§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 8:—
*(12.8.) THE CHAIRMAN
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 729 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.
* THE CHAIRMAN
These possibilities might be indefinitely multiplied. Are you going to give power to inspect furniture and pictures.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OR THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)
I think this is one of those things which should be dealt with in the schedule.
§ MR. BRYCE
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 730 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.
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."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
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. 731 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.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
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.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
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 732 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.
§ * THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University)
was understood to dissent from this view.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON
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?
§ * SIR WILLIAM ANSON
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.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON
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 734 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?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)
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 735 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 736 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.
§ MR. M'KENNA
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 737 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.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)
said the Attorney General had asserted that the Amendment was impracticable, inconvenient and unnecessary. What did he mean by the last suggestion?
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
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.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
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.
§ (1.0.) SIR ROBERT FINLAY
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.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
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——
* THE CHAIRMAN
Really, the hon. Member is now discussing the character of the board of managers in detail.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
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 739 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.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
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.
§ * MR. YOXALL
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 740 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.
§ * MR. YOXALL
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 741 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.
§ * SIR W. HART DYKE
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 742 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.
§ SIR HENRY FOWLER
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 743 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.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
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.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
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.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON
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 744 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.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
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 745 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 746 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 747 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.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
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.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
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 748 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."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
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?
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
How could we confer any power to compel managers to answer questions? If the managers did not answer questions, they would be self-condemned.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
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.
§ 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.)751
|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.)755
|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|
§ (2.52.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
, 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.
§ * SIR WILLIAM ANSON
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 756 hon. Members opposite, but that such an opportunity would arise he thought there could be no doubt.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
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.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
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.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said that it might be desirable in that case to make his Amendment mandatory, and not conditional. He assumed that the 757 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 758 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.
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.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
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.
§ MR A. J. BALFOUR
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.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
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.759
* THE CHAIRMAN
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.
§ MR. BRYCE
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.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
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?
* THE CHAIRMAN
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.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
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?
§ *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. 760 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.
§ * MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON
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.
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 761 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.
§ * MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON
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.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE
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 762 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.
§ (3.30.) THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.)
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 763 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.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
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 764 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.
§ SIR HENRY FOWLER
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.
§ * MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON
said they would have no accounts that were to be audited by the local authority.
§ SIR HENRY FOWLER
did not understand that that was so. The right hon. Gentleman had objected to a system of parochial audit.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
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.
§ SIR HENRY FOWLER
said what they really wanted was an audit of the parochial expenditure on a school—he referred to the expenditure of public 765 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 766 more distinct declaration of what the Government intended, he would oppose the deletion of the words.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
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.
§ SIR HENRY FOWLER
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.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
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.
§ (3.58.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
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.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
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.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said they ought not to allow the words to go out until 768 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?
§ * SIR WILLIAM ANSON
I cannot answer for the proceedings of a body which has not come into existence.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
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.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said that the details of every sum handed over to the managers would be subject to the review of the district auditors.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
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.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he wished to press the matter further. It was not 769 merely the vouchers of the managers that were to be submitted to the auditor, but the actual receipts?
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
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.
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR, GRANT LAWSON, Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)
, said that that would be provided for in the regulations which would be made by the Department.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
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. 770 [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?
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
thought that the right hon. Gentleman was exceedingly rash in giving a pledge for 20,000 clergymen.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
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.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
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?
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said that all the money from public sources—Treasury grants and rates—was to go to the local authority. Would it be competent 771 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?
§ MR. WALTER LONG
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.
§ very helpful to the local authorities if that intention was set forth in some regulation, or in the Bill.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 203; Noes, 90. (Division List, No. 420.)773
|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.
§ (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.)777
|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|
|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|
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the first word "The," in line 14, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON
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.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
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.
* THE CHAIRMAN
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.)781
|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."782
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 200; Noes, 81. (Division List No. 423.)783
|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.)
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
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 784 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 785 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.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling, Burghs)
I rise to express our acknowledgment to the right hon. Gentleman for the recognition he has given as to our good behaviour.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
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.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
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.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
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.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
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.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
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.