HC Deb 14 July 1903 vol 125 cc587-650

As amended, considered.


said he thought it well to make a short statement as to several of the proposed new clauses. The body of the Bill applied the Act of 1902 to London and proposed to make certain provisions as regarded the management of schools by the London boroughs, and anything in the way of Amendment to, or modification of, the Act of 1902 as applied to London was put into a schedule. The whole of the new clauses, with the exception of one or two, which were down on the Paper would be out of order as new clauses and should be brought up as Amendments to the schedule, possibly in a somewhat altered form. There were some, however, to which that remark did not apply—for instance, the second, standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Camberwell, which would involve an increase of rates. The same observation applied to the clause dealing with compensation to teachers of voluntary schools, and also to the two last clauses in the names of the hon. Members for Haggerston and West Islington. Proposals involving rate expenditure could not, as the hon. Members knew, be made on the Report stage.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

When will it be possible to raise the question embodied in the first new clause, as to the right of the public to inspect official documents?


By moving an Amendment to the schedule. As the hon. Member knows, in the Act of 1902 there is provision made for keeping Minutes, and it would be perfectly in order on that to move that they be open to inspection.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

May I inquire whether the effect of your ruling is that the points embodied in the new clauses will have to be handed in as Amendments to the schedule?


Yes, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that many things dealt with in the new clauses are already provided for in the Act of 1902.


Would it be in order for me on that point to address a few observations to the Government and to the House with regard to the difficulty, owing to your ruling, of proceeding with the Bill at this moment?


I think that had better be done when the Amendments are called on.

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

May I call attention to the new clause providing that the Act shall not apply to the City of London? Is that affected by your ruling?


I omitted to mention that. It should come on as an Amendment to Clause 1.


moved to omit Clause 1 (Application of the Act of 1902 to London), to give the House an opportunity of repeating by a division its protest against the application to London of the Act of 1902. What had happened since the passing of that Act had not in any way diminished, but rather increased, their objections to it, and it was their duty to register their protest against the application of the principles of the Act to London. He asked the House to re-affirm its condemnation of the Bill of 1902.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— To leave out Clause 1."—(Mr. Bryce.)

Question proposed, "That the words of Clause 1, to the word 'so,' in line 6, stand part of the Bill."


said he thought the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman was surely one of the most singular that was ever taken in that House. He was not going to ask the House to come to a decision on the merits of the clause, or even on the merits of this Bill. He was asking the House to come to a decision on the merits of an Act passed into law after several months of hard debating last year. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that anything was to be gained by a protest of course he was at liberty to make it; but he did not understand, he never understood, that their Parliamentary procedure lent itself to the particular interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman had put on his own Amendment, when he moved to leave out a clause, not because he objected to the clause, but because he objected to some other Bill which had already become an Act.


I object to the application of the principles and rules contained in the Act of last Year to the population of London.


said if the right hon. Gentleman's speech had been confined to that thesis it would have been perfectly within the practice of the House. Of course, it amounted to a Second Reading speech compressed, and he supposed the right hon. Gentleman desired to take a Second Reading division upon it. But, at all events, half the speech he made was not concerned with the clause nor with the Bill at all. His object was to renew the protest which he and his friends made last year. He thought there was not an educationist in the country who did not think the Bill of last year and the Bill of this year were of the greatest educational importance. (OPPOSITION cries of "Oh.") He was not speaking of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but of educationists. He knew the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite because he heard them expressed for seven months, and education was the last topic that they ever discussed. They talked a great deal about voluntary schools and denominational teaching, and other matters indirectly connected with the substantial interest of education, but education pure and simple was the last thing they spoke of. (OPPOSITION cries of "Oh," and an HON. MEMBER "Nonsense.") He would qualify his phrase by saying it was the thing about which they spoke least. As to what was in their minds he knew nothing, but their speeches he did hear; and he had an absolute right to say that if the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite were rightly interpreted by their speeches, it was not the educational aspect of the Bill of last year, or the Bill of this year, which chiefly interested them, but certain controversial subjects which unhappily could not be dissociated entirely from any Bill dealing with elementary education in this country. It was on those subjects that they had agitated the country, and topics relating to the really great interest of education they had left severely alone. If the right hon. Gentleman thought he was adding to his fame as an educational authority by the line he had taken on the Bill of last year and the Bill of this year he was, he could assure him, very seriously mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman said he was moving to omit this clause because it extended the Bill of last year to London. He could understand, though he did not sympathise with, those who thought that the Bill of last year, whatever it might have done for education, nevertheless did certain things in other directions to which they objected, and therefore desired that the Bill should not become an Act. But as it had become an Act, he could not understand how any hon. Gentleman could desire that it should not be extended to London. He believed that hon. Gentlemen opposite anticipated that the time would come very shortly when they would be in a position to remodel the Act of last year. When that time came he should wish them joy of their task. He should look forward with great interest to the course which they would then desire to pursue. But the remodelling of the Act of last year would not be rendered more difficult by the fact that it had been extended to London. On the contrary, their task would be easier if the whole of the country were under one principle. They would gain nothing if London was left out of the Bill; and, meanwhile, London would be left as an educational derelict. Unless this Bill was passed, London would be deprived of the fund which that House desired to give for educational purposes; not only the voluntary schools, but also the provided schools in London would suffer, and the whole system of educational co-ordination would be left in a condition which no one in that House could view with satisfaction. Was it the policy of the Opposition not merely to modify the Act of last year, but also in the meanwhile to keep London under the old system? Such an idea was absurd, and he could not understand the right hon. Gentleman's lending the authority of his name in educational matters to a proposal which he was certain would be rejected by all London if London had a chance of expressing its opinion. He would not dogmatise by discussing whether London liked or disliked the general principle

underlying the Bill. The Opposition might be right in saying that the country disliked the line on which the Government had proceeded. Then let the country alter that line. But meanwhile it was absurd to suppose that education, primary and secondary, was to be co-ordinated in every county and county borough in England, and voluntary and provided schools were to be given much needed assistance, while London alone should be deprived of the benefits of the Act of last year, and the money intended for her should be left in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The amiable intention of the right hon. Gentleman ought to be foiled, and his Amendment ought to be rejected.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 125; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 156.)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- O'Malley, William.
Ambrose, Robert Flavin, Michael Joseph Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Flower, Ernest Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Forster, Henry William Pilkington, Colonel Richard
Atkinson, Right Hon. John Galloway, William Johnson Plummer, Walter R.
Bain, Colonel James Robert Gilhooly, James Pretyman, Ernest George
Balcarres, Lord Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Randles, John S.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon Rasch' Major Federic Carne
Balfour, Captain C. B. (Hornsey Gretton, John Redmond, Jn. E. (Waterford)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds Groves, James Grimble Redmond, William (Clare)
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Hayden, John Patrick Reid, James (Greenock)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Heaton, John Henniker Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Boland, John Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somers't, E.) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Bond, Edward Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Bull, William James Hoult, Joseph Royds, Clement Molyneux
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Carew, James Laurence Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Joyce, Michael Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kerr, John Simeon, Sir Barrington
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. Laurie, Lieut.-General Smith, Abel H. (Hertford East
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Smith, James Parker (Lanarks
Collings, Right Hon. Jesse Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Spear, John Ward
Condon, Thomas Joseph Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cranborne, Viscount Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S. Sullivan, Donal
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent) Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Tollemache, Henry James
Delany, William Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) Valentia, Viscount
Denny, Colonel Lundon, W. Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Macdona, John Cumming Webb, Colonel William George
Dillon, John MacNeill, John Gordon Swift William, Rt. Hn. J. Powell- (Birm.
Donelan, Captain A. M'Iver Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W. Wilson John (Glasgow)
Doogan, P. C. M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Doughty, George M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Milvain, Thomas Young, Samuel
Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.) Mooney, John J.
Fardell, Sir T. George Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Murphy, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Myers, William Henry Sir Alexander Acland-
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway N. Hood and Mr. Anstruther
Fisher, William Hayes O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Black, Alexander William Hope, John Deans (Fife West) Russell, T. W.
Brigg, John Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Bryce, Right Hon. James Jacoby, James Alfred Strachey, Sir Edward
Burns, John Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Burt, Thomas Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Langley, Batty Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Caldwell, James Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall Tomkinson, James
Cameron, Robert Layland-Barratt, Francis Toulmin, George
Channing, Francis Allston Leng, Sir John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Levy, Maurice Wallace, Robert
Cremer, William Randal Lewis, John Herbert Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Dalziel, James Henry Lloyd-George, David Wason, E. (Clackmannan)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan Lough, Thomas Wagon, John Cathcart (Orkney
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Weir, James Galloway
Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles M'Crae, George White, George (Norfolk)
Duncan, J. Hastings M'Kenna, Reginald White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Ellis, John Edward Mansfield, Horace Rendall Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Fenwick, Charles Markham, Arthur Basil Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh N. Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Foster Sir Michael (Lond. Univ. Partington, Oswald Yoxall, James Henry
Goddard, Daniel Ford Paulton, James Mellor
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil Pirie, Duncan V. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Priestley, Arthur Mr. Herbert Gladstone
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Rea, Russell and Mr. John Sinclair.

had the following Amendment on the Notice Paper— In Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after 'shall,' insert 'except as respects non-provided schools.'


said this Amendment was in the same position as those which he had already ruled out of order.


asked whether he would have an opportunity of raising the question on the schedule.


I will not give a precise definition now as to whether it will be in order on the schedule or not, but it may be capable of discussion on the schedule.


had also the following Amendment on the Notice Paper— In Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end, add 'Provided that all public elementary voluntary schools within the area shall be maintained by the local education authority as if they were provided schools, provided that the local education authority shall by agreement rent the school premises from the trustees, free use of the premises being granted to the denominations under whose auspices the schools have hitherto been conducted for purposes of denominational religious teaching outside the ordinary hours of the school time-table to the children of such parents as make written application for the same. If any question arises under this section between the local education authority and the managers of a school not provided by the authority in respect to the use and rental of the premises the matter shall be determined by the Board of Education.'


said this Amendment was also out of order.


moved an Amendment with the object of excluding the City of London from the scope of the Bill. He did not know whether he should have the approval of the Government in reference to this proposal, but he really thought it was one that might be accepted. The City of London had always been an authority by itself. It had always been treated as a county by itself for most purposes. If it was not so treated under the Elementary Education Act it was given a large representation on the School Board—he thought it was one-twelfth of the whole—to compensate for its not being separately treated. At present there was no special representation of the City of London provided for on the Committee. He appealed to the Government to consider the question with a view to something being done in the way of giving effect to his proposal. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 7, at end, to add the words, 'and for the purposes of such application the City of London shall be a County, and the mayor, aldermen, and commons of that City in common council assembled shall be a County Council.'"—(Mr. Alban Gibbs.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."


said he fully recognised the valuable work that had been done for education by the City of London, and the great position which the City had occupied in the higher education of the country. But he thought the hon. Member would see that there were almost insuperable difficulties in taking the City out of the general purview of this Bill. The City had been one of the School Board areas and it had not been in any way differentiated from other parts of the Metropolis. The same had been the case under the Technical Education Act. It had fallen in with the work of the Technical Instruction Committee of the London County Council and had not asked for different treatment under that Act. He thought the difficulty of taking the City out of the Bill in the matter of elementary education was even more apparent. Under those circumstances to take the City outside the Bill and make it an educational authority by itself would be a new departure, having regard to the Elementary Education Act and the Technical Instruction Act. It would not only be a new departure, but a new departure not justified by the educational situation in the City. The number of children educated in the elementary schools of the City was small, while the great secondary schools in which the City was interested were wholly outside the Act. He hoped his hon. friend would recognise that there was no reason for treating the City in this special manner, and that what was proposed did not arise from any want of appreciation of the educational work done by the City.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

said he would like to call attention to the remarkable fact that a representative of the City had put down an Amendment of this character. The representatives of the City had supported the Bill throughout, and immediately that was done, in order to show the extent to which they appreciated this legislation, they proposed that the City of London should be excepted altogether from the provisions of the Act. This demonstrated clearly that really the Act had no real supporter in any part of the House of Commons. He trusted that the hon. Member would proceed to a division.


I beg to withdraw the Amendment.


expressed the hope that the hon. Member would not withdraw the Amendment. The representatives of the City were acting on the unanimous request of the Common Council of the City of London. The Common Council examined the Bill and took exception to its provisions just as hon. Members did on this side of the House. The Amendment was really a very important one, because even hon. Members on this side of the House who did not agree politically with the Common Council knew that every representative body throughout London viewed the Bill with horror and alarm. (Cries of "No, no.") Therefore the hon. Member was only doing his duty in proposing the Amendment. He wished that the hon. Member moved against the Bill from the same righteous motives that animated the opponents of the Bill on this side of the House. The hon. Member did not desire to see it applied to the City of London in order to preserve the autonomy of the City, but he did not object to the Bill itself. He ventured to say that that was a narrow ground on which to claim the exception of the City from the Bill. He himself and others on this side thought the Bill was very bad and unsuited to every part of London. London had got a peculiar system of local government, quite different from other places to which the Bill had been applied. The City, whatever faults it might have, had an honourable educational record, and it had been shamefully treated by the Government in the proposals in this Bill. The City did not come to the Government and say. "Give us representation and control." The Government thrust power and honour on the City Council in the Bill as first introduced, and then suddenly, for no reason that had been explained to the House, the City was struck out of that representation. This was a matter very well worth discussing from the standpoint of the Government. The House had had no justification whatever from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education for the new treatment they were giving to the authorities which were to be represented. The precise authority which would be left to the City Council was embodied in Clause 2, and he thought that the humble duties left to them might well give rise to the contempt of hon. Members opposite. Although the Amendment was one which he could not himself support he was a little surprised, that the hon. Member's colleague in the representation of the City of London was not here to support it.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

said he thought the point his hon. friends behind him had raised was well worthy of the consideration of the House at this stage of the Bill. There were in London two great municipal bodies. One was the Corporation of the City of London and the other the County Council. The Government proposed to municipalise education in London as they had done in the country districts. In the country districts the matter was a comparatively small one. The population there was something like one-tenth of what it was in London, and therefore the question ought to have been treated from a different point of view. What did they find? The County Council was made the central body, though they said they did not see their way to carry out the work. He would ask the hon. Member what he proposed to do supposing the County Council found themselves unable or unwilling to carry out the provisions of the Act. He believed that was a position which would be arrived at before very long. Then the City of London had declared that they did not desire the Bill either, and that they wished to be outside its provisions altogether. He was surprised that his hon. friend representing the City had made such an uncommonly bad case for the City. He thought it was unbecoming the dignity of the City that one of its members should come down here and move an Amendment and then allow it to be negatived without a division, and indeed without debate. This Bill was obviously, so far as London was concerned, incompatible with our municipal system. The City of London and the County Council rejected it, and under those circumstances he should have thought that it was the duty of the Government to reconsider their position and withdraw the Bill.


said he considered this Bill from the machinery point of view a thoroughly bad Bill. They could not municipalise education in a great area like that of London. Good or bad, however, whatever this new Bill might be, the City of London was not coming out of it. For financial reasons the City of London had got to make a contribution to the education of the children of London as a whole. The City of London had always been wanting to be struck out of the Bill, partly because it had not the representation it wanted, and partly because of finance. The London School Board had memorials from the City, week by week, complaining against the cost of education. What was the position? They had 2,000 working class children and they paid an Education Rate of 1s. in the £, which amounted altogether to £200,000 a year. That was £100 per child. But it did not really cost £100 to educate each child; it cost only £5; and therefore the City paid £95 each for educating nineteen children in Camberwell. The City ought to rejoice in being able to carry out the Apostolic injunction that they should bear one another's burdens. The City had got to pay the unified rate of 1s. in the £, or £95 out of every £100 for the education of children in every part of London—children whose forebears originally lived in the City. What would happen if this proposal were carried? The City of London would have to spend £10,000 a year to educate 2,000 working class children, and even supposing they voted £10,000 additional for secondary education, that would only amount to a rate of ¾d. in the £. He was bound to insist that whatever the machinery of the Bill might finally be the City had got to stay in it.

*MR. COHEN (Islington, E)

said that there was a well-known maxim in the House of Commons, that it was better to avoid attributing motives. Was there any reason why that almost sacred maxim against attributing motives, which were sometimes charitable and sometimes less benevolent, should not be respected in the case of the action of his hon. friend in behalf of the City of London. He could assure his hon. friend opposite that though he had not the honour of representing the City he knew something about the City where he was born and had passed the greatest portion of his life, and that the spirit which prompted the Amendment of his hon. friend was as far as possible removed from that which the hon. Gentleman thought ruled it. If there were any part of London where one should have been less disposed to attribute a sordid motive to any proposition that emanated from its representative, it should have been the City of London, which was the fountain of all benevolence. [OPPOSITION ironical laughter.] Hon. Members sneered rather derisively, but they did not abstain from having recourse to the Mansion House when they desired to appeal to the benevolence of the whole Empire. It should be remembered that the City had secured the freedom of Epping Forest and had built the Tower Bridge. Therefore his hon. friend might have been less ready to attribute unworthy motives to this Amendment than he had done. The City of London objected to being included in the operation of this Bill, not at all because of the reasons which were incorrectly, and, he thought, rather unworthily, attributed by his hon. friend opposite, but simply because they carried on education of their own in a most admirable way, which did not involve any expenditure on the part of the ratepayers of the other parts of London, and because they had no representation in the administration of those large funds which they contributed. Therefore, they were abundantly justified in proposing this Amendment, and if his hon. friend went to a division he would most cordially support it.


said he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the habit of attributing motives was one inconsistent with Christian charity, but the counsel of perfection he recommended, if acted upon, would reduce the debates in the House to very slender dimensions indeed. He assumed that the motives of the City of London were admirable, and free from all suspicion, but there was another Amendment lower down on the Paper which was to him a wonder, viz.— And for the purpose of such application the City of London shall be a county, and the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of that City in Common Council assembled shall be a County Council. He would have thought that if there was a name which the City Corporation would have been unwilling to adopt—a name which had been held in repulsion and in contempt—it would have been that of County Council. But here they had one of the Members for the City coming forth and proposing that the City Corporation, which had an existence of over seven centuries, should be reduced to the level of that mushroom creation known as the County Council! It was his respect for the City, his veneration for the City, his admiration for the glorious traditions of the City, that would prevent him from voting for any such Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.


said that most of the questions which had been raised in regard to the second clause of the Bill which he proposed to omit would be raised again on the schedule. He asked the Government whether they would not get rid of all the difficulties which had arisen by abolishing Clause 2 altogether. He did not believe that any mortal man knew why Clause 2 existed in its present shape. When the Bill was first introduced there was a scheme in the minds of the Government which justified such a clause. The idea then was to give the municipal authorities scattered all over London full control over the education authority that was to be set up. But they got rid of Clause 2 and began to attack Clause 3, which corresponded with the existing Clause 2. Some hon. Gentlemen who might have some veneration for the ancient City Corporation and the other bodies might consider whether Clause 2 should remain. But there was no precedent for it in the Act of 1902. It was simply a fraudulent pretext kept in the Bill by the Government to make these bodies imagine that they had got some resemblance of power when it was actually all taken away from them. The Government had in the debates in Committee to give way, and at last they concluded to abandon all the splendid powers which they had given to the Borough Councils of appointing the teachers, the taking of sites, and the vague powers of management. Now they had got a clause which allowed the Borough Councils to appoint managers although they had no duty of management. How could the Borough Councils tell what size the body of managers ought to be, for they had no kind of information on the subject. The present shape of the clause was perfectly ridiculous—so ridiculous that the Government themselves had put down one or two Amendments in regard to it. No good whatever would be obtained by retaining Clause 2. It would be a constant interference with the quiet working of the Act. He begged to move that Clause 2 be omitted from the Bill.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 8, to leave out Clause 2."—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That the words of Clause 2, to the word 'provided' in line 8, stand part of the Bill."

MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)

said that the House ought to have some sort of statement from the Government as to what was their final intention in regard to this question of management. They had had so many changes on this clause at previous stages of the Bill—and now the Government themselves were about to propose Other Amendments—that really the House ought to have a clear statement whether the Government intended to proceed with this fantastic method of management by the Borough Councils under the County Council. This clause still left to the minor authorities certain powers which were likely to lead to friction with the superior authorities, and he was amazed that the Government should propose that the House should go to a division on this Motion without showing the faintest signs of telling the House whether they had any policy on this matter.


said he really thought that it was hardly necessary to explain why the Government desired his clause to stand part of the Bill, not wholly in its present form, because an Amendment was accepted in Committee which it would have been somewhat rash to endeavour to put into final shape in the Committee in the circumstances of the debate, and which must therefore be amended now. The Amendment which had been put down by his hon. friend the Member for South Manchester would come up for consideration in due course. The policy of the clause was perfectly clear. From the very first the Government desired to associate Borough Councils with the education of London. It was thought that by giving them powers of management they would be able to excite more local interest in the elementary education of London, and that this would be done without diminishing the efficient working of the machinery which would be dealing with the general education of London. In that way he had confidently hoped that they would do a good deal for elementary education. In the debates which had taken place it became clear that the House did not desire to see statutory powers conferred upon Borough Councils, but nevertheless the Government did desire to see the Borough Councils take some definite part in the elementary education of London, and for that reason they would proceed with this clause. He reminded the House that what was left to the boroughs was to take part and initiate arrangements for the building of schools, to determine the number of managers, and to choose the managers up to a certain number. His hon. friend had various Amendments on the Paper, one of which was an Amendment of substance which, on behalf of the Government, he should be prepared to accept and which would diminish this perpetual fear of friction. It was an Amendment providing that these arrangements should be made after consultation with the local authority. He did not think anything would be lost by bringing together the various local authorities in the common work of the education of the children. On the contrary he believed that great good would come from it, and that under the conditions which this clause laid down these local authorities would work together in a friendly manner, and if the boroughs should not take the initiative there would be a residuary power in the County Council to do what was necessary for the management of the schools. He did not wish to go further into the subject, because they would have to discuss this clause upon the various Amendments on the Paper. He wished, however, to impress upon the House that the Government had no intention whatever of departing from the desire with which they originally embarked on this clause, namely, to associate the boroughs with the education of London.


said it was very surprising that the hon. Gentleman had not given some information to the House in regard to this matter. This clause had not been remodelled once or twice, but four or five times, and the hon. Baronet had now told them that he was prepared to accept other Amendments which would entirely alter the clause. Surely his hon. friend was entitled to ask for further information. The onus of proof in this matter lay upon the Secretary to the Board of Education when he departed from the Act of last year. This Bill was absolutely irreconcilable with the Bill of last year when it was introduced, but the common sense of the House had licked it into shape on the lines of the Act of last year. The only difference which was left was that if this clause disappeared and the Bill proceeded upon the lines of the Act of last year, the local education authority would have the nomination of four, and the Borough Councils two, managers. The hon. Gentleman proposed that the Borough Councils should have three-fourths and the education authority only one-fourth of the nominations. Therefore, it remained to the Secretary to the Board of Education to prove that that would work better than the proposal of the Act of last year. He should like to know why the Government had altered their mind in regard to this matter? When they were discussing this question in Committee he ventured to quote a paragraph from a speech made by the Prime Minister, who was then in charge of the Bill of last year, in which the right hon. Gentleman gave a totally different idea as to what ought to be the rights of the case. It was very important that they should have the Government speaking with one voice upon this question, and he would read the words of the Prime Minister.


There will be later on Amendments raising this very point, and therefore I do not think it will be in order to discuss this question upon the Motion before the House.


said the hon. Baronet had given them no argument in favour of this proposal. He said the idea was that there should be a link between the Borough Councils and the County Council, but in his opinion this clause would be the one source of friction in the Bill between the local and minor authorities. In order to avoid that they wished to make the Education Committee the supreme authority, and therefore they desired that this remaining shred of authority which was now given to the Borough Councils should disappear. He had no desire to cast any aspersions upon the Borough Councils, but he thought the Government had put them in a most humiliating position. The Government gave the Borough Councils these very large powers which they never asked for and then took them all away. In regard to this particular clause he hoped the Government would reconsider the matter so that they might have the Act of last year applied to this scheme in London from the top to the bottom.

SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)

said he did not wish to represent this clause as one which would do a great deal of good, but he did not think it would do a great deal of harm. It was a clause which related entirely to provided schools, that was, schools of the education authority, and did not touch on the burning question of voluntary schools. The action of the House of Commons in regard to these schools had throughout been rather strange. One would have thought that the most successful course would have been to have left the local authority to settle the very simple matter of how its schools should be managed, especially as they had before them the example of the London School Board, which, whatever its shortcomings might have been in this respect, had established a very good system of management for the schools. The House of Commons, in its wisdom, thought that they should settle how many managers there ought to be for a provided school, and they settled last year that there should be six managers for every provided school all over the country, no more and no less. There was a sort of provision that the number might be varied, but it was fixed at this by the House. In one respect this was better than the Bill of last year because it did allow variety, and it did not require six managers in every school, but the number was to be adapted to the wants and peculiarities of the schools. Then there was a most extraordinary freak—freak he really must call it. Instead of the local education authority determining how many managers there should be it brought in an entirely foreign body which had nothing to do with it, which had to decide the matter, a body which had had no educational experience, which was not elected for the purposes of education, and which had this entirely extraneous and strange duty thrust upon it which it never had before. The Common Council of the City of London was a body for whom he had the most profound veneration, but this House had decided that it should be engaged in the duty of determining how many managers there ought to be for the few elementary schools in the City of London, which were the schools of the London County Council, and which were managed by it and controlled by it in every respect. Therefore it seemed to him that they had chosen the worst body in the world to determine this matter. Practically, although the power was given to the Borough Councils it would be exercised by the consent and approbation of the County Council, therefore this clause, if accepted, would do no harm, because after all the County Council would be supreme over the schools. In order to make the Bill work well they would have to secure that these managers, however fantastic the manner of their appointment was, should be people who really had the confidence and trust of the County Council. He believed, however, the managers when they were appointed would work cordially with the local authority for London, and they would have a body responsible to the local authority and in consonance with the local authority.

*MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea)

said the right hon. Member for the Cambridge University had made a characteristic speech, in which he had used every argument against the vote he intended to give. For himself, he sincerely hoped this Amendment would not be included in the Bill. He held this view although he was most anxious that the education authority should have full powers, and that there should be no just cause of friction between the education authority and the Borough Councils. He did not wish to pledge himself to this proportion of managers being appointed by the education authority and that by the boroughs; but, he asked, would it not tend to the efficiency of the education of London if the Borough Councils had some voice in the appointment of the managers? The total number of managers would be very large, and the appointment of managers for all the districts of London was a delicate and difficult duty to impose on the County Council. He was convinced it would be wise to allow Borough Councils to have a large voice in the appointments, as they would be able to assist the education authority by their own local knowledge. It was a good thing to give some interest to the boroughs, partly for educational and partly for administrative reasons. He had done all in his power to make the County Council the education authority, but he thought it would be a pity if the House accepted the Amendment. He hoped the Government would adhere to the clause.


said he did not think there was much in this Amendment, and expressed the opinion that the Borough Councils would not thank the House for taking this course. This was part of an ambitious scheme which the hon. Gentleman was responsible for in the first instance. The very last word of the Government was that the Borough Councils were to come in, and then, for some mysterious reason, the hon. Gentleman was compelled to stand up and say, "Very well, we throw them over." He felt very sorry for the hon. Baronet, and equally sorry for the Borough Councils, because the way the Government had treated them in connection with Clause 2 was simply abominable, and if he were a member of a Borough Council he should feel the greatest contempt for the Government in this matter. In Clause 2 the Government first gave the Borough Councils thirty-two seats, then twelve, then eleven, and finally no seats whatever. Then they were to have the appointment of the managers, now they were to have the appointment of three-fourths. He thought such a suggestion was absolutely impracticable and entirely useless. He thought it would be better if Clause 2 were dropped altogether. What would happen in that case? The present boards of managers would go on, and when vacancies occurred the local education authority would be asked to fill them up, and they would no doubt consult the Borough Councils, but it would be left entirely in the hands of the local education authority. That was the only fair course to pursue.


said he must express his surprise that the hon. Baronet would not drop this clause. Why should any distinction be drawn between the London County Council and the other County Councils of the country? There were no general or managerial reasons for it. The reasons for it were political. He challenged hon. Gentlemen opposite to point out a single reason that was not political. If experience had taught the hon. Baronet that he could trust the County Councils throughout England and Wales, why should he not trust the London County Council in this matter? It was this sort of sulky distrust of the London County Council which had marred the whole of London government. It was said that they had 2,000 managers to appoint, but even so it was easier to select 2,000 managers in a small area within four miles of the central office than for a country County Council to select 1,000 over a wider area. Why should not the London County Council be trusted? Was it really because its political complexion was not such as commended itself to the Government? If so, that was a very poor reason when legislating for all time. Nothing could be worse for the management of education than this divided control. County Councils, Borough Councils, managers and trustees—all had a finger in the pie, but none had supreme authority. The County Council was supposed to control, while the Borough Councils appointed the managers. What was the distinction between control and management? The two bodies would be in constant conflict, to the detriment of London education. The selection of sites might be taken as an example. Owing to a dispute between the Vestry, the Board of Education, and the School Board, Streatham went without a school for years. By this clause the Government would perpetuate difficulties of that kind. It was perfectly ludicrous, when boroughs of 10,000 inhabitants were trusted in this matter, that a council representing 5,000,000 people should be treated with so much suspicion. Nothing was to be gained by the clause; it would not give the Borough Councils either dignity or power; it would simply enable them to interfere and make themselves a nuisance. He hoped that even now the Government would reconsider their decision and drop the clause.

MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)

thought the hon. Baronet and the House hardly realised what actually was at issue in this matter. The debate had proceeded on the assumption that the only matter involved was, who should appoint 2,000 private persons to sit in groups and manage, under the London County Council Education Committee, either single schools or small groups of schools, the inference being that such persons would take their instructions from and act according to the will of the County Council. But that did not by any means represent all that was involved. The clause would enable a Borough Council to determine that all the provided schools within its area should be managed by one large Committee, upon which it would have three-fourths of the representation, thus setting up a sort of School Board for the whole district. What would then happen? If a sufficient motive were given, a degree of friction amounting to positive warfare would arise between the Management Committee and the Education Committee of the County Council. The motive for refusing to obey the behests of the County Council already existed in the fact that the Borough Councils were not satisfied with the course the Government had taken, so that the danger to which he referred was a very real one. He appealed to the Government to remove the possibility of that danger; the clause satisfied nobody, and he hoped it would be dropped.

MR. BOND (Nottingham, E.)

said that although he agreed as to the undesirability of retaining this provision he would be unable to vote for the Amendment, because he thought that London stood in a somewhat different position from the County Councils under the Act of 1902, and that special machinery was required to deal adequately with the important question of how the bodies of managers in London should be constituted. There were no minor authorities in the Metropolis similar to those contemplated by the Act of 1902. He thought the better course would be to discuss the clause and see how far it could be modified and made suitable to the needs of London. He hoped the Borough Councils would eventually be eliminated from the clause; otherwise it might be a source of considerable friction.

MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N. W.)

said that if the hon. Member for West Nottingham was correct in the view he had put forward, this clause involved a danger which had not been anticipated. A large Committee managing all the schools within the area was a very different body from a body of managers concerned with only two or three schools, and if such a body set itself up in opposition to the will of the Council great danger might ensue. If managers found they were to be merely nominal they would not act, while if they were to be more than nominal they would in many instances come into collision with the local authority. He would be more content if a majority were appointed by the local authority, as its will might then be carried out, but that was not the case. Nothing gave rise to more disputes than the selection of sites. All sorts of interests were opposed to the educational authority, and he could conceive nothing more dangerous than to allow the Borough Council to have any practical vote, or even a delaying power, in this matter. A variety of objections might be raised to the selection of a particular site; and the members of the Borough Councils might be induced to act in a manner which would cause great friction. Further, the Borough Councils would not know the educational needs of the locality as well as the education authority. Speaking from a lengthened experience as regarded the selection of sites, he thought this power should not be given to the Borough Councils. If it were given to them it would be certain to be a hindrance to the work of education rather than a help.


said that he thought it might fairly be said that the balance of opinion and argument was against the Borough Councils having anything to do with the matter. That was strongly felt in Committee, and the large proposals originally made as regarded the Borough Councils had been whittled down until only this power remained. The Government had set an ample feast for the Borough Councils, but one dish after another was whisked away until there were only a few crumbs left. There was no reason to believe that the Borough Councils wanted this power. There had not been, either in Committee or on Report, any possible reason of an educational kind given to show that this work could be better carried out by the Borough Councils than by the education authority. He had heard a great deal about its being interesting to associate the Borough Councils with the work of education. That might be all very well for the Borough Councils, and if this were a Bill to improve the Borough Councils he could understand the argument. But it was a Bill for education, and he did not think any argument had been advanced to show that the work of education would be better for the interposition of the Borough Councils. It was not suggested that they possessed any greater knowledge or experience than the School Board now had; and that the local education authority would have in the future. The hon. Member for Chelsea called attention to the magnitude of the task of appointing 2,000 managers. But the School Board now appointed managers all over London, and had their finger on every part of the Metropolis. The local education authority would also have their finger on every part of London through their members, who would be able to suggest suitable managers. It was not suggested that the present managers were inferior. The only criticism ever made on the School Board was that it had not power enough. That, however, was a criticism which could be remedied by the new

education authority. The onus of proof lay with hon. Members, who proposed that the Borough Councils should be brought into a work for which they were not created, and in which they had no experience. The House had not been given any satisfactory reason why this clause should be passed; and the best way would be to get rid of it altogether. The London County Council was only a County Council in name. It was really the council of a gigantic borough, and the principles of the Act of 1902 were applicable. Therefore, there was not the slightest occasion to bring in any subordinate authority whatever. No argument having been given for introducing the Borough Councils, he felt himself bound to vote with his hon. friend.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 226; Noes, 111. (Division List No. 157.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Coghill, Douglas Harry Forster, Henry William
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Cohen, Benjamin Louis Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.
Aird, Sir John Collings, Right Hon. Jesse Fyler, John Arthur
Anson, Sir William Reynell Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Galloway, William Johnson
Arkwright, John Stanhope Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Garfit, William
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Condon, Thomas Joseph Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Cranborne, Viscount Gilhooly, James
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Bailey, James (Walworth) Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Saville Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby- (Salop
Bain, Colonel James Robert Cullinan, J. Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.)
Baird, John George Alexander Delany, William Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Balcarres, Lord Denny, Colonel Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Haml'ts Gretton, John
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Groves, James Grimble
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C. Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj. Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Gunter, Sir Robert
Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks Donelan, Captain A. Guthrie, Walter Murray
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Doogan, P. C. Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd
Boland, John Doughty, George Hare, Thomas Leigh
Bond, Edward Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Haslam, Sir Alfred S.
Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.
Brassey, Albert Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Hay, Hon. Claude George
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Esmonde, Sir Thomas Hayden, John Patrick
Bull, William James Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.) Heath James (Staffords, N. W.
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow Faber, George Denison (York) Hickman, Sir Alfred
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Fardell, Sir T. George Hogg, Lindsay
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed. Hornby, Sir William Henry
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Hoult, Joseph
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Finch, Rt. Hon. (George H. Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Fisher, William Hayes Howard, J. (Midd. Tottenham)
Churchill, Winston Spencer FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose- Hudson, George Bickersteth
Clive, Captain Percy A. Flavin, Michael Joseph Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Flower, Ernest Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.
Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Sharpe, William Edward T.
Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George Mount, William Arthur Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Kennedy, Patrick James Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Simeon, Sir Barrington
Kenyon-Slanley, Col. W. (Salop Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Kerr, John Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Knowles, Lees Myers, William Henry Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside
Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm. Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N. Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Laurie, Lieut.-General O'Dowd, John Smith Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Spear, John Ward
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.) Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Lawson, John Grant O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley Stone, Sir Benjamin
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Percy, Earl Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Pilkington, Colonel Richard Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxford
Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Platt-Higgins, Frederick Thornton, Percy M.
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Bristol, S. Plummer, Walter R. Tollemache, Henry James
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Pretyman, Ernest George Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.
Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Purvis, Robert Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Pym, C. Guy Valentia, Viscount
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Randles, John S. Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Lundon, W. Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Warde, Colonel C. E.
Macdona, John Cumming Redmond, Jn. E. (Waterford) Webb, Colonel William George
MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Redmond, William (Clare) Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Reid, James (Greenock) Whiteley, H. (Ashton and Lyne
Maconochie, A. W. Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Whitmore, Charles Algernon
M'Iver, Sir Lewis Edinburgh W. Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge Williams, Rt. Hn. J. Powell-(Birm
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
M'Killop, W. (Sligo North) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas, Thomson Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Malcolm, Ian Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Manners, Lord Cecil Robertson, H. (Hackney) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Worsley Taylor, Henry Wilson
Melville, Beresford Valentine Royds, Clement Molyneux Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Milvain, Thomas Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford Young, Samuel
Mitchell, William (Barnley Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Samuel Harry S. (Limehouse) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Sir Alexander Acland-
Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh. Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud) Farquharson, Dr. Robert Markham, Arthur Basil
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy. Fenwick, Charles Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William
Banbury, Sir Frederick (George Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen
Barlow, John Emmott Foster, Sir Michl. (Lond. Univ Moulton, John Fletcher
Barran, Rowland Hirst Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Newnes, Sir George
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Furness, Sir Christopher Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)
Black, Alexander William Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Partington, Oswald
Brigg, John Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Paulton, James Mellor
Broadhurst, Henry Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Pearson, Sir Weetman D.
Bryce, Right Hon. James Holland, Sir William Henry Philipps, John Wynford
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Pirie, Duncan V.
Burt, Thomas Horniman, Frederick John Priestley, Arthur
Buxton, Sydney Charles Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Rea, Russell
Caldwell, James Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)
Cameron, Robert Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Rickett, J. Compton
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Jacoby, James Alfred Rigg, Richard
Causton, Richard Knight Jones, David B. (Swansea) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Channing, Francis Allston Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Runciman, Walter
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Kitson, Sir James Russell, T. W.
Cremer, William Randal Langley, Batty Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)
Crombie, John William Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Crooks, William Layland-Barratt, Francis Shipman, Dr. John G.
Dalziel, James Henry Leng, Sir John Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan Lewis, John Herbert Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Lloyd-George, David Soares, Ernest J.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lough, Thomas Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Strachey, Sir Edward
Duncan, J. Hastings M'Crae, George Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Dunn, Sir William M'Kenna, Reginald Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)
Elibank, Master of Mansfield, Horace Rendall Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Emmott, Alfred Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T. Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) Wason, E. (Clackmannan) Yoxall, James Henry
Tomkinson, James Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Toulmin, George Weir, James Galloway
Trevelyan, Charles Philips White, George (Norfolk) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Tritton, Charles Ernest White, Luke (York, E. R.) Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Wallace, Robert Whiteley, George (York, W. R. Mr. William M'Arthur.
Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. PEEL (Manchester, S.)

moved to insert in line 8, after "elementary," the word "schools." He thought it would make it clearer to the House if he read that portion of the clause in the way he wished to amend it. It would run as follows— All public elementary schools provided by the local education authority within the area of any metropolitan borough shall have a body of managers, the number of those managers and the manner in which schools, in cases where it is desirable, should be grouped under one body of managers, or placed under more than one body of managers, shall be determined by the council of each borough after consultation with the local education authority, and subject to the approval of the Board of Education. The House would see that this Amendment was the first of two or three Amendments which were of the nature of drafting Amendments. He wanted to make it perfectly clear that in certain cases two or more schools could be grouped under one body of managers; that in other cases—and he had no doubt there were many, because owing to the large number of children in some of these schools it would not be possible to group them—each school would have a separate body of managers; and that in some cases there would be liberty for some schools to have more than one body of managers. The substantial Amendment which he wished to introduce was in the words, "after consultation with the local authority." Under the clause as it stood the duty of settling the number of managers and the way in which the schools were to be grouped was to rest with the Borough Councils. But as the whole duty of education had been cast upon the London County Council he thought it might be better, both with a view to further delegation of authority to managers and the smooth working of the Bill, that the local education authority should be called in for consultation and should have something to say as to the manner in which these schools should be grouped, and the number of managers that should be placed on the Board of management. Thus, although the initiative would come from the Borough Councils themselves, he thought it should be possible for the local authority to make any suggestion it might like, and that the constitution of the Board should be arranged between them subject to the approval of the Board of Education. They ought then to be able to arrive at some agreement which would satisfy all parties, and which would not at the same time take away from the Borough Councils the power of having an interest in the education of London. He thought it was essential that the local education authority should have some power under the statute of intervening and saying what its opinion was as to the managing body, the grouping of schools, and the number of managers on these particular boards. That was the only substantial alteration that he wished to make in that portion of the clause, and if he might be allowed to do so he should like to move all those Amendments together. (Cries of "No.")


We must take them in the order in which they appear on the Paper.


I beg to move the first Amendment

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 8, after the word 'elementary,' to insert the word 'schools.'"—(Mr. Peel.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'schools' be there inserted in the Bill."


said he did not know how far the acceptance of this Amendment might commit them to the acceptance of other Amendments. He thought the hon. Baronet representing the Government would have risen now to discuss the main question. He asked whether it was to be discussed on this Amendment or the subsequent ones.


said this was a drafting Amendment which was quite independent, and, therefore, by accepting it they were not by any means committed to the further Amendments.

MR. MANSFIELD (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

moved to leave out the words "provided schools" in the first line of the clause. This raised the whole broad question whether provided and non-provided schools in the Metropolis should be managed under one management and on the same basis. He knew it would be said that under the Act of last year a distinction was made, but that was a distinction which had not been successful, and the friction in the country had been very largely due to the fact that there had been such a distinction made, and that all the schools under educational authorities had not been put on the same basis. If the Government really wished that Act, as applied to London, to be a success, he thought they would very readily accept his Amendment. Hon. Members on the other side had not been slow to bear tribute to the fact that the County Council had behaved well to the denominational schools in London. If that was so, the denominational schools might well leave themselves in the hands of the County Council in future, and let them have one system of management throughout the whole area, whether relating to one set of schools or another. The education authority was charged with the responsibility for all secular education, and, being so charged, they ought to have the power of management in all the schools. Of course it would be urged that the trust deeds were such that the managers should be appointed by the trust. It would also be urged that the religious atmosphere must be maintained in the schools, and that the schools having been built for all time, the denomination should have the control of the management. As he understood the Prime Minister, that right hon. Gentleman considered that these matters were of very small importance; that they should be considered from an educational standpoint. The Prime Minister also lamented that they on that side of the House had introduced sectarianism into those debates, and that they had not approached the subject from a purely educational point of view. The Prime Minister also calmly claimed that there was a monopoly on the Government side of the House in regarding this subject from a purely educational point of view. Well, as the right hon. Gentleman was so anxious to approach this subject from a purely educational point of view — an anxiety shown by his absence from the House — he asked the Government whether it would not be better to have one authority, one management, to have control of the schools under their supervision? During the past week a case had arisen which gave point to his Amendment. In a school which came under the control of the managers so appointed, a curate was giving denominational teaching to the scholars. The time set apart for denominational teaching was finished at half-past nine o'clock and the teacher pointed this out to the curate. The curate continued, and after a time, the teacher again pointed out that the time for denominational instruction had expired. The curate still went on, and when the teacher once more protested against the curate taking up the time for secular instruction, he was reported by the curate to the managers appointed under last year's Act and had since been dismissed. It was understood that the dismissal was on account of the teacher being insolent to the curate; but it would be interesting to know—though it was not known—what the curate said to the teacher and what the teacher said to the curate. A different conclusion might then be arrived at as to who was insolent. One thing was certain, that if there was to be a body of managers set up—two-thirds of whom were elected by the trustees and one-third by the educational authority—there would be eternal friction and trouble all along the line. In the interests of education pure and simple, he asked the Government to accept his Amendment. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 8, leave out the words, 'provided schools.'"—(Mr. Mansfield.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'provided' stand part of the Bill."


said that just now they had been told that the scheme of management which had been settled last year was one which should not be departed from; but now they came to a scheme of management applicable to another sort of school, the conditions of which were discussed at infinitely greater length, and they were asked to upset one of the principal features of the Act of last year by the omission of the word "provided." That was to say, that all the voluntary schools of London were to be under the management of the local education authority. It would be impossible for him to go at length into the struggle of last year or the various considerations brought before the House which determined the relation of the numbers, in these various schemes, of the foundation managers and those appointed by the local education authority. What lay at the root of that settlement was the admission—he thought the general admission—that there was no desire that the schools should be other than denominational—that the voluntary schools—Roman Catholic, Anglican, Wesleyan—should retain their character; and the only question was the method by which this maintenance of character could be secured. The House determined, after long debates, that a two-thirds majority on the board of management was practically the only security for the continuance of teaching of a denominational character, which would retain the denominational origin and nature of the school. From that settlement he was not now prepared to depart. The conditions under which these schools were to be retained were fixed after great debate during the autumn session—that the secular instruction was to be entirely under the local education authority, and the religious instruction under the foundation managers—and were most carefully set forth in Section 7 of last year's Act; and to accept the Amendment would involve an alteration of the whole relation of the voluntary schools to the local education authority. It would be quite impossible to alter the conditions of management and hand over the voluntary schools to the management of the local education authority. He understood that the hon. Member thought that great trouble would arise if the system of management adopted last year was preserved in the present Bill. The hon. Gentleman told a story about a teacher who had suffered injustice at the hands of a curate, but if the hon. Gentleman looked at the Act of last year he would see that that sort of injustice could not be perpetrated under the provisions of the 7th Clause.


said that the injustice was perpetrated quite recently under the provisions of last year's Act.


said that, if the case was quite recent, he hoped that they had not yet heard the end of the story. The control of the local education authority was complete as regarded secular instruction, and as regarded religious instruction the teacher could only be dealt with by the managers. He quite admitted that the hon. Member might be right in saying that the arrangement of last year was not universally acted upon, but he was not prepared, at this stage of the Bill, after the short experience they had had of the working of the Act of last year, to depart from the settlement then arrived at after full discussion.


said he hoped the House would not deal too strongly with the Act of last year in retaining all its features. The intention in this Bill was to apply the Education Act of 1902 to London "so far as applicable, and subject to the provisions of this Act." It was urged that they should apply a different local management to the non-provided schools where they existed over a scattered area, to that for the provided schools where they did exist. But that could not be applicable to the area of London, where there was a provided school at one end of the street and a non-provided school at the other end. The argument might be true of a rural area, but could not be true of a London area. It was laid down by the Act of last year that a non-provided school which made certain provision of rent-free premises for the use of the local education authority might be a denominational school; and he did not think that the Amendment of his hon. friend would alter that provision, although it would make the management wholly public. The denominational instruction, so dear to the hearts of hon. Gentlemen opposite, would not have been in danger if the schools were wholly under public control; while, from the point of view of educational efficiency, the avoidance of friction, and the uniformity of administration, the Amendment of his hon. friend was highly desirable. The ecclesiastical influence, so manifest last year, had profoundly modified the details of the clause in the present Bill. It might be the case that the clergy were not the professional friends of the denominational schools in London, but he could say that the teachers in the denominational schools in London—men who had worked very hard, with very poor remuneration, men who had sacrificed much, and whose privations had made it possible for these schools to go on in the past—were distinctly in favour of the management of the non-provided schools coming under the same management as the provided schools. The non-provided schools were managed very badly indeed as a rule. There would be under this proposal a grouping of schools under some other body of managers, and they would have the London Diocesan Board supervising and controlling the denominational schools of London in a sectarian way, thus promoting friction and difficulties. His hon. friend had introduced a most valuable Amendment, which he should have great pleasure in supporting.


said he was extremely obliged to his hon. friend for moving this important Amendment. He should have thought that the Secretary to the Board of Education might have consulted the members of the Government to see whether this suggestion could not be accepted as a happy issue out of the grave difficulties by which the preferential management of non-provided schools would be accompanied. The scheme of four denominational and two public managers was unworkable; it had already come to his notice that the gravest difficulty was felt in many of the large towns. There would, for instance, be great difficulties as to paying the bill for structural alterations. He prophesied that the Board of Education would be besieged with repudiations of expenditure from time to time on the part of the four denominational and the two public managers respectively, and all sorts of practical difficulties would arise. But apart from the question of machinery there was the graver question of the injustice involved in this preferential treatment. The Government had never understood why the man in the street, who was not very keen about the form of religious instruction, recognised that this preferential treatment was scandalously unjust. The total maintenance per child was 60s.—to bring it up to the level of the provided school—and how was that made up? The denominationalists, if they took the Government's own Returns, were to find 2s. a year per child, and the value of the building which the public desired to use was 3s. per child, making a total of 5s. per child per year, so that the public found 55s. out of 60s. and the denominationalists 5s. Therefore the man in the street said the public found eleven-twelfths, and the denominationalist one-twelfth. The result was that the public, which was to have eleven-twelfths of the financial obligation, was to have only four-twelfths of the management, while the denominationalists, who had one-twelfth of the financial obligation, were to have eight-twelfths of the management. That was the issue; it was that which had caused the irritation throughout the country, and it was that which would bring about the ultimate breakdown. The public were not going to have that arrangement.

The London County Council had earnestly protested against being required by law to levy rates to be applied in the maintenance of denominational schools, and had urged the Government to withdraw the Bill, mainly because of this preferential system of denominational management. The Government desired to help voluntary schools and to get rid of the voluntary element, and so did he; but they could not do it in this way. He had no doubt that if the Bill passed, as he supposed it would, they would have a resolution of the London County Council resolutely declining, on this ground, to carry the law into effect; and when the County Council election took place next March he had no doubt that an enormous majority would be returned in favour of refusing to spend rates to find eleven-twelfths of the money in return for only four-twelfths of the managers. Some Government, if not this, would have to determine that the local authority responsible for the money should have the entire control of the management. The Government were really doing a very bad day's work for the denominational schools; they would not get the money, and much irritation and controversy would be set up. He did not know whether the Prime Minister had yet heard of the Albert Hall meeting, but that meeting and the Hyde Park demonstration proved conclusively that there was a very powerful volume of feeling in London against the proposal of the Government. He desired to see the voluntary schools adequately financed but they could not do it in this way, and those who were pushing this proposal, irrespective of public opinion, were doing the cause they had at heart a very ill service. The only legitimate ground upon which they could put this scheme was that the public authority must have the whole control. If some denominational schools went by the board because of bad management then they must go and provide their own money, but if those schools were maintained by public money they must be under public control. He thought the Government were ill-advised not to close with an offer of this sort, which would leave the denominational schools just as denominational, but would give them proper finances and place them under proper control.


said he thought that some faint signs of grace might be detected in the last words of the Secretary to the Board of Education. He said he was not prepared to alter the arrangement with regard to voluntary schools. He thought perhaps he was already beginning to understand how hopelessly impossible that arrangement was, and was beginning to see that either he or someone else would before very long have to radically alter what he had called "the settlement of last year," but what they declared to be the unsettlement of last year. The hon. Baronet also said that he was not quite sure that he understood the effect of his hon. friend's Amendment. He would suggest a very simple illustration which would make it quite clear—he alluded to the provision of the Jewish schools in the Metropolis at the present time. There they had an instance of a separate religious community with their excellent schools under the control of the London School Board, and that arrangement had worked with excellent results for many years. The School Board appointed the managers; there were no objectionable religious tests, and they appointed Jewish teachers to teach in those schools. The hon. Baronet know perfectly well that this arrangement worked with a most excellent success, and what they were offering now was the last chance to the Government of anything like a real settlement of this very debatable question in London, namely, that the Government should put denominational schools in the same position as Jewish schools, which had been worked so satisfactorily for many years. He did not know where the representatives of the Jewish community in the House were at that moment, but he suspected they were on the Terrace. Had they been present probably they would have had the hon. Member for Limehouse voting for this Amendment. He thought those representing the Jewish community ought at least to come and support them in obtaining the same arrangement for other less-favoured religious communities. There was another point which had entirely escaped the hon. Baronet's attention. He alluded to the new by-law, which made all the difference in the world. It gave the possibility of preserving that inalienable right of the parents, about which they heard so much last year, without interfering with the principle of public management. If the Government would give them that by-law and public management they would be satisfied, and they could at least join hands with hon. Members on the other side in working for education apart from those wretched religious questions. The imposition of religious tests in privately managed schools which were to be supported by public funds was bound to introduce irritation and friction into their educational system. This Amendment made it possible for the Government, in the case of London, not only to get rid of the religious difficulty, but to make an experiment in London which they thought might be a solution of this question so far as the rest of the country was concerned. If the Government had only sufficient courage to accept the offer now held out to them on this occasion, they might not only save themselves from making a mistake in the education of London but they might also find a way of salvation for themselves out of the imbroglio into which they had got. Otherwise nothing could save them but their dissolution. He trusted the faint signs of grace apparent in the last words of the Secretary to the Board of Education would grow and flourish before this Amendment was put to a division, and that the Government would accept the Amendment.


said his hon. friend behind him had done good service to the House and the country by raising this question as regarded London. He could not share the sanguine hopes of his hon. friend. They could not expect the Government to change now, but this Amendment gave them an opportunity of entering their protest against the system adopted last year and now extended to London. The statement of the hon. Baronet that he gathered that the system of nominating managers to the voluntary schools was almost universally agreed to, was most astonishing, because the hon. Baronet must be aware there was the strongest possible protest against it, and against the payment of rates without a proper representation on the management. And these protests would be accentuated in the case of London. He would be extremely glad to have this question settled on terms satisfactory to the denominational schools as well as to the country at large. There was no desire to deprive the schools of their denominational teachers, but from the point of view of representation and efficiency they ought to be under the control of the local authority. He was afraid this feeling was even more acute in London than in the country, having regard to the resolution of the London County Council which had been read, that they would not give London rates to schools not under the education authority. That would seriously add to the difficulties of the London schools. On these grounds he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.


said he was sorry that the Government were determined to keep this provision in the Bill, because it showed that they had learnt nothing from the operation of the Act of last year in the country. Nothing had caused greater friction throughout the country up to the present than this question of the appointment of managers. The Prime Minister had charged them with raising sectarian rather than denominational questions on this question, but that question was raised by the Bill itself, and they were not responsible for it in any way. He could give many instances where schools under the Act of last year had become absolutely sectarian, which was extremely objectionable to those who had to pay the rates. All these schools were equally maintained out of the rates, and when the ratepayers—many of whom were Nonconformists—found the whole control going into the hands of one body, it naturally excited all kinds of strife and contention. The Prime Minister, if he read the newspapers and knew what was going on in the country, could not possibly believe that real good educational work was being done under this system. It began with strife, and educational work could only be carried on effectively by the good-will of the people. What was proceeding under this Bill? He went through one of our great towns a short while ago, and he was told, in answer to inquiries he made of a friend who was one of the managers of the schools, that under this system of management the clergyman assumed to take the chair by right; that he was appointed treasurer; that he was appointed correspondent; and also to check the register, and nobody else had any right to look into the affairs of the schools. Under those circumstances his friend doubted whether it was any use attending any further meetings. As long as the system embodied in the clause existed the friction would continue, and the educational interests of the children suffer. Many of the opponents of the Bill had devoted to the work of education more years than the Prime Minister had hours, and yet, because they stood up to defend the rights of conscience, they were charged with being the advocates of sectarianism. It was because they believed that sectarianism stood in the way of educational progress, and that as long as sectarianism was promoted by such Bills as that under discussion educational progress was impossible, that they felt bound to make their protest. They would be only too glad to discuss the question on purely educational grounds, but they had to perform a primary duty from which they would not shrink, whatever the attitude of the Government might be.


said the question had been argued as though the Act of 1902 was being exactly followed, and the hon. Baronet had resisted the Amendment on the ground that the House arrived at a decision on the point last year. It should be borne in mind, however, that there was no parallel in the Act of 1902 for the course that was being followed in London. The Borough Councils were to have no right whatever of appointing any managers in connection with the schools not provided by the local authority That was a complete departure from the Act of last year. The Amendment would secure unity of management. The argument constantly used last year was that a majority of the managers of the voluntary schools must be appointed by the trustees because a majority of the children in the country were educated in voluntary schools. In London the case was different. In every area there would be voluntary schools over which the Borough Councils would not have the slightest control. The Amendment would supply the necessary link between the voluntary schools and the Borough Councils. The matter might be compromised by allowing the Borough Councils to appoint two managers.


said that under the Bill the situation would be the same as under the Principal Act—the County Council would appoint one manager, and the Borough Council as the minor local authority would appoint one manager.


thought the Government might go a little farther, considering the circumstances of the London case, and give the Borough Councils two managers without reducing the number appointed by the County Council.

MR. SPEAR (Devonshire, Tavistock)

appealed to the Parliamentary Secretary to do something to meet the case under discussion. He ventured when last year's Bill was in Committee to urge the desirability of giving greater popular representation on the Committees of Management, and he ventured to say that the experience of the working of the 1902 Act had so far showed that to be the chief blot on the Bill. The denominational character of the schools could be safely preserved by a special clause, and the broader and more democratic was the management the better it would be for the schools and the public as well. As one who was very hopeful of the working of last year's Act, he believed there was no alternative to its main lines if they desired to co-ordinate education. As one who supported that Bill, he appealed to the Government to do something to meet the strong feeling that had been aroused in some districts on this matter. He wished, as a Nonconformist, to dissociate himself entirely from the movement of passive resistance which had taken place in certain parts of the country. The Bill was something in the nature of a compromise. It was impossible to produce a perfect measure at first, but where there were defects, there was always a constitutional way of remedying them. He claimed that Nonconformists had done much to further the religious life and education of the country, and he objected to the fair fame of Nonconformity being besmirched by the methods of the passive resistance movement. At the same time, he felt that there was some grievance, but, having regard to the complete control exercised by the County Council, he hoped that the Bill would work fairly well, notwithstanding the illogical composition of the Committee of Management. He again appealed to the Government to give more popular representation on the Committee of Management.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid)

said that if the hon. Member for the Tavistock Division spoke as a Nonconformist he surely would not object to anybody following the dictates of his conscience in a matter of this sort. In that case, where did the "besmirching" come in? It was the fair fame, not of Nonconformity, but of the Government, that was being besmirched. It had been frequently argued that outside the House there was no feeling whatever on the question of sectarianism, but recent experience showed that the strongest possible feeling existed in the country on the matter, and that it was not manufactured for the purposes of debate. It was necessary that the Government should face that fact. If they thought the movement was merely temporary and would soon die down, they were probably right in pursuing the same course now as in the Act of 1902. But he thought that could hardly be their view. They must realise that there was such a depth of feeling among Nonconformists as would carry on the movement with renewed force, and that there was no prospect of it coming to an end in the immediate future. That being so, surely it would be better to accept the situation, and deal with it in regard to this Bill. Did the Government desire the passive resistance movement to extend to London?


said the remarks the hon. Member was now making would be more appropriate to the Third Reading of the Bill.


said the point he desired to make was that

the extension of the movement would probably be avoided if the popular control of the schools was extended. What would the London County Council do? Several County Councils, certainly in Wales, had decided not to put the Act into operation so far as the voluntary schools were concerned unless popular control were given. The hon. Baronet had been forewarned in this matter. When a body like the London County Council declared its intention beforehand it was pertinent to consider whether the Amendment was worthy of support or not. The London County Council expressed, by eighty votes against twenty-three, its deep regret that the Bill failed to provide for the efficient management of education or for popular control, and, by sixty votes against ten, the Council passed a resolution protesting strongly against the maintenance of schools not under public control out of public funds and the payment of teachers subject to religious tests. That was a frank protest on the part of the London County Council, which was to be called upon to administer the Act. The London County Council would, according to the hon. Baronet, only have the appointment of one out of six managers. The Council protested against that state of things; and he felt sure that if the hon. Baronet pursued the course indicated in the clause he would have the opposition to the Act of last year, which existed up and down the country, repeated in London. The Government would be pursuing a wise policy, in their own interests and in the interests of education, if they acknowledged the unwisdom of the boards of management for voluntary schools proposed in last year's Act.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 253; Noes, 130. (Division List No. 158.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Bailey, James (Walworth) Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Bain, Colonel James Robert Bentinck, Lord Henry C.
Aird, Sir John Baird, John George Alexander Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r) Blundell, Colonel Henry
Arkwright, John Stanhope Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey Bowles, Lt-Col. H. F. (Middlesex
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)
Arrol, Sir William Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch Brassey, Albert
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. Banbury, Sir Frederick George Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj. Bull, William James
Burdett-Coutts, W. Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)
Butcher, John George Gunter, Sir Robert Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow Guthrie, Walter Murray Myers, William Henry
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward H.
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hare, Thomas Leigh O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Harris, Frederick Leverton O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm Haslam, Sir Alfred S. O'Malley, William
Chapman, Edward Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. O'Mara, James
Churchill, Winston Spencer Hay, Hon. Claude George Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Hayden, John Patrick Pemberton, John S. G.
Coddington, Sir William Heath, James (Staff's., N. W.) Percy, Earl
Coghill, Douglas Harry Henderson, Sir Alexander Pierpoint, Robert
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hickman, Sir Alfred Pilkington, Colonel Richard
Collings, Right Hon. Jesse Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Som's't, E. Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Hogg, Lindsay Plummer, Walter R.
Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole Hornby, Sir William Henry Pretyman, Ernest George
Condon, Thomas Joseph Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm Purvis, Robert
Cripps, Charles Alfred Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham Pym, C. Guy
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Randles, John S.
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Cullinan, J. Jessel, Capt, Herbert Merton Redmond, William (Clare)
Delany, William Johnstone, Heywood Reid, James (Greenock)
Denny, Colonel Kennedy, Patrick James Remnant, James Farquharson
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway) Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge
Dillon, John Kerr, John Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)
Dimsdale Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C. Kilbride, Denis Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Knowles, Lees Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dix'n Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm. Robertson, H. (Hackney)
Donelan, Captain A. Laurie, Lieut.-General Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Doogan, P. C. Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th) Round, Rt. Hon. James
Doughty, George Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Royds, Clement Molyneux
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R. Rutherford, John (Lancashire
Duke, Henry Edward Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Llewellyn, Evan Henry Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.) Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln
Faber, George Denison (York) Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Fardell, Sir T. George Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.) Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew
Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward Lonsdale, John Brownlee Simeon, Sir Barrington
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Lowe, Francis William Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale) Smith, H. C. (North'mb Tyneside
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent) Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Fisher, William Hayes Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth) Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose Lundon, W. Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Flavin, Michael Joseph Macdona, John Cumming Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Flower, Ernest MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart
Flynn, James Christopher M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Forster, Henry William M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Forster, Philip. S. (Warwick, S. W. M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Fyler, John Arthur M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ
Galloway, William Johnson Malcolm, Ian Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Garfit, William Manners, Lord Cecil Thornton, Percy M.
Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans Martin, Richard Biddulph Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Gilhooly, James Melville, Beresford Valentine Tritton, Charles Ernest
Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin and Nairn Milvain, Thomas Valentia, Viscount
Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop Mitchell, William (Burnley) Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Warde, Colonel C. E.
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) Webb, Colonel William George
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Goulding, Edward Alfred Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed. Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs Mount, William Arthur Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Gretton, John Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Groves, James Grimble Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.
Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. Sir Alexander Acland-
Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart Young, Samuel Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Allan, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud Goddard, Daniel Ford Priestley, Arthur
Asher, Alexander Grant, Corrie Rea, Russell
Ashton, Thomas Gair Griffith, Ellis J. Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy. Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Rickett, J. Compton
Barlow, John Emmott Harmsworth, R. Leicester Rigg, Richard
Barran, Rowland Hirst Harwood, George Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B. Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale Robson, William Snowdon
Black, Alexander William Hayter, Rt. Hon Sir Arthur D. Runciman, Walter
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. Russell, T. W.
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Holland, Sir William Henry Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Brigg, John Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Broadhurst, Henry Horniman, Frederick John Shipman, Dr. John G.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Jacoby, James Alfred Soares, Ernest J.
Burt, Thomas Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants
Buxton, Sydney Charles Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Strachey, Sir Edward
Caldwell, James Kitson, Sir James Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Cameron, Robert Labouchere, Henry Tennant, Harold John
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Langley, Batty Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.
Causton, Richard Knight Layland-Barratt, Francis Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)
Channing, Francis Allston Leng, Sir John Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Levy, Maurice Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings
Cremer, William Randal Lewis, John Herbert Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Crombie, John William Lloyd-George, David Tomkinson, James
Dalziel, James Henry Lough, Thomas Toulmin, George
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardign M'Crae, George Wallace, Robert
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-shire M'Kenna, Reginald Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Mansfield, Horace Rendall Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Duncan, J. Hastings Markham, Arthur Basil Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)
Dunn, Sir William Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William Weir, James Galloway
Elibank, Master of Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N. White, George (Norfolk)
Ellis, John Edward Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)
Emmott, Alfred Moulton, George Fletcher Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan) Newnes, Sir George Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) Williams, O. (Merioneth)
Fenwiek, Charles Partington, Oswald Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith Paulton, James Mellor Yoxall, James Henry
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund Pearson, Sir Weetman D.
Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ Perks, Robert William TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. Philipps, John Wynford Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Fuller, J. M. F. Pirie, Duncan V. Mr. William M'Arthur.
Furness, Sir Christopher Price, Robert John

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 8, to leave out the word 'schools,' and insert the words, 'by the local education authority.'"—(Mr. Peel.)

Amendment agreed to.


moved an Amendment with the object of eliminating the Borough Councils from any participation in connection with the work of the schools. He said the arguments pro and con were well known, and he need not trouble the House at any length respecting them. The amount of authority now left to the Borough Councils was so small and ineffective that he could not believe that there was any real desire on their part to retain it, and it did introduce a possible element of discord in the constitution proposed to be set up. They had had experience already as to how managers should be appointed. They had been appointed by the School Board, and, so far as he knew, with satisfactory results. That appeared to him to be the plan which should be pursued in future, substituting the local education authority for the School Board. It was suggested that by adopting the plan proposed in the Bill some fresh element of educational interest or enthusiasm would be introduced into the working of the system. For his part he was rather sceptical about it. The number of persons in London who would take an interest in education was comparatively small, and they would always come forward if opportunity was given to them. It had been more difficult for the School Board to get efficient managers than to discriminate between applicants for the posts. In some districts it was difficult to find people who possessed the necessary qualifications, and who could afford to give the time which the proper management of the schools undoubtedly demanded. Under these circumstances it seemed to him that they had better not run any risk in the matter, but, having gone so far as they had gone in altering, modifying, and almost destroying the constitution originally proposed by the framers of the Bill, that they should give this part the coup de grace and keep the Borough Councils out altogether. As things at present stood the School Board which appointed the manager's could get rid of them. From time to time a manager might turn out to be corrupt, or, for some reason or other, not to be a desirable person to be associated in the management of a school of young children. If such a manager were appointed by a Borough Council that Council might take a different view from the Education Committee, and there would be an opportunity for quarrelling. The differences of opinion arising might assume quite a serious aspect, and, although he did not say that such cases would be frequent, he could not see any good reason for running a risk of that kind. He therefore moved.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 8, after the last Amendment to leave out the words, 'within the area of each Metropolitan Borough.'"—(Mr. Bond.)

Question proposed, "That the words, 'within the area of each Metropolitan Borough' stand part of the Bill."


said it was a great pity there was nobody to speak a word for the Borough Councils when the last shred of their privileges contained in the Bill was proposed to be taken away. When the Bill was before the House in the Committee stage, two stalwart supporters of the Government looked after the interests of those Councils, but to-day, when he looked round the House, he could not help asking, "Where are the champions of the Borough Councils?" Was there not a single Member on the Government side to get up and withstand this Amendment? He agreed with the hon. Member that what was left to the Borough Councils was not worth having from their point of view, but it would be a source of irritation if allowed to remain, and if the Government were wise they would strike out the Borough Councils from the management altogether.


said if a little thought were given to this Amendment the Government might be inclined to accept it. The Borough Councils were not grateful to the Government for the position in which they were now left under the Bill. The Government had been pursuing this will-o'-the-wisp with the view apparently of doing something to gratify these Borough Councils. He appealed to the London Members to look at the proposal of the Government from the point of view of any single case with which they were familiar. In the case of Islington the Borough Council consisted of fifty or sixty members who made considerable sacrifices in order to carry out their municipal duties. They did their work well under the Local Government Act for London; but he did not believe that they were conscious of the number of schools in the borough or that they had any consciousness of the exact work of school managers. Why should this body of sixty or seventy men appoint 300 or 400 managers without any knowledge of the duties which these managers would have to discharge, and without any financial control over the educational system which the managers were to conduct? When the matter was put in that simple manner, he could not see how any one could argue that the right of nominating these managers should be left in the hands of the Borough Councils. They were creating a new education authority for London, and if they left it alone it would go into the School Board offices, and follow the School Board conditions, and yet, with everything so easy to the hands of the Government, for the gratification of some whim, the thing was to be split up into twenty-nine parts. It seemed to him to be a crazy proposal, and thoroughly inconsistent with the policy which the Government had now gradually adopted. He appealed to the hon. Baronet to re-consider his position, and he likewise hoped that hon. Gentlemen on the other side would support one of their own number in moving to get quit of the Borough Councils for good and all.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

said he should vote with his hon. friend who moved the Amendment. It seemed to him a most unbusinesslike proceeding to appoint an authority, and not allow that authority to designate its own managers. The representatives of the Borough Councils would undoubtedly be likely to create friction, and at the same time do no good. He understood his hon. friend who was in charge of the Bill to say that if the managers did not work with the County Council, the County Council, although it could not dismiss them, could take the authority from them and give it to a Committee. That was certain to produce friction, and he considered that the arrangement with regard to this matter had only been made to satisfy the amour propre of the Borough Councils.


said he had listened with extreme gratification to the hon. Member for Peckham, and he cordially agreed with every word the hon. Member had said. Every scheme brought forward to keep up the representation of the Borough Councils had failed, and he hoped the idea would now be abandoned. He thought the wisest course was to provide that the local education authority should determine the number of managers and the grouping of the schools after consultation with the Borough Councils, and subject to the approval of the Board of Education. Educationally a Borough Council area did not exist in London; it existed only for municipal purposes. In fact he knew of the case of a school which was practically in two Borough Council areas, and the idea of a Borough Council area being an educational area should at once be dismissed as preposterous. The scheme in the Bill was not the position in the country, and it would not be workable in London.

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)

said that the provision in the Act of last year which gave power to the local education authority to appoint two-thirds of the managers, and to the minor authority to appoint one-third, had worked exceedingly well. He would not exclude the Borough Councils entirely from nominating the board of management, but he would be prepared to agree that they should nominate one-half instead of two-thirds. That would take away any excuse the County Council might have for saying that they were left in a small minority. He hoped that some provision would be made for ensuring that among the first managers appointed there would be a proper proportion of the present managers under the London School Board. They were a valuable body and consisted largely of women; and if they were recognised in that way, he felt assured that their services would be largely continued in the future.


said that it had been just a little bit forgotten what the duty of the managers was. The silence of the Government on this Amendment was not attributable to the arguments they had used on the previous Amendment, because they gave the House no argument whatever. The Government did not seem to realise that the managers were to be the agents of the local education authority; they were to act under their direction, and carry out the instructions of that authority as to the management and control of the schools and report upon them. Was there any reason why they had got to give the appointment of those agents to somebody else instead of keeping it to themselves? It was absurd to bring in the Borough Councils, and it would only introduce complication and possible friction, by giving the appointment of the managers to a body which had nothing to do with the functions to be discharged by the managers. That was brought out by the hon. Member for Nottingham in regard to the question of dismissal. The dismissal was to be in the hands of the Borough Councils, but the Borough Councils did not know the reason for dismissal, because they never would know how a school was working. They gave no instructions and received no reports. All these things were done by the local education authority, and it was only the education authority who could say whether a man or a woman was a good or a bad manager. He submitted that that argument was conclusive on the matter. But there was another point of some importance. There were large districts of London where there were extremely few people who had either the leisure or the knowledge which would qualify them to undertake the work of managers. That deficiency was met at present by the School Board enlisting the services of leisured and philanthropically disposed persons from other parts of London, and these managers had not only given the poorer districts what they could not supply themselves, but had formed a very valuable link between the richer and the poorer parts of London. The people who lived in the poorer districts after all worked in the richer districts, and it was a positive gain that those who lived in the better parts should have this opportunity of going down into these poor and neglected districts and doing what had been done for the schools in the past by the London School Board. He did not think this could be equally well managed by the Borough Councils, whose knowledge was local and was not educational, who did not know the people in their own areas, and who knew still less the people in other areas. They would therefore be taking away a real benefit the poorer districts had enjoyed if they deprived them of the opportunity of getting this kind of help from the other parts of London. There had been no argument adduced by the Government to show that the Borough Councils were needed to determine the number and the character of the managers to be appointed. As a matter of fact they were not needed, and under those circumstances he hoped the Government would eliminate the Borough Councils from a function for which they had no special competence.


said the real question between them was who was to retain the initiative in choosing the managers—whether they were to retain the system of School Board management or whether they were to endeavour to create a local management? He was in favour of local management. He quite admitted that the School Board managers had done admirable work, a most unselfish and valuable work, for the schools. But he believed also that there was a very considerable element of valuable work which they might get at if they could excite more local interest in the management of the schools. What he had been told was that there was material accessible if only local interest were excited. The sooner they made the Borough Councils feel that the children of the borough were members of the borough, for whom they ought to have some care, the better. Everybody knew that there was a great deal beside teaching which had to be attended to in the conduct of the schools. The children had to be looked after when they were leaving school by people who were interested in them, and they had to be attended to when they came to school to see that they were cared for and fed and brought to school in a condition in which they were capable of receiving the education offered to them. If they could get the Borough Councils to take an interest in that, if they could create the sort of feeling under which the boroughs would realise that the schools were their schools, that the children were their children, they would have done a very good thing for education in London. If the whole appointment of the managers was put in the hands of the County Council and the Borough Councils had nothing to say to their appointment, he thought the consultation of the boroughs by the County Council would be an empty form.


said the argument of the hon. Baronet would have been more to the point if they had been discussing whether the Borough Councils should be the statutory managers. But was it not absurd to argue that they, not being themselves the managers but having the power to nominate three-fourths of the managers, would bring to this matter that local interest and local knowledge to which the hon. Baronet had referred. He should have thought it would not have the least effect in that direction, but he was perfectly certain that if this power were given to the local education authority it would practically reappoint the same body of managers as that which had done such valuable work for London under the School Board. If the Borough Councils were given the nomination of two-thirds, what would they naturally consider was the intention of the House of Commons in giving them that nomination? They would naturally think that the intention was that they should go rather outside the existing boroughs, and would take it as an instruction from this House that they were to get rid of the existing managers and put others in their place. That was the view that he would take if he was a borough councillor. He thought under these circumstances it was better to get rid of this Borough Council interest altogether, and from top to bottom place the matter in the hands of the central authority. He thought there was a good deal of force in the arguments of the Member who moved the Amendment. There was a great likelihood of this leading to great friction between the Borough Councils and the local authority, and if there was the least likelihood of any such friction arising, in the best interests of education they would be wise, he thought, in eliminating this last shadow of Borough Council interest and so leave the local authority in their proper position.


said he was not in favour of the Borough Councils having complete control over education, and was glad to see that eliminated from the Bill, but there was one point on which the Borough Councils should have the control, and that was the appointment of managers, in which the local knowledge, which they possessed and which the County Council did not possess, could be brought into play. He thought that they had

heard quite sufficient of the bogey of friction between the London County Council and Borough Councils. He had had the privilege of being a Member of the London County Council for twelve years, and had never been a member of the majority of that body, but he knew from personal experience, that if there was one thing ever absent from every sphere of work of the London County Council, it was friction between the London County Council and those with whom they differed. He could assure the House that the apprehension of friction was totally unfounded. The County Council always displayed a tolerant spirit towards those with whom they differed.

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

said the House had heard with interest the hon. Member's experience of the London County Council, and could only wonder why there should have been such an exhibition of distrust of the County Council on the part of hon. Members opposite. The speech of the hon. Member would relieve the hon. Baronet from a very embarrassing position, and the support which it gave must be very welcome to the hon. Baronet, because he could hardly regard this clause with satisfaction. The speech of the hon. Baronet opposite showed that he was still hankering after his original scheme. They were glad to know that the Government had now at heart the desirability of local interest, of which they did not hear much last year. But what local interest would be secured by this proposal which could not be secured by the County Council? If the County Council appointed managers they would secure the assistance of people locally interested. Two words had been used which had had a great charm for them, unification and co-ordination, but he failed to see how under the system proposed any authority could enforce unification and co-ordination with regard to education in the various schools.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 239; Noes, 128. (Division List, No. 159.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Anson, Sir William Reynell Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Arkwright, John Stanhope Arrol, Sir William
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Garfit, William Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Morrell, George Herbert
Bailey, James (Walworth) Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn Morrison, James Archibald
Bain, Colonel James Robert Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Baird, John George Alexander Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc. Mount, William Arthur
Balcarres, Lord Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.
Balford, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r Goulding, Edward Alfred Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute
Balfour, Captain C. B. (Hornsey Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed. Myers, William Henry
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Gretton, John O'Malley, William
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Groves, James Grimble O'Mara, James
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Bill, Charles Gunter, Sir Robert Pemberton, John S. G.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hall, Edward Marshall Penn, John
Bousfield, William Robert Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Percy, Earl
Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex Hambro, Charles Eric Pierpoint, Robert
Brassey, Albert Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx Pilkington, Colonel Richard
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Bull, William James Hare, Thomas Leigh Plummer, Walter R.
Burdett-Coutts, W. Harris, Frederick Leverton Pretyman, Ernest George
Butcher, John George Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo Purvis, Robert
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hay, Hon. Claude George Pym, C. Guy
Cautley, Henry Strother Heath, James (Staff's., N. W.) Randles, John S.
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Helder, Augustus Rasch, Major Frederick Carne
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh. Henderson, Sir Alexander Reid, James (Greenock)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Hickman, Sir Alfred Remnant, Jas. Farquharson
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hogg, Lindsay Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hornby, Sir William Henry Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)
Chapman, Edward Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Churchill, Winston Spencer Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Clive, Captain Percy A. Jameson, Major J. Eustace Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E. Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Coddington, Sir William Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred Round, Rt. Hon. James
Coghill, Douglas Harry Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Royds, Clement Molyneux
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Johnstone, Heywood Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Kennedy, Patrick James Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Compton, Lord Alwyne Kerr, John Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm. Scott, Sir S. (Marlybone, W.)
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Cripps, Charles Alfred Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R. Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Dimsdale, Rt. Hon Sir Joseph C. Llewellyn, Evan Henry Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Derington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. Lonsdale, John Brownlee Spear, John Ward
Doughty, George Lowe, Francis William Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale) Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Duke, Henry Edward Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Lundon, W. Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.) Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Thornton, Percy M.
Faber, George Denison (York) Macdona, John Cumming Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed. MacIver, David (Liverpool) Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W. Valentia, Viscount
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire) Walker, Col. William Hall
Finch, Rt. Hn. George H. Manners, Lord Cecil Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Martin, Richard Biddulph Warde, Colonel C. E.
Fisher, William Hayes Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Webb, Col. William George
FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose Melville, Beresford Valentine Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)
Flower, Ernest Milvain, Thomas Whiteley, H. (Ashton-un.-Lyne
Forster, Henry William Mitchell, William (Burnley) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Fyler, John Arthur Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)
Galloway, William Johnson Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) Wylie, Alexander TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George Sir Alexander Acland-
Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart Young, Samuel
Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud) Griffith, Ellis J. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Asher, Alexander Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Harmsworth, R. Leicester Robson, William Snowdon
Barlow, John Emmott Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Runciman Walter
Barran, Rowland Hirst Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Russell, T. W.
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Hope John Deans (Fife, West Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's, Lynn) Horniman, Frederick John Shipman, Dr. John G.
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Brigg, John Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Broadhurst, Henry Jacoby, James Alfred Soares, Ernest J.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants
Bryce, Right Hon. James Kitson, Sir James Strachey, Sir Edward
Burns, John Labouchere, Henry Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Burt, Thomas Langley, Batty Tennant, Harold John
Buxton, Sydney Charles Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Caldwell, James Leng, Sir John Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Cameron, Robert Levy, Maurice Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Channing, Francis Allston Lewis, John Herbert Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Lloyd-George, David Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Cremer, William Randal Lough, Thomas Tomkinson, James
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Toulmin, George
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan M'Arthur, William (Cornwall Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) M'Crae, George Tritton, Charles Ernest
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles M'Kenna, Reginald Wallace, Robert
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Duncan, J. Hastings Mansfield, Horace Rendall Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Dunn, Sir William Markham, Arthur Basil Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Elibank, Master of Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Ellis, John Edward Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Weir, James Galloway
Emmott, Alfred Moulton, John Fletcher White, George (Norfolk)
Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan) Newnes, Sir George Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Fenwick, Charles Partington, Oswald Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith Paulton, James Mellor Williams, O. (Merioneth)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Pearson, Sir Weetman D. Wilson, Chas. H. (Hull, W.)
Foster, Sir Michael (Lond Univ. Perks, Robert William Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. Philipps, John Wynford Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Fuller, J. M. F. Pirie, Duncan V. Yoxall, James Henry
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. Price, Robert John
Goddard, Daniel Ford Priestley, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Rea, Russell Mr. Bond and Sir Frederick
Grant, Corrie Rickett, J. Compton Banbury.
Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick Rigg, Richard

Question put, and agreed to.


said the next two Amendments were merely drafting Amendments—viz., to substitute "any" for "each," and to omit "or bodies" in line 9. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 9, to leave out the word 'each,' and insert the word 'any.'"—(Mr. Peel.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 9, to leave out the words 'or bodies.'"—(Mr. Peel.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'or bodies' stand part of the Bill."


thought some further explanation of the effect of this Amendment should be made. Did the hon. Member mean to compel all the schools within the area of each Borough Council to be under the control of one body of managers?


Not all the schools under one body.


thought it was a point which required to be made clear, because the words might have the effect of providing that all the provided schools within the area of a Borough Council were to be under one body of manager's. If that were the case the danger to which he had adverted earlier in the debate would be even greater than before. He assumed that what was intended was that two or three schools might be under one body, not that all the schools should necessarily be.


thought the point was sufficiently provided for by the words to be proposed later on enacting that the manner in which schools should be grouped should be determined by the Borough Council in consultation with the local authority and the Board of Education.

MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)

pointed out that as a later Amendment contemplated the grouping of schools under one, or more than one, body of managers the words "or bodies" were necessary.


said the object of his next Amendment was to give the utmost elasticity to the arrangements made under the Bill. In some cases it might be necessary to group certain schools together under one body of managers, whilst in other cases the schools might be so large that they must have a body of managers for each school. In other cases still it might be necessary to place a school under more than one body of managers, and this Amendment gave power to take whichever course was deemed desirable. It might be left to the Board of Education to decide which of these courses should be followed.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words 'whose number,' and insert the words 'the number, of those managers and the manner in which schools, in cases where it is desirable, should be grouped under one body of managers or placed under more than one body of managers.'"—(Mr. Peel.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'whose number' stand part of the Bill."


said they had not come to the real issue as to who should determine the number. He understood the proposal to apply to a school large enough to have one body of managers to itself and of course they had a great many bodies which managed more than one school. He desired to move formally an Amendment to the Amendment to leave out the words "or placed under more than one body of managers." The ordinary public elementary school which required more than one body of managers he had not yet come across.


said he gathered that this Amendment evidently caused some difficulty. What the hon. Member for Manchester meant was nothing more nor less than that the schools were to be grouped as in the manner prescribed. He thought the case would be met by the insertion of the words "the number of those managers and the extent to which schools should or should not be grouped." The grouping of schools meant putting several schools under the same body of managers, and that was covered by the use of the words he had suggested.

MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)

said he understood his hon. friend had in view the possibility of there being a separate body of managers for each department of the school. He should object to the Amendment in its present form because the words were positively dangerous, and they would permit of separate boards of management taking charge of separate departments. He could not imagine anything worse than that the Borough Councils or the local education authority should have separate managers say for the infants and another set for the older children.


said he did not think the words of his hon. friend's Amendment bore the interpretation placed upon them by the hon. Member for North Camberwell. He did not think the object of the Amendment was that one school should have more than one board of managers. The question was the manner in which schools should be grouped either under one body or more than one body and he did not refer to any particular school.


said that when the Question before the Chair had been disposed of they would come immediately to the words which it was proposed to insert. The Government seemed to be in some little difficulty, and the Amendment appeared to be one which required re-modelling, and as they were approaching the dinner hour it might be desirable that the Government should have the interval in order to avoid further confusion. During the interval the Government might draw up a simple Amendment, which everybody could understand, to carry out a purpose on which they were all agreed. What they required was that they should have words submitted to them to be inserted before they left out the words "whose number" which would carry out what appeared to be the unanimous wish of the House.


said the matter was a very simple one, and the case put forward by his hon. friend was not at all likely to arise. He thought the words suggested by the right hon. Member for Aberdeen would meet all that was required.


said the House was not in possession of the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen.


said they appeared to be in a state of confusion on this point. The words proposed to be left out were "whose number," but they could not leave out those words except with the view of inserting something else. If they left those words out it made perfect nonsense, and therefore they were contemplating the insertion of something else. They could not discuss this without having some idea as to what the Government proposed to do. Did they propose to accept the words proposed by the hon. Member for Manchester in substitution of the words proposed to be left out? That involved the principle of grouping, the arrangement of the managers, and matters of that sort. Was that what the Government proposed to do, and did they accept the words of the hon. Member for Manchester as they appeared on the Paper? He had never heard of words being eliminated without knowing what words had been substituted for them. The House of Commons ought to have some guidance.

And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned till this evening's sitting.