Rankin, Sir James Thorburn, Sir Walter
Malcolm, Ian Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Thornton, Percy M.
Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton Ratcliff, R. F. Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Milvain, Thomas Rattigan, Sir William Henry Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Monatgu, G. (Huntingdon) Reid, James (Greenock) Valentia, Viscount
More,Robt.Jasper(Shropshire) Remnant, James Farquharson Vincent,ColSirC.E.H.(Sheff'ld
Morgan,DavidJ(Walthmstow) Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Morrell, George Herbert Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen Warde, Col. C. E.
Morrison, James Archibald Ritchie,RtHnCharlesThomson Welby,Lt.-Col.A.C.E(Taunton
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Williams,RtHnJPowell-(Birm.
Mount, William Arthur Ropner, Colonel Robert Wilson, A. Stanley (York,E.R.)
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Round, Rt. Hon. James Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Murray,RtHn.A.Graham(Bute Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Myers, William Henry Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Newdegate, Francis A. N. Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Nicholson, William Graham Seely,Maj.J.E.B.(Isle of Wight Younger, William
Peel,Hn.Wm.RobertWellesley Sharpe, William Edward T.
Percy, Earl Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)
Pierpoint, Robert Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Platt-Higgins, Frederick Spear, John Ward Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther
Plummer, Walter R. Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud Grant, Corrie Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Griffith, Ellis J. Pickard, Benjamin
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Price, Robert John
Black, Alexander William Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William Rea, Russell
Burns, John Harwood, George Reckitt, Harold James
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Rigg, Richard
Burt, Thomas Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Robertsn, Edmund (Dundee)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Helme, Norbal Waston Roe, Sir Thomas
Caine, William Sproston Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Caldwell, James Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E. Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Cameron, Robert Horniman, Frederick John Soares, Ernest J.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants
Causton, Richard Knight Jacoby, James Alfed Strachey, Sir Edward
Cawley, Frederick Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Craig, Robert Hunter Kinloch,SirJohnGeorgeSmyth Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Layland-Barratt, Francis Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles Leigh, Sir Joseph Wallace, Robert
Duncan, J. Hastings Leng, Sir John Wason, Eugene
Edwards, Frank Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Emmott, Alfred M'Kenna, Reginald Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Fenwick, Charles Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Moss, Samuel
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Nussey, Thomas Willans TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Fuller, J. M. F. Partington, Oswald Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Goddard, Daniel Ford Paulton, James Mellor Mr. William M'Arthur.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put accordingly, and agreed to.

(2.8.) Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 86; Noes, 171. (Division List No. 419.) (2.22.)

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) Bignold, Arthur Bryce, Rt. Hon. James
Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud Black, Alexander William Burt, Thomas
Ashton, Thomas Gair Brigg, John Buxton, Sydney Charles
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Caine, William Sproston
Caldwell, James Helme, Norval Watson Reckitt, Harold James
Cameron, Robert Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Hobhouse,C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) Rigg, Richard
Causton, Richard Knight Horniman, Frederick John Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Cawley, Frederick Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Roe, Sir Thomas
Craig, Robert Hunter Jacoby, James Alfred Schwann, Charles E.
Crombie, John William Jones, William (Carn'rvonshire Shipman, Dr. John G.
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Kinloch,SirJohnGeorgeSmyth Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Layland-Barratt, Francis Soares, Ernest J.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Leese,SirJosephF.(Accrington Spear, John Ward
Duncan, J. Hastings Leigh, Sir Joseph Spencer,RtHn.C.R.(Northants
Edwards, Frank Leng, Sir John Strachey, Sir Edward
Emmott, Alfred Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Farquharson, Dr. Robert M'Kenna, Reginald Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)
Fenwick, Charles Middlemore, John Throgmort'n Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen Wallace, Robert
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Moss, Samuel Wason, Eugene
Fuller, J. M. F. Norton, Captain Cecil William White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Nussey, Thomas Willans Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Grant, Corrie Partington, Oswald Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Paulton, James Mellor Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Harwood, George Pickard, Benjamin TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Price, Robert John Mr. Herbert Gladstone
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D Rea, Russell and Mr. Wm. M'Arthur.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Kennedy, Patrick James
Arkwright, John Stanhope Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lawson, John Grant
Bailey, James (Walworth) Dyke, Rt. hon. Sir William Hart Lee,ArthurH(Hants.,Fareham
Bain, Colonel James Robert Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Baird, John George Alexander Fardell, Sir T. George Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Balcarres, Lord Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S.
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lowe, Francis William
Balfour,RtHnGeraldW(Leeds Finch, George H. Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor Fisher, William Hayes Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth
Bartley, George C. T. FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Macdona, John Cumming
Beckett, Ernest William Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Majendie, James A. H.
Bill, Charles Flower, Ernest Malcolm, Ian
Blundell, Colonel Henry Forster, Henry William Milvain, Thomas
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Boulnois, Edmund Galloway, William Johnson More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Garfit, William Morgan, David J(Walth'mstow
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Morrell, George Herbert
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Morrison, James Archibald
Brymer, William Ernest Gore,HnG.R.COrmsby-(Salop Morton, Arthur Aylmer
Burdett-Coutts, W. Goulding, Edward Alfred Mount, William Arthur
Campbell,RtHn.J.A.(Glasgow Graham, Henry Robert Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Carew, James Laurence Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Murray,RtHn A Graham(Bute
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs. Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Cavendish, V.C.W(Derbyshire Greville, Hon. Ronald Myers, William Henry
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Gunter, Sir Robert Newdegate, Francis A. N.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. HamiltonRtHnLordG(Midd'x Nicholson, William Graham
Chamberlain,RtHnJA.(Worc. Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley
Chapman, Edward Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd Percy, Earl
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hare, Thomas Leigh Pierpoint, Robert
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Harris, Frederick Leverton Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hay, Hon. Claude George Plummer, Walter R.
Colomb,SirJohnCharles Ready Healy, Timothy Michael Pretyman, Ernest George
Colston,Chas. Edw. H. Athole Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col Edward
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Helder, Augustus Purvis, Robert
Cranborne, Viscount Hobhouse,Henry(Somerset,E Pym, C. Guy
Cripps, Charles Alfred Hogg, Lindsay Randles, John S.
Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton) Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside Rankin, Sir James
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Horner, Frederick William Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hudson, George Bickersteth Ratcliff, R. F.
Dorington,Rt.Hon.Sir John E Kemp, George Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Reid, James (Greenock) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand Walrond,Rt Hn. Sir William H.
Remnant, James Farquharson Stanley,EdwardsJas(Somerset Warde, Colonel C. E.
Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) Welby,Lt.-Col.A.C.E(Taunt'n
Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green Stewart, Sir Mark J.M'Taggart Williams,RtHnJPowell-(Birm
Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Stone, Sir Benjamin Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson.
Ropner, Colonel Robert Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Round, Rt. Hon. James Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G(Oxf'd Univ. Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Thorburn, Sir Walter
Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Thornton, Percy M.
Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Seely,Maj.J.E.B.(IsleofWight Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Sharpe, William Edward T. Valentia, Viscount
Smith,JamesParker(Lanarks.) Vincent,Col.SirC.E.H(Sheffi'ld

, who had an Amendment on the Paper providing that the local education authority shall have power to inspect the school, "and their inspectors shall present yearly to the Education Department their reports as to the state and efficiency of the schools," said he understood that the previous evening objection was taken to an Amendment with reference to inspection, and it was indicated that another place might be found in the Bill to deal with the subject separately. If this was the case, then he would postpone what he had to say on the subject of inspection until the point was raised later. He would like, however, to have a clear understanding from the Government that there would be a future opportunity to discuss the Question.


said that the previous evening, in opposition to an Amendment similar in character to that of the right hon. Gentleman, objection was raised that it imposed a condition on the maintenance of public elementary schools which they themselves had no opportunity of fulfilling, because it rested with the local education authority, and, in the case of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, not even with the local authority, but the local authority's inspectors. The Amendment, therefore, was not only out of place, but it would reduce the Clause to absurdity. It was also pointed out that if the subject of inspection was to be treated it should be treated as a whole at a different stage in the Bill. There would no doubt be an opportunity of raising the question, but he was not in a position to give any pledge that the Government would create that opportunity. It would have to be created by hon. Members opposite, but that such an opportunity would arise he thought there could be no doubt.


said that an opportunity to which the Government were not favourable was not much of an opportunity. He did not think the Committee could accept the statement of the hon. Member with any great expectation that the subject of inspection would be considered at all. If that was the case, he might as well state on the Amendment he had placed on the Paper why he thought the subject of inspection should be dealt with in the Bill.


appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to proceed with his Amendment. The words proposed would add as a condition to the right of maintenance that the inspectors should present yearly to the Education Department their reports as to the state of efficiency of the schools. The performance of that duty rested entirely with the inspectors of the local education authority, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to propose an Amendment which laid down as a condition of the right of a school to maintenance something which rested entirely in the option of the local education authority inspectors. It was putting in something as a condition which, however right it might be in its proper place, was meaningless and repugnant in the Clause. He thought, indeed, that the subject was really a point of order.


said that it might be desirable in that case to make his Amendment mandatory, and not conditional. He assumed that the education authority would inspect the schools. It was essential that there should be inspection by this authority for this reason. There was to be a county rate for these schools, and the ratepayers ought to know what was the general condition of the schools for which they were to pay that rate. This could only be known by reports made to them as to the condition of each school. If those reports were satisfactory the ratepayers would then say, "Very well, we will agree to the rate." The county authority had a right to say that they would not pay the rate to support machinery which was not doing the work for which such a rate ought to be raised, and it was perfectly plain that if they did not have some provision of this kind the ratepayers of the county would be entitled to resist the rate, because no account would be rendered to them of the condition of the schools for which they paid. They would not know whether they were paying for things which were worth the money. It should be the business of the education authority, through an inspection of every school in the county, to render an account to the ratepayers of what they were paying for. How were the county authority to render an account to the ratepayers of the condition of the schools in respect of which the rate was levied? He did not wish to prolong this discussion now if there was an understanding that there would be an opportunity given of dealing with the question of inspection. Every ratepayer had a right to refuse the rate unless the education authority rendered an account of how the rate was expended, and what was the condition of the schools upon which it had been expended. That seemed absolutely vital to this question. There must be a record kept of the condition of the schools by the people who were responsible to the Education Department. This must be placed upon record, so that every ratepayer in the county might know that the school had been inspected by the local authority. This question had nothing to do with the Education Department in London, for no one could answer for this inspection except the local education authority. If it was out of place at this stage, he was perfectly willing to raise this distinct question upon another occasion if the Government would give an opportunity of considering the question of inspection, without which no ratepayer was bound to pay the rate. He assumed that there would be an inspection, for the local authority must satisfy themselves that the schools were in a proper condition.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 12, after the word 'school,' to insert the words 'and their inspectors shall present yearly to the Education Department their reports as to the state and efficiency of the schools.'"—(Sir William Harcourt.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

(3.5.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment, because it was absurd and impossible where it was now proposed.


said he had already stated that he was perfectly willing to yield to that objection if they had an indication that this matter would be dealt with as a separate matter.


said the right hon. Gentleman should raise the question of inspection in some place where it could be reasonably dealt with. His right hon. friend admitted that it was not very important that this question should be raised here, and considering the extraordinary amount of time they were spending over these points he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment. But he quite agreed that the education authority was responsible to the ratepayers, and that it would have not only to submit its accounts to audit, but to make itself acquainted with the condition of the schools in its district. But this was not the place to discuss those excellent objects.


said that he had asked for a statement of that kind at the very commencement of his remarks, and if the right hon. Gentleman thought this was not the proper place to insert such a condition he would yield to that at once. He was perfectly satisfied with the statement the First Lord of the Treasury had made, and he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


said that he wished to insert after the word "school" the words "and to determine the time to be allowed for secular instruction and religious instruction respectively."


said that the object of the Amendment was covered by the words in sub-Section (a) providing that the managers should carry out any directions of the local education authority as to secular instruction.


said, if he understood the ruling which had just been given, it was that under the provision with regard to secular education the local authority had full power to determine how much time was to be given to secular instruction, and it was only because this was left in doubt that he moved his Amendment. Under these circumstances he did not wish to detain the Committee.


Do I understand that the authority will have the right to declare what time, what particular hours of the day, shall be given to secular instruction?


I should think so. It does not interfere with religious instruction at all. With the hours of religious instruction, I take it, the Committee have decided that the local education authority are to have no power to interefere.


I am afraid I have not made myself clear. Let me put a practical illustration. Supposing the local authority were to say that Secular instruction shall be given between the hours of 9 and 11.30, and the managers said "We are anxious that religious instruction shall be given between 9 and 9.30," what is to happen?


I think the managers would have to begin their religious instruction at 8.30.

*MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON (Hackney, S.) moved to leave out all the words of the sub-Section after the word "school." The effect of the sub-Section as it stood was that the managers were to keep the accounts. He believed none of them wanted that, but that all of them wanted the local education authority to keep its own accounts. This difficulty had been foreseen by several hon. Members opposite who had put down Amendments on this point. He took it that the managers would be bound to dispose of the money in a particular manner, and be the actual agents of the authority. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had put down an Amendment which would take away the power of audit from the education authority and give it to the Education Department.


No; to the Local: Government Board.


said he apprehended that the real object of the hon. Member's Amendment was to have the account of the local education authority audited by the Local Government Board. He did not think he need say any more upon this point, for he thought he had shown conclusively that the words in the Bill would give managers the power of keeping accounts and saying how the money was to be spent.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 12, to leave out from the word 'school,' to end of line 13."—(Mr. Herbert Robertson.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'and the accounts' stand part of the Clause."

* SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

said he believed that, on the point of law, the Government, if they agreed to this Amendment, would be on the right lines. He agreed that they were the accounts of the education authority, and not of the managers at all, and that, even if these words were omitted, they would be subject to an audit. But the question was, what sort of an audit? This matter had always been one of great complexity and difficulty. At the present moment the accounts of School Boards were subject to a satisfactory audit under the Act of 1870. They were audited at the office of the School Board, and the School Board districts, being mostly small in area, there was a very close analogy between them and the voluntary schools. The audit held at the office of the School Board within the school district by the district auditor was one which was thoroughly satisfactory, but it did not apply to the voluntary schools, and the result was that the finance of voluntary schools was of the weirdest character. He had been allowed to peruse the accounts of some voluntary schools, and he did not think it would be denied by the strongest friends of voluntary schools that, although their accounts were not wickedly fraudulent, they were sometimes fraudulent in the sense of not having much relation to the facts. He admitted that there were cases where the accounts were admirably kept in voluntary schools but the present practice of voluntary schools had led to the most extraordinary finance in the case of some of them. Under the Act of 1897, the audit of the accounts of voluntary schools had sometimes been disastrously bad, and he did not think they should part with these words until they knew exactly what was going to happen. Everything turned on what the practical character of the audit was going to be.


said the accounts now would not be those of the managers but of the local education authority, and he agreed that they should be well audited.


said they could not part with those words until they knew exactly what was going to happen, and while he agreed that the Bill, without those words, made the accounts of voluntary schools subject to a Local Government Board audit, his point was that everything turned upon what the practical character of that audit was going to be. The present audit of School Board accounts and Parish Councils was perfectly satisfactory, for it gave expressly the power to every parochial elector to be present at all times to take copies, and inspect the accounts, and it directly promoted the raising of individual objections by individual ratepayers. The result had been that an enormous number of individual objections had been raised, both in the case of School Boards and in the case of Parish Councils. They had been objections which had either been sustained and surcharged or allowed and remitted by the Local Government Board under their equitable jurisdiction. Those objections they had got to encourage. He was afraid that the other kind of Local Government Board audit, to which County Councils were subjected, might be the audit under this Bill, and if the audit of the accounts of voluntary schools was only that kind of audit it would not be satisfactory, and it would not check these abuses, and would not have the effect which the audit had had in the case of small School Boards and Parish Councils. There were seldom any objections in the case of the county audit, where the individual ratepayer did not appear very much. A separate auditor, from time to time, had been appointed, and the accounts being of extraordinary bulk and detail it was the clerks really who did the work, and the individual ratepayer did not come in at all and did not attend. If the accounts of County Councils were good enough to pass muster they seldom raised these controversial questions, but the accounts of voluntary schools were of a totally different character. It would not be safe for them simply to accept these general principles. They ought to have a definite statement of what would be done. He agreed that the Local Government Board had full powers, that their staff was good on the whole, and that they ought to be allowed to deal with the matter. But the question was how it was to be dealt with, and that was very important. The Committee should have in advance some sketch of the way in which the Local Government Board was going to act in future.


said the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with two subjects, one of which ought to come under Clause 13, and not under that the Committee were now discussing. Clause 13 dealt with the question of audit and would come before the Committee for discussion later on, but at the same time there was no objection to state the view of the Government as to the question now before them. The proposal in the Bill as it stood was one which he thought all were agreed would not satisfactorily meet the case. The object was that the accounts of the authority responsible for the disbursement of the money should be audited by responsible auditors. When the Bill passed all the revenue of the schools derived from rates or Government grants would be received, not by the School Boards or by the managers of the voluntary schools, but by the local education authority. It was the accounts of the local authority, therefore, and not the parochial or district accounts, which ought to be subjected to a strict system of audit. If the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet were to be adopted, it would be necessary to have two audits, one of the local education authority's accounts, and the other of the parochial accounts. The latter would be of little value, but it would add enormously to the work of the auditors and involve considerable expenditure. As the Committee knew, the costs of the audit system of the country were met almost entirely by charges in the shape of stamps, and it would be very unfair to put on the managers the cost of the audit of their parochial school accounts. On the other hand, it would be unjust to charge that cost to the County Council, because they would have to pay twice over for the audit. What was desired was that there should be a Government audit by district auditors, perfectly independent of any Government Department, although appointed by the Government. They would exercise their powers in a judicial capacity, and see that the money spent had been spent according to law. That audit was as complete as it could well be. The Government proposed to accept the Amendment, and, by the omission of these words, to subject the accounts of the local education authority to the ordinary system of Government audit which obtained at the present time.


What about the voluntary schools in a borough?


said sub-Section 3 of Clause 13 dealt specially with the accounts of schools in the area of a borough. That sub-Section set forth— Separate accounts shall be kept by the council of a borough of their receipts and expenditure under this Act, and those accounts shall be made up and audited in like manner and subject to the same provisions as the accounts of a County Council, and the enactments relating to the audit of those accounts, and to all matters incidental thereto and consequential thereon, including the penal provisions, shall apply. It was therefore unnecessary to provide in the sub-Section now before the Committee for the audit of the accounts of schools in a borough area. In this particular case the Government would accept the Amendment in order to make it clear that the audit was to be a Government audit, and not the audit suggested in the words proposed to be left out. If it were necessary to make it perfectly clear that the audit was to be a regular one in all senses, words would have to be added in Clause 13. As the law stood at present, County Council accounts were liable to audit in the ordinary way, and therefore, after the passing of this Act, all their accounts in connection with education would come under that general law. It was necessary to deal with the borough question in Clause 13.


said he hardly followed the right hon. Gentleman in the scheme he had proposed. The words proposed to be left out— And the accounts of the managers shall be subject to audit by that authority, were very important. If these words were left out the practical result would be that the accounts of the managers would not be audited at all.


said they would have no accounts that were to be audited by the local authority.


did not understand that that was so. The right hon. Gentleman had objected to a system of parochial audit.


said he did not think he objected to what he might have called parochial accounts, but pointed out that the accounts would be kept by the local education authority. If there were parochial accounts, they would be merely a repetition of the accounts so kept.


said what they really wanted was an audit of the parochial expenditure on a school—he referred to the expenditure of public money. The audit of the whole accounts of a great county, which might have a thousand schools in its area, would be, absolutely useless for checking local inaccuracy, extravagance, or even illegal expenditure on the schools. At present they had a perfect system of local audit in every parish, conducted by Government auditors, under conditions which enabled them to see when an item of expenditure was illegal. Mr. Cockerton had stated even in London when expenditure was illegal. The accounts of the Parish Councils were audited, and he noticed from the report which had just been presented to Parliament by the President of the Local Government Board that the number of parochial accounts audited last year was between 7,000 and 8,000. The staff of the Local Government Board would be quite equal to the work. They had already to go into every parish where there was a Parish Council and every parish where there was a School Board, so that the addition to their labours would be very small indeed. What the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean wanted was that the people who paid the rates should have full knowledge of improper expenditure, and that they should have the right to go to the public auditor and say they were not legally entitled to be rated or taxed for that expenditure. If they took the whole of the accounts of the West Riding of Yorkshire, the audit would be absolutely useless so far as the expenditure in the parishes was concerned. What did the Government mean when they put these words in the Bill as drawn? The Government had said all along that they meant to give the local authority control over all the expenditure for secular education. This did not mean that they would deal with every item. They would allot to a certain school a certain sum of money, and they would fix the teachers' salaries. The expenditure would take place under the control of the managers, and under the Bill as originally brought in one of the conditions of their obtaining their position was to be that their accounts should be subject to the audit of the local education authority. If this sub-Section was left out they would get rid altogether of this audit, which was the most valuable of all. Unless they had a more distinct declaration of what the Government intended, he would oppose the deletion of the words.


said that he had endeavoured to make clear to the House that the details in regard to the audit must come up upon Clause 13. The auditor must hold as responsible for the expenditure of public money the one authority which had power to spend that money—that was to say, the local education authority, and not the managers. The Government proposed to make the audit a regular Government audit, and if it were necessary in Clause 13 to make their intentions clearer they would do so then.


asked the right hon. Gentleman whether they were to understand that in Clause 13 he would insert words making it perfectly clear that the audit was to be a local one.


said that that was part of the regulations issued in regard to the audit. He would much rather wait until they came to Clause 13 and state then what appeared to be the Government's view of the right way in which to draw up the regulations. It seemed to him that they should provide for local publication and local investigation. As the right hon. Gentleman knew, it was the duty of the auditor to satisfy himself, before he gave his certificate, that the accounts had been properly kept and the money properly spent, and it would be impossible for the auditor to satisfy himself on these accounts unless he carried his investigation further than the county town. Therefore he thought that not only local publication but local investigation would be necessary.


said the right hon. Gentleman's statement seemed perfectly satisfactory with regard to the general fund spent by the education authority. But there was the subsidiary question of certain funds which might have been spent by the managers. In some form or another there ought to be an audit of these. It seemed necessary that the education authority should audit that particular kind of account.

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)

said the question really raised by the Clause was not the audit of the accounts of the local education authority at all. It was the accounts of the managers. Under the wording of the Clause as already passed, the education authority would have full power to insist on the managers keeping certain accounts. That was constantly done already by the county authorities. In his particular county, a county treasurer was appointed to investigate the accounts of the district bodies with which the County Council had to deal. That was in addition to the Government audit. He knew from his own personal experience that the audit was of the most searching and minute character.


said he entirely agreed with the Government that the words referred to ought to be deleted. He had himself put an Amendment on the Paper to that effect, believing that the words in the sub-Section were unnecessary. Their conclusion might give rise to inferences derogatory to the authority of the County Council. Why were the words unnecessary? He understood that now the school managers would have no money at all of their own. That was a very serious position indeed for the voluntary schools. All the income of the voluntary schools from all sources would go into the hotchpot of the County Council. None of the money would proceed out of it to the manager except what the County Council allowed. The County Council need not employ managers at all for one single item of expenditure. They might pay the teachers and all the expenses of the school by agents of their own; they might select one or two managers and make them their agents; they might select an outsider and make him their agent; or they might make the whole body of managers their agents. In the latter case, the liability of the managers to account to their principal would be the same as if the agent had been a clerk. Therefore the managers would only have power of expenditure which was the result of delegation, and that delegation not only gave the right of audit but the right of calling to account.


said they ought not to allow the words to go out until they saw what the Government proposed as their substitute. It was exceedingly important that there should be an audit, and a searching one. The President of the Local Government Board had stated that all the money passed through the hands of the County Council. When the auditor came round the County Council might say, "We have given a cheque to the managers in respect of the accounts of that school and this is the voucher for that cheque." He asked the Parliamentary Secretary how the money was to be paid. Was the county treasurer to pay by cheque to the managers in order that they might pay the teachers, or was the treasurer to pay the salaries of the staff direct?


I cannot answer for the proceedings of a body which has not come into existence.


said the Committee ought to know what was contemplated by the Bill. This was really very essential as bearing on the question of audit and control. They were now making the teachers part of the staff of the County Council (that was the theory of the Government), just as a road surveyor, or a stonebreaker was. Was the money paid by the County Council direct, or to the teachers by precept to the managers? Did the managers say, "Here is a Budget; we want £500 to carry on with; will you give us that sum for this session?" That would make a great difference to the audit.


said that the details of every sum handed over to the managers would be subject to the review of the district auditors.


said that was not an answer to his question. What he wanted to know was whether the money would be paid direct to the teachers, or to the managers.


That would be for the local education department to decide.


said he wished to press the matter further. It was not merely the vouchers of the managers that were to be submitted to the auditor, but the actual receipts?




said that the explanations of Ministers were more satisfactory than the Bill. It was very important that the audit should be a local one. At the present moment the School Board accounts were examined upon the spot. Unless a right to inspect the accounts was given it would put it out of the power of an individual ratepayer to raise an objection at all. Take for instance the purchase of an harmonium for a school. If it was purchased by the managers out of the religious fund they might charge a rent for it, if it was used in the school, and that was a question which some individual ratepayer might wish to raise before the auditor. They knew perfectly well how very important the auditor now was. Mr. Cockerton had revolutionised the whole school administration throughout the country. He would be very glad if the President of the Local Government Board gave the assurance that an opportunity would be given to the ratepayers to raise objections to the accounts.


, said that that would be provided for in the regulations which would be made by the Department.


said it should be in the Bill. A system which worked perfectly fairly in regard to merely secular matters was turned topsy-turvy when they came to touch religion. This Bill was an illustration of that. In the ordinary affairs in life the man who paid was the man who had control, but in religious affairs one man paid and another spent. The difficulty they were in was that they could not accept anything on trust for this Government. They should see that the audit would be carried out in a thorough and most searching manner before they passed from this Clause. This Clause was the last straw to which they could cling. [Cheers and laughter from the MINISTERIAL Benches.] Yes, but it might be the straw that would break the camel's back. They must have some assurance on this matter. When the Grant-in-Aid Bill was passing through the House they were told that although 5s. per child was to be paid, a quid pro quo was being given in the shape of a thoroughly good system of audit. But the system had not been thoroughly effective, for the 5s. per child had been paid for five years and no account of it had been given at all. Before they parted from their rates, and £900,000 in addition, they had a right to know beforehand that there was something in the Act of Parliament itself providing for an audit being carried out in a thoroughly effective manner, and not merely an expression of opinion by a minister, however honest he might be. School Boards kept their accounts properly by thoroughly trained clerks; why should not clergymen be compelled to do the same?


They would be.


thought that the right hon. Gentleman was exceedingly rash in giving a pledge for 20,000 clergymen.


said he would give his word for it that the district auditors would adopt the system which was at present in use in other Departments. They could not give their certificates unless they were satisfied that the expenditure was legal and that the accounts were accurate.


said that that explanation would be excellent if they could get it in the Bill. Would the right hon. Gentleman guarantee to turn on those district auditors, see that the accounts were published in the locality, and that an opportunity was given to‡ every individual ratepayer to examine them, and enter his protest against any item he objected to?


said that all the money from public sources—Treasury grants and rates—was to go to the local authority. Would it be competent to hand the money over to the managers in a lump sum, and would there be a compulsory audit of the details of the expenditure of that money?


said that the district auditors would not pass the accounts unless they were satisfied that the money handed by the local authority to the managers had been spent in a legitimate manner.


said that was extremely satisfactory, but it would be

very helpful to the local authorities if that intention was set forth in some regulation, or in the Bill.

(4.13.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

rose in his place and moved that the Question be now put.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 203; Noes, 90. (Division List, No. 420.)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lambton Hon. Frederick Wm.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th
Arkwright, John Stanhope Durning-Lawrenee, Sir Edwin Lawson, John Grant
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw.H.
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Egerton, Hon. A de Tatton Lee, Arthur H.(Hants.,Fareham
Bailey, James (Walworth) Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Bain, Colonel James Robert Faber, George Denison (York) Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Baird, John George Alexander Fardell, Sir T. George Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham
Balcarres, Lord Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Fergusson, Rt. Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r Lowe, Francis William
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)
Balfour,Rt.HnGeraldW(Leeds Finch, George H. Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Banbury, Frederick George Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Fisher, William Hayes Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Bartley, George C. T. FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Fitzoy, Hon. Edward Algernon Macdona, John Cumming
Beckett, Ernest William Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Malcolm, Ian
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Flower, Ernest Maple, Sir John Blundell
Bignold, Arthur Forster, Henry William Middlemore, John Throgmort'n
Blundell, Colonel Henry Gardner, Ernest Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Garfit, William Milvain, Thomas
Boulnois, Edmund Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-Salop Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Brymer, William Ernest Goulding, Edward Alfred More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire
Bullard, Sir Harry Graham Henry Robert Morgan, David J(Walthamst'w
Burdett-Coutts, W. Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Morrell, George Herbert
Butcher, John George Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury Morrison, James Archibald
Campbell,Rt.Hn.J.A.(Glasgow Grenfell, William Henry Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Carew, James Laurence Greville, Hon. Ronald Mount, William Arthur
Carlile, William Walter Gunter, Sir Robert Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hall, Edward Marshall Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham(Bute
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Hamilton,RtHnLordG(Middx Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Myers, William Henry
Cavendish, V. C. W(Derbyshire Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd Newdegate, Francis A. N.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hare, Thomas Leigh Nicholson, William Graham
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Harris, Frederick Leverton Nicol, Donald Ninian
Chamberlain,RtHnJ.A.(Worc. Hay, Hon. Claude George Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley
Chapman, Edward Healy, Timothy Michael Percy, Earl
Charrington, Spencer Heath,ArthurHoward(Hanley Pierpoint, Robert
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Helder, Augustus Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside Plummer, Walter R.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Horner, Frederick William Pretyman, Ernest George
Colomb,SirJohnCharlesReady Howard, J. (Midd. Tottenham) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Purvis, Robert
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hudson, George Bickersteth Pym, C. Guy
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.) Randles, John S.
Cranborne, Viscount Kemp, George, Rankin, Sir James
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Kennedy, Patrick James Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Ratcliff, R. F.
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Kimber, Henry Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Davenport, William Bromley- King, Sir Henry Seymour Reid, James (Greenock)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Knowles, Lees Remnant, James Farquharson
Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge Spear, John Ward Warde, Colonel C. E.
Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk Welby, Lt. Col. A. C. E(Taunton
Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) Williams,RtHnJPowell-(Birm
Ropner, Colonel Robert Stone, Sir Benjamin Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.
Royds, Clement Molyneux Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv. Wylie, Alexander
Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Thorburn, Sir Walter Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Thornton, Percy M. Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Tollemache, Henry James Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Younger, William
Seely,Maj.J.E.B.(I. of Wight) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Sharpe, William Edward T. Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Shaw-Stewart,M. H. (Renfrew Valentia, Viscount Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. Walrond,Rt.HnSirWilliamH.
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William Reckitt, Harold James
Allen,CharlesP.(Glouc.,Stroud Harwood, George Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries
Ashton, Thomas Gair Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Rigg, Richard
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Black, Alexander William Helme, Norval Watson Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Roe, Sir Thomas
Burns, John Horniman, Frederick John Schwann, Charles E.
Burt, Thomas Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Buxton, Sydney Charles Jacoby, James Alfred Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Caine, William Sproston Jones, William(Carnarvonshire Soares, Ernest J.
Caldwell, James Kinloch,SirJohnGeorgeSmyth Spencer,Rt HnC.H.(Northants
Cameron, Robert Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington Stevenson, Francis S.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Leigh, Sir Joseph Strachey, Sir Edward
Causton, Richard Knight Leng, Sir John Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Cawley, Frederick Lloyd-George, David Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Craig, Robert Hunter Lough, Thomas Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Crombie, John William Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Wallace, Robert
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Warner, Thomas Courtenay.T
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Markham, Arthur Basil Wason, Eugene
Duncan, J. Hastings Mather, Sir William White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Edwards, Frank Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmathen) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Fenwick, Charles Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Moss, Samuel Woodhouse,SirJT(Huddersfi'd
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Newnes, Sir George
Gladstone,RtHn.HerlbertJohn Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Goddard, Daniel Ford Partington, Oswald TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Grant, Corrie Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Mr. Rea and Mr. Charles Hobhouse.
Griffith, Ellis J. Pickard, Benjamin
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Price, Robert John

When the bell had been rung for a division on the next Question,

MR. ANSTRUTHER (St. Andrews Burghs)

, seated and covered, said there had been a mistake in the figures announced. The Votes given for the Closure numbered 203, not 223.

MR. REA (Gloucester)

203 is the correct number.


The figure will be altered from 223 to 203.

(4.28.) Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 88; Noes, 205. (Division List No. 421.)

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) Burt, Thomas Craig, Robert Hunter
Allen, Charles P(Glouc.,Stroud Caine, William Sproston Crombie, John William
Ashton, Thomas Gair Caldwell, James Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Cameron, Robert Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.
Black, Alexander William Campbell-Bannernman, Sir H. Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Causton, Richard Knight Duncan, J. Hastings
Burns, John Cawley, Frederick Edwards, Frank
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Lough, Thomas Shipman, Dr. John G.
Fenwick, Charles Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Soares, Ernest J.
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Spencer,RtHnC.R.(Northants
Gladstone,RtHnHerbertJohn Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Stevenson, Francis S.
Goddard, Daniel Ford Markham, Arthur Basil Strachey, Sir Edward
Grant, Corrie Mather, Sir William Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Griffith, Ellis J Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Morgan,J.Lloyd(Carmarthen) Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Harwood, George Moss, Samuel Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Newnes, Sir George Wallace, Robert
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Norton, Capt. Cecil William Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Helme, Norval Watson Partington, Oswald Wason, Eugene
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Horniman, Frederick John Philipps, John Wynford Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Pickard, Benjamin Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Jacoby, James Alfred Price, Robert John Wilson, Henry J. (York W.R.
Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire Reckitt, Harold James Woodhouse,SirJT(Huddersf'd
Kinloch,SirJohnGeorgeSmyth Reid,SirR.Threshie(Dumfries
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accringtou Rigg, Richard
Leigh, Sir Joseph Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Leng, Sir John Roe, Sir Thomas Mr. Rea and Mr. Charles Hobhouse
Lloyd-George, David Schwann, Charles E.
Agnew, Sir Thomas Noel Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Helder, Augustus
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside
Arkwright, John Stanhope Cranborne, Vicount Horner, Frederick William
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Howard, J.(Midd.,Tottenham)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Cubitt, Hon. Henry Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil
Bailey, James (Walworth) Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hudson, George Bickersteth
Bain, Colonel James Robert Davenport, William Bromley- Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)
Baird, John George Alexander Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.
Balcarres, Lord Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Kemp, George
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Doxford, Sir William Theodore Kennedy, Patrick James
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Duke, Henry Edward Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)
Balfour,Rt.Hn.GeraldW(Leeds Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Kimber, Henry
Banbury, Frederick George Dyke,Rt.Hn.SirWilliam Hart King, Sir Henry Seymour
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Knowles, Lees
Bartley, George C. T. Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Faber, George Denison (York) Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th
Beckett, Ernest William Fardell, Sir T. George Lawson, John Grant
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.
Bignold, Arthur Fergusson, RtHnSirJ.(Manch'r Lee,ArthurH(Hants.,Fareham
Blundell, Colonel Henry Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Finch, George H. Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Boulnois, Edmund Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) Fisher, William Hayes Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Lowe, Francis William
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Lowther, C. (Cumb.,Eskdale)
Brown,Alexander H. (Shropsh. Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Brymer, William Ernest Flower, Ernest Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth
Bullard, Sir Harry Forster, Henry William Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Burdett-Coutts, W. Gardner, Ernest Macartney,RtHn.W.G.Ellison
Butcher, John George Garfit, William Macdona, John Cumming
Campbell,RtHnJ.A.(Glasgow Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans) Malcolm, Jan
Carew, James Laurence Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Maple, Sir John Blundell
Carlile, William Walter Gore, HnG.R.C.Ormsby-(Salop Middlemore, John Throgmort'n
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Goulding, Edward Alfred Milner,Rt.Hn.Sir FrederickG.
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Graham, Henry Robert Milvain, Thomas
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Cavendish,VCW.(Derbyshire Grenfell, William Henry Montagu,Hon.J.Scott(Hants.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Greville, Hon. Ronald Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Gunter, Sir Robert More,Robt.Jasper(Shropshire)
Chamberlain,RtHon.J.(Birm. Hall, Edward Marshall Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamst'w
Chamberlain,RtHnJ.A(Worc. Hamilton,RtHnLordG(Midd'x Morrell, George Herbert
Chapman, Edward Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Morrison, James Archibald
Charrington, Spencer Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hare, Thomas Leigh Mount, William Arthur
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Harris, Frederick Leverton Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hay, Hon. Claude George Murray,RtHnAGraham(Bute
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Healy, Timothy Michael Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Newdegate, Francis A. N.
Nicholson, William Graham Ropner, Colonel Robert Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Nicol, Donald Ninian Royds, Clement Molyneux Tritton, Charles Ernest
Peel,HnWm.RobertWellesley Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Percy, Earl Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Valentia, Viscount
Pierpoint, Robert Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse Walrond, Rt. Hn. SirWilliam H
Platt-Higgins, Frederick Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Warde, Colonel C. E.
Plummer, Walter R. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Welby,Lt.-Col.A.C.E(Taunton
Pretyman, Ernest George Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Seely,Maj.J.E.B.(IsleofWight Williams,RtHnJPowell-(Birm
Purvis, Robert Sharpe, Edward William T. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.
Pym, C. Guy Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Randles, John S. Spear, John Ward Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Rankin, Sir James Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk Wylie, Alexander
Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Ratcliff, R. F. Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Rattigan, Sir William Henry Stone, Sir Benjamin Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Reid, James (Greenock) Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley Younger, William
Remnant, James Farquharson Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge Talbot,RtHn.J.G(Oxf'dUniv.
Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green Thorburn, Sir Walter TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Thornton, Percy M. Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Tollemache, Henry James

claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the first word "The," in line 14, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."


said that the Committee had not yet struck out the rest of the words in sub-Section (b). The question put from the Chair was that the words stand part of the sub-Section.


The Question was put in that way according to custom.


said that the Committee negatived the words which had been put from the Chair, but the following words in sub-Section (b) remained. He submitted that although possibly the Committee could not debate the question, because the remaining words had no sense with the first three left out, still, the Committee might

divide on these. If the Committee did not vote on these they remained.


I think that would be contrary to the usual custom. The custom has grown up, and it is a very proper one, of putting the Question in such a way that if the Question is defeated the right of hon. Members to discuss the subsequent words remains. If the view of the hon. Member were accepted, that custom would have to go by the board. That would be very undesirable, as the custom is really a safeguard.

(4.38.) Question put, "That the Question 'That the first word "The," in line 14, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 82. (Division List No. 422.)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Blundell, Colonel Henry Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Boulnois, Edmund Chamberlain,RtHnJA(Worc'r
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Chapman, Edward
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Charrington, Spencer
Bailey, James (Walworth) Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Cochrane, Hon Thomas H.A.E.
Bain, Colonel James Robert Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh. Coddington, Sir William
Baird, John George Alexander Brymer, William Ernest Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Balcarres, Lord Bullard, Sir Harry Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Burdett-Coutts, W. Colomb,SirJohnCharlesReady
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Butcher, John George Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (L'ds Campbell,Rt.HnJ.A.(Glasgow Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Carew, James Laurence Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge
Banbury, Frederick George Carlile, William Walter Cranborne, Viscount
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Cripps, Charles Alfred
Bartley, George C. T. Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Bignold, Arthur Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Davenport, William Bromley-
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Kennedy, Patrick James Ratcliff, R. F.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Kimber, Henry Reid, James (Greenock)
Duke, Henry Edward King, Sir Henry Seymour Remnant, James Farquharson
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Knowles, Lees Ridley, Hon M. W.(Stalybridge
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Faber, George Denison (York) Lawson, John Grant Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Fardell, Sir T. George Lecky, Rt. Hon William Edw. H Ropner, Colonel Robert
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lee, Arthur H(Hants. Fareham Royds, Clement Molyneux
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Finch, George H. Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Fisher, William Hayes Lowe, Francis William Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Loyd, Archie Kirkman Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew
Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Spear, John Ward
Flower, Ernest Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Forster, Henry William Macartney,RtHn W. G. Ellison Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Gardner, Ernest Macdona, John Cumming Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Garfit, William Malcolm, Ian Stone, Sir Benjamin
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Maple, Sir John Blundell Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Gore,HnG.R.C.Ormsby-(Sal'p Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ
Goulding, Edward Alfred Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G Thorburn, Sir Walter
Graham, Henry Robert Milvain, Thomas Thornton, Percy M.
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Tollemache, Henry James
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Grenfell, William Henry More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Greville, Hon. Ronald Morrell, George Herbert Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Gunter, Sir Robert Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Valentia, Viscount
Hall, Edward Marshall Mount, William Arthur Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.
Hamilton,Rt.HnLd.G.(Midd'x Murray,RtHnA.Graham(Bute Warde, Col. C. E.
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton
Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford Newdegate, Francis A. N. Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hare, Thomas Leigh Nicholson, William Graham Williams,RtHnJPowell-(B'rm
Hay, Hon. Claude George Nicol, Donald Ninian Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Healy, Timothy Michael Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Percy, Earl Wylie, Alexander
Helder, Augustus Platt-Higgins, Frederick Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Plummer, Walter R. Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Horner, Frederick William Pretyman, Ernest George Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Younger, William
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Purvis, Robert
Hudson, George Bickersteth Pym, C. Guy
Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) Randles, John S. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Rankin, Sir James Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther
Kemp, George Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Lough, Thomas
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc.Stroud Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)
Black, Alexander William Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Grant, Corrie Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe
Burns, John Griffith, Ellis J. Markham, Arthur Basil
Burt, Thomas Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Mather, Sir William
Buxton, Sydney Charles Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William
Caine, William Sproston Harwood, George Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Caldwell, James Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Morley, Charles (Breconshire)
Cameron, Robert Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Moss, Samuel
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Helme, Norval Watson Newnes, Sir George
Causton, Richard Knight Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cawley, Frederick Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E. Partington, Oswald
Crombie, John William Horniman, Frederick John Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Jacoby, James Alfred Philipps, John Wynford
Dewar, John A (Inverness-shire Jones, William (Carnarvonsh Pickard, Benjamin
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth Price, Robert John
Duncan, J. Hastings Leese, Sir. Joseph F. (Accrington Rea, Russell
Edwards, Frank Leigh, Sir Joseph Reckitt, Harold James
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Leng, Sir John Rigg, Richard
Fenwick, Charles Lloyd-George, David Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Taylor, Theodre Cooke Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Roe, Sir Thomas Thomas, David Alfred (M'rthyr Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Shipman, Dr. John G. Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)
Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Wallace, Robert
Soares, Ernest J. White, Luke (York, E.R.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Spencer,RtHnC.R.(Northants Whittaker, Thomas Palmer Mr. Alfred Hutton and Mr. Trevelyan.
Stratchey, Sir Edward Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

(4.51.) Question put accordingly "That the first word 'The,' in line 14, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 200; Noes, 81. (Division List No. 423.)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Doxford, Sir William Thedore Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Anson, Sir William Reynell Duke, Henry Edward Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham
Arkwright, John Stanhope Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Lowe, Francis William
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)
Bailey, James (Walworth) Faber, George Denison (York) Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Bain, Colonel James Robert Fardell, Sir T. George Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth
Baird, John George Alexander Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Balcarres, Lord Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Macdona, John Cumming
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Malcolm, Ian
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds Fisher, William Hayes Maple, Sir John Blundell
Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch. FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton
Banbury, Frederick George Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Milvain, Thomas
Bartley, George C. T. Flower, Ernest Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Forster, Henry William Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Beckett, Ernest William Gardner, Ernest More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Garfit, William Morrell, George Herbert
Bignold, Arthur Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Blundell, Colonel Henry Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Mount, William Arthur
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute
Bousfield, William Robert Gore,HnG.RC.Ormbsy-(Salop Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Bowles, T. Gibson (king's Lynn Goulding, Edward Alfred Newdigate, Francis A. N.
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Graham, Henry Robert Nicholson, William Graham
Brown, Alexander H(Shropshire Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Nicol, Donald Ninian
Brymer, William Ernest Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley
Bullard, Sir Harry Grenfell, William Henry Percy, Earl
Burdett-Courts, W. Greville, Hon. Ronald Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Butcher, John George Gunter, Sir Robert Plummer, Walter R.
Campbell, Rt. HnJ. A.(Glasgow Hall, Edward Marshall Pretyman, Ernest George
Carew, James Laurence Hamilton,RtHnLordG(Midd'x Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Carlile, William Walter Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Purvis, Robert
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford Pym, C. Guy
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Hare, Thomas Leigh Randles, John S.
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Harris, Frederick Leverton Rankin, Sir James
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh. Hay, Hon. Claude George Rasch, Major Frederick Carne
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Healy, Timothy Michael Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Reid, James Farquharson
Chamberlain,Rt.Hon.J.(Birm. Helder, Augustus Remnant, James Farquharson
Chamberlain,RtHnJ.A(Worc. Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge
Chapman, Edward Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson
Charrington, Spencer Horner, Frederick William Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Clare, Octavius Leigh Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Ropner, Colonel Robert
Coddington, Sir William Hudson, George Bickersteth Royds, Clement Molyneux
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred. Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Kemp, George Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Kennedy, Patrick James Sassoon, Sir S. (Marlebone, W.)
Compton, Lord Alwyne Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Kimber, Henry Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge King, Sir Henry Seymour Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Cranborne, Visount Knowles, Lees Spear, John Ward
Cripps, Charles Alfred Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lawson, John Grant Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Davenport, William Bromley- Lecky, Rt Hon William Edw. H. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Lee, Arthur H. (Hants,Fareham Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Talbot,RtHon.J.G(Oxf'd Univ.
Thorburn, Sir Walter Walrond,RtHonSirWilliamH. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Thornton, Percy M. Warde, Colonel C. E. Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Tollemache, Henry James Welby, Lieut-Col A C E(Taunton Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Whitmore, Charles Algernon Younger, William
Tritton, Charles Ernest Williams,RtHnJ Powell-(Birm
Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward Wilson, John (Glasgow) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Valentia, Viscount Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther
Vincent, Col. Sir CEH(Sheffiedl Wylie, Alexander
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead Harwood, George Philipps, John Wynford
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Pickard, Benjamin
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Price, Robert John
Black, Alexander William Helme, Norval Watson Rea, Russell
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Reckitt, Harold James
Burns, John Hobhouse, C.E.H. (Bristol, E.) Rigg, Richard
Burt, Thomas Horniman, Frederick John Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Caine, William Sproston Jacoby, James Alfred Roe, Sir Thomas
Caldwell, James Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire Shipman, Dr. John G.
Cameron, Robert Kinloch,SirJohnGeorgeSmyth Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Soares, Ernest J.
Causton, Richard Knight Leigh, Sir Joseph Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R(Northants
Craig, Robert Hunter Leng, Sir John Strachey, Sir Edward
Crombie, John William Lloyd-George, David Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Lough, Thomas Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin Wallace, Robert
Duncan, J. Hastings Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Edwards, Frank Markham, Arthur Basil Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Mather, Sir William Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Fenwick, Charles Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Woodhouse, Sir J T(Huddersf'd
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. Morley, Charles (Breconshire)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Moss, Samuel
Grant, Corrie Newnes, Sir George TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.
Griffith, Ellis J. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Partington, Oswald
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Question put and agreed to.

(5.12.) MR. BRYCE

I rise to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow us to report progress. He has now got on to the third sub-Section, and we are entering into a new and very large and important question. It is not possible to make any substantial progress between this and 5.30, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow us to go now. Therefore I beg to move that Progress be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again"—(Mr. Bryce.)


It is with extreme regret that I have heard the appeal of the right hon, Gentleman. I confess that I think the mode in which the opposition to this Bill is being conducted is one which, if persisted in, as regards this and other measures, would make all Parliamentary government impossible. Of the tone and temper of hon. Gentlemen opposite I can most truly say I have nothing whatever to complain. They have invariably behaved—both to me individually and to Gentlemen who sit on this side of the House—with the greatest possible courtesy; and I am glad to think that no undue heat, so far as I know, has at any time been developed in the discussion of a Bill which, I quite grant, outside this House has produced a good deal of heat. Full recognition, I think, is due to the hon. Gentlemen in that matter; but I must point out that something more is at stake at this moment than the mere carrying into law of this particular measure. We have met for the purpose of dealing with this measure specially. We have practically occupied our whole time in dealing with it since we met. We have devoted the greater part of, I think, seven days to this Clause, and we have passed eleven lines of it. Now I do very sincerely ask hon. Gentlemen to reflect whether it is really consistent with the carrying on of any legislative work by this assembly that discussion of this magnitude should be permitted? I quite admit that this is a very important Clause; I do not minimise it. I only ask hon. Gentlemen to consider that a Parliament which is stopped by mere time, mere length of debate, mere multiplication of Amendments, from passing a Bill of this kind, is a Parliament which admits its own impotence. I do not think it is in the interests of either side of the House that our impotence should be admitted. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will not persist in his Motion.


I rise to express our acknowledgment to the right hon. Gentleman for the recognition he has given as to our good behaviour.


Courtesy, not good behaviour.


It is very good of him, but I do not understand the reason for the little lecture or allocution with which he has favoured us. Though I have taken no part in the last week in these discussions, I have been pretty constant in my attendance, and I appeal to anyone who is interested in the subject, and has followed it at all, whether it is not the case that the Amendments have, almost without exception, been serious and substantial Amendments, and the discussions businesslike discussions. There has been no vain repetition. Amendments have been moved and discussed on either side of the House equally. In fact I see no fault to find with the way in which the debate has been conducted. That it has been a long and tedious debate there is no doubt. But why? Because it is so complicated a matter. It is a matter full of small details, each of which is of the greatest importance; and the Bill is so drawn as almost to invite these Amendments which occupy so much time. But now the right hon. Gentleman thinks that we ought to spend twenty minutes in really doing nothing.


Why shall we be doing nothing?


Because you will not make any progress in that twenty minutes.


We shall get twenty minutes worth of speeches


Surely the right hon. Gentleman has experience enough of the House to know that any speeches delivered in these twenty minutes will be repeated and amply repeated next day, and necessarily so. We know that the speeches today will be merely beating the air so far as the decision of the question is concerned, and the speeches that will influence the votes that are to be given must be delivered not today, but at the beginning of the next sitting. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to gain. I always thought that the right hon. Gentleman was an ardent and determined week-ender, always anxious to shorten the business on Friday. Therefore, I expected that he would gracefully and willingly concede what is asked for, not in the interests of our personal enjoyment, but in the interests of the real progress of the Bill.


said that for the Prime Minister to complain of the opposition that had been extended to the Bill argued an exceedingly bad memory on the part of one who took so prominent a part in leading the opposition to the Home Rule Bill. His recollection of that Bill and of a measure so uncontroversial as the Local Government Bill was that the opposition in those cases consumed three times as much time as had been spent in the discussion of the present Bill. It was purely an arithmetical calculation. The Secretary for the Colonies had often told the Committee that the difference between two and six was only a matter of degree, and, that being so there could be no difference between the three or four days they had taken over this discussion, and the seventeen days which the right hon. Gentleman took to oppose the Bill. Did the right hon. Gentleman think he would gain anything by the continuation of the discussion now? The whole thing turned on the appointment of teachers, and if the right hon. Gentleman would give them that, he (Mr. Lloyd George) was not sure that they would not pass the whole Bill before half-past five.

MR. ELLIOT (Durham)

, in the interests of the business of the House, deplored the line taken by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If this appeal was to be taken seriously, and every day half an hour before the time came to close the debate the same appeal was made, there would be no other course open but to adjourn the House whenever they came to the discussion of a new Clause. When they remembered what had been done in this Bill so far, it was enough to make many of them feel a little ashamed of the business capacity of the House. There had been an enormous amount of continual repetition, and there were many in the House who did not wish this everlasting waste of time to go on indefinitely.


said he could not see that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had any reason to complain of the progress that had been made with the Bill. Part II of the Bill, which dealt with secondary education, had been passed, and they had dealt with Clause 7, which was certainly one of the most controversial parts of the Bill. That progress was not such as to merit the censure of the right hon. Gentleman. He had no idea when they met that so much progress would have been made in so controversial a portion of the Bill. Therefore he did not think the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were well founded. He did not think he had ever heard so little frequent speaking by the same person on the same Amendment. Of course in different Amendments it was another matter. Everybody knew what the controversial Clauses of this Bill were. They were Clauses 9 and 10, and then there was Clause 12. But it was not the right attitude to take to deal with this Bill as if very little of the controversial part of it had been obtained. He also thought that the Bill itself was responsible for a great part of the Amendments. The view of the Opposition was that the Bill did not deal with a great many subjects which in an ordinary case would have been dealt with in the Bill. Therefore it was necessary, from their point of view, to supply the omissions. The discussions on the Local Government Bill in 1893, which was not a controversial Bill in the sense that this Bill was, were much more protracted, if he remembered rightly.

MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)

, I who spoke amid cries of "Divide," said, I as he understood the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman in one breath said that although he had carefully observed the course of the debates he had not noticed any unnecessary repetition, while in the next breath he said that what had been said in the last half hour would necessarily be repeated next week. He was disposed to think that the second statement was the more accurate. He quite recognised that outside the House, and probably inside the House, there was a fairly large section anxious to destroy the Bill; but he was equally confident that there was a large number of people outside anxious to see the Bill reasonably amended. So far as he could judge, the methods now being pursued would result in the discussion of material Amendments being scamped, while the Committee was wasting time on Amendments which were not necessary, and which the Committee had again and again rejected by preponderating majorities. He believed that progress was not being made by reason of the endless Amendments that were put forward. As one more interested in educational work than in political partisan work, he deprecated the attempt in the Motion before the House to throw away half an hour of valuable time.


I shall not raise any objection to the Motion. Sir. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman opposite thinks our progress expeditious, and even headlong.

Committee report Progress.

To sit again upon Monday next.