HC Deb 14 July 1903 vol 125 cc650-84

As amended, further considered.

Proceedings resumed upon Amendment proposed to the Bill [14th July]— 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 again proposed, "That the words 'whose number' stand part of the Bill."

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

suggested that the words "or placed under more than one body of managers" should be omitted from the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

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

Proposed words amended by leaving out the words "or placed under more than one body of managers."—(Dr. Macnamara.)

Proposed words, as amended, inserted in the Bill.

DR. MACNAMARA

said they had had a number of skirmishes with regard to the way in which they should frame the clause. As regarded the grouping of the schools they now came to the most important question of all, and that was, who should determine the number of managers. The Amendment he proposed to move would make the clause read so far as they had gone in this way: "Shall be determined after consultation with"—leave out the word "by"—"the Council of each Borough"—and then "by the local education authority," so that the number would be determined after consultation with the Borough Councils by the local education authority. As a local authority the Borough Councils had no knowledge of these matters. If, for instance, they asked the Borough Council of Camberwell to name the Board schools in the Borough of Camberwell, they would not be able to do it. It was most pathetic to hear the hon. Baronet talk of exciting the interest of the Borough Councils in this way. The hon. Baronet had evidently no knowledge of these bodies. They could not excite their interest in the way he suggested. What could be done was to leave it in the hands of the London County Council and say—"You shall determine the number, but you ought to consult the Borough Councils." They would have very great difficulty in getting managers in any case. He had to go through the list of the managers of the ten schools in his charge every year, and every year he had to strike out the names of all those who had not made three visits to any school or managers' meeting during the year, and he found the greatest difficulty in finding people to fill their places. With their wider knowledge of the whole of London, surely the local authority were the persons to determine the number, because they were the persons who were in greater touch with those in the West End who would come forward to assist in these matters. He appealed to the hon. Member for South Manchester to accept this Amendment in place of that which he had upon the Paper, which contained the converse proposition, namely, that the number should be determined by the Borough Councils after consultation with the local education authority.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 10, after the word 'determined,' to insert the words 'after consultation with.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)

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

MR. BOUSFIELD

said he ventured to think that the proposal of the hon. Member for Camberwell was hardly supported by the arguments which had been used in its favour. The hon. Member had pointed out that the School Board had had great difficulty in keeping up their managers, and that the Borough Councils had taken no interest in any way in the education of their districts. Experience had proved that whenever new powers were given to these local bodies they always had sufficient patriotism to carry them out. He always contended that the greater the functions put upon these bodies the greater would be their interest, and the greater would be the desire to discharge them. This particular Amendment did not seem to him to raise in itself a very important matter, for the Borough Councils and the County Council were not likely to fall out over it; but, so far as the hon. Member's object was to diminish the influence of the Borough Councils, he was opposed to him. It was of the greatest importance to awaken the interest of the local authorities in education within their area, and the more functions they gave them the more they would succeed in that object.

MR. ERNEST GRAY

said the position was not altogether that described by the hon. Member. This was not an Amendment to the Amendment moved, but really an Amendment to the Bill as drafted, because the Bill as drafted said the number of the board of managers was to be determined by each Borough Council, subject only to the approval of the Board of Education. In his judgment, the London County Council, a competent body provided to superintend these schools, should have the paramount voice in this matter. The Borough Councils were not the proper body to provide managers. He would instance the case of the Jewish schools in Whitechapel In that case, certainly, the Borough Council was not the proper body to provide the managers, and it seemed to him that the only authority that could do this properly was the London County Council; that was the authority which ought to have the power, and, if this power were given to it, it would go far to conciliate public opinion in this matter. He strongly appealed to the Government to accept the words proposed by the hon. Member for Camberwell.

MR. YOXALL

said that inch by inch the Borough Council proposals in this Bill were being narrowed down until now it was only suggested that the Borough Councils should take the initiative in providing the Committee of Management for the schools in their areas and nominate the managers of that Committee. He would ask the Secretary to the Board of Education seriously to consider whether it was worth while to persist in the proposal in the Bill as it stood. It would not conciliate the Borough Councils, and it did not satisfy the majority of the London Members. Was it worth while to leave these grains of grit in the machinery? It might be said that friction would not arise, but he thought it was very likely that friction would arise, and if there was the least danger of it the wisdom of the House ought to avert that danger. If there was a principle at stake he could understand the Government standing up for it. But the thing had been so whittled down and had become of so little value to the Borough Councils that there was no principle in it, and yet in itself it was dangerous. He begged the Government not to persist. The Amendment advocated, in his opinion, a very proper change, namely, the transfer of the initiative of these proceedings into the hands of the London County Council. He hoped even now it would be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to fall in with the general spirit of the House and give the initiative to the local education authority provided they consulted with the Borough Councils.

*MR. COHEN

contended that this was not a question of principle but of machinery, but he differed from the hon. Gentleman as to where the initiative should lie. He thought the Bill would work more smoothly if the initiative was with the Borough Councils instead of being with the local education authority, and in support of that contention reverted to the argument of the hon. Member for Camberwell that it was very difficult for the School Board to provide managers. Inasmuch as it was anticipated that the London County Council would be obliged to go, when this difficulty confronted them, to the Borough Councils and ask them to supply the names of ladies and gentlemen who would act as managers, it was only right that the Borough Councils should have the initiative in this matter. He had always been opposed to entrusting the Borough Councils with the large duties which it was at first proposed to place upon them, and he was glad they were not to be given to them. But the duty they were now discussing was certainly not educational. The Borough Councils would have the duty of finding ladies and gentlemen with a certain amount of educational experience who were capable of managing the schools. He would confide that duty to them because it was one demanding a knowledge of the particular localities which could not be possessed by the central authority. He believed they would willingly undertake it, and that they would supply ladies and gentlemen capable of performing the duties of school managers.

SIR MICHAEL FOSTER (London University)

said there were two things to be observed in the selection of managers. There was the requisite knowledge, and the requisite judgment which would make that knowledge efficient. He quite sympathised with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education in saying that it was most desirable to excite local interest. He would add that it was most desirable to make use of local knowledge, but that was provided for in the Amendment by the consultation with the Borough Councils. How that knowledge could best be utilised for the educational advantage of London was surely a question for the central authority. He hoped the hon. Baronet would accept this very desirable Amendment.

SIR JOHN GORST

said he would strongly add his voice to that of the hon. Member for London University in urging the acceptance of this Amendment. As a matter of practical machinery, it was better to leave the selection of managers to the County Council after consultation with the Borough Councils than to the Borough Councils after consultation with the County Council. In such districts of the East-end as Poplar and Bethnal Green, it was impossible to find persons of leisure to undertake the duties of managers. He did not mean that they could not find people of the highest ability there, but they were all engaged in the struggle for existence, and they had no leisure to devote to the work of school management. The London School Board met the difficulty by reinforcing the East-end managers from the leisured classes of the West-end. It was desirable that that plan should continue, and the County Council, which was in touch with all parts of London, would be able to continue it. But the Government proposed to arrest what was a going concern in order to begin de novo. There was no matter of principle involved here. It was a matter of practical statesmanship and machinery, and he thought it would be better to adopt the Amendment.

MR. BRYCE

said the speeches to which the House had been listening were useful and practical, but they had not been directed to the Amendment, which referred entirely to the question of number and not to the question who was to appoint the managers. The grouping of schools need not be confined within each borough, and therefore that was a question for the local education authority.

MR. BOND

said it was not a question whether the number of managers should be determined by the local education authority or the Borough Councils, though, of course, that was the issue raised by the Amendment. Assuming that the proposal of the hon. Member for Camberwell was accepted as to the number, what he asked was that it should be determined after consultation with the Borough Councils. If the Borough Councils were, as had been represented, in a state of blissful ignorance in regard to educational matters, why consult them at all? It would only introduce a fiddling method of proceeding which the House should be anxious to avoid. He could not vote for the Amendment.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said everybody who had spoken had stated that this was not a matter of principle, and that it would be comparatively unimportant in practice, yet it had given rise to a long discussion. It was said that they were derogating from the local education authority. The local education authority retained absolute control, but an initiative was given to the Borough Councils which it was very desirable they should have. It was said there was nothing in the Government's proposal to conciliate the boroughs. He did not care whether there was anything specially calculated to conciliate the boroughs. If the boroughs had the duty thrown upon them they must consider the requirements of the schools in the area. It was said they were ignorant and knew nothing of the needs of the area. The hon. Member for Islington was never tired of dwelling on the educational incapacity of the Islington Borough Council. He supposed that to those who formed the School Board at first the needs of the different areas were matters of obscurity. He took it also that the County Councils, which had taken up technical education of late years, were not generally familiar with the matter when the duty was first thrust upon them, but he did not know it had ever been suggested that because they had nothing to do with education up to that date they were therefore incapable of doing the work. He believed the Borough Councils were perfectly capable of doing the work with which it was proposed to entrust them. If they were ignorant they would not be worth consulting; if they were capable they would be capable of taking the initiative of determining the number of managers necessary or desirable for their schools. The matter of the selection of managers was not before the House at present. When the proper time came he might have something to say in reply to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University. What they had to consider now was whether, in the matter of the number of managers desirable for the different schools and the general arrangement of their duties, the local education authority should consult the Borough Councils or the Borough Councils should consult the local education authority. He thought it exceedingly important that the Government should give the proposed powers to the different boroughs, because the London schools were most of them quite large enough to stand alone. The necessity of grouping was chiefly a necessity in scattered rural areas where managers were hard to find. But the real point was, that if they were to give to the boroughs an interest in the matter of management they must give them initiative. If they were required to wait until the County Council came to consult them the consultation would probably have no result whatever. He hoped they would be able to excite the interest of the Borough Councils in educational work, and that they would play a good part in the education of London.

MR WHITLEY

asked what the word 'determined' in the clause meant if it did not mean that the power of fixing the number of managers lay with each Borough Council. It was not a question of mere initiative. The action of the Borough Council in this matter was to be "subject to the approval of the Board of Education," but if they passed the words "shall be determined by the council of each borough," were they not giving the real control into the hands of the Borough Council? A Borough Council might make up its mind, and then make the consultation with the County Council a farce. A much more important question than that of the number of managers was the question of grouping.

MR. SPEAKER

said he did not see what this Amendment had to do with the question of grouping. That would arise on a subsequent Amendment.

There had already been a general discussion on the first Amendment, but to have a general debate on every particular Amendment would be extremely inconvenient.

MR. ERNEST GRAY

pointed out that the words which were moved a few minutes ago were now in the clause, and, therefore, the question they were discussing was that the number of managers and the manner of grouping "shall be determined by the council of each borough."

MR. SPEAKER

ruled that the hon. Member would not be in order in discussing the question of grouping.

MR. WHITLEY

said he would not pursue the subject further. He thought that the proposal of the hon. Member for Camberwell was, from the point of view of education, immensely superior to that supported by the hon. Baronet who represented the Government.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 86; Noes, 144. (Division List, No. 160.)

AYES.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Roche, John
Brigg, John Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Roe, Sir Thomas
Broadhurst, Henry Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H. Runciman, Walter
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Hope, John Deans (Fife, West Russell, T. W.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Horniman, Frederick John Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Burns, John Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Burt, Thomas Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh Shipman, Dr. John G.
Buxton, Sydney Charles Kitson, Sir James Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Caldwell, James Langley, Batty Soares, Ernest J.
Cameron, Robert Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Leng, Sir John Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Cawley, Frederick Levy, Maurice Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Cremer, William Randal Lewis, John Herbert Toulmin, George
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Tritton, Charles Ernest
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Mansfield, Horace Rendall Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Dillon, John Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N. Weir, James Galloway
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Duncan, J. Hastings O'Dowd, John Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Edwards, Frank O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Elibank, Master of Partington, Oswald Williams, O. (Merioneth)
Emmott, Alfred Perks, Robert William Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)
Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan) Philipps, John Wynford Wilson, John (Durham Mid.)
Fenwick, Charles Price, Robert John Yoxall, James Henry
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Priestley, Arthur
Foster, Sir Michl. (Lond. Univ Rea, Russell TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Furness, Sir Christopher Rickett, J. Compton Dr. Macnamara and Mr.
Goddard, Daniel Ford Rigg, Richard George White.
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Forster, Henry William Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Fyler, John Arthur Plummer, Walter R.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Galloway, William Johnson Pretyman, Ernest George
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Arrol, Sir William Graham, Henry Robert Purvis, Robert
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed. Randles, John S.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Bain, Colonel James Robert Groves, James Grimble Reid, James (Greenock)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds Hain, Edward Renwick, George
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Mid'x Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)
Bill, Charles Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson
Blundell, Colonel Henry Harris, Frederick Leverton Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Bond, Edward Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Bousfield, William Robert Heath, James (Staffords., N. W. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex Helder, Augustus Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander
Brassey, Albert Henderson, Sir Alexander Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hickman, Sir Alfred Sharpe, William Edward T.
Bull, William James Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Butcher, John George Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Cautley, Henry Strother Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Kerr, John Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Keswick, William Spear, John Ward
Chapman, Edward Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N. R.) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Thornton, Percy M.
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S. Tollemache, Henry James
Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) Valentia, Viscount
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Macdona, John Cumming Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Cranborne, Viscount M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Cripps, Charles Alfred M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.) Webb, Col. William George
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire) Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Manners, Lord Cecil Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Milvain, Thomas Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)
Denny, Colonel Mitchell, William (Burnley) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Doughty, George Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Morrell, George Herbert Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore Morrison, James Archibald Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Duke, Henry Edward Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. Bath)
Faber, George Denison (York) Mount, William Arthur Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute Young, Samuel
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Myers, William Henry
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Sir Alexander Acland-
Fisher, William Hayes Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Percy, Earl
Flower, Ernest Pilkington, Col. Richard
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

moved— In Clause 2, page 1, lines 10 and 11, leave out 'council of each borough,' and insert 'local education authority.' The object of this Amendment, he said, was to raise the clear issue whether the Borough Councils should be brought in in the matter of determining the number of managers, or whether the number of managers should be determined by the local education authority. The Amendment proposed that the matter should be left to the local education authority.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words 'council of each borough,' and insert the words 'local education authority.'"—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)

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

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said the question had already been argued at length. He therefore proposed to say no more than that the Government could not accept the Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 158; Noes, 100. (Division List, No. 161.)
AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Flower, Ernest Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Forster, Henry William Percy, Earl
Anson, Sir William Reynell Fyler, John Arthur Pilkington, Colonel Richard
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Galloway, William Johnson Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Arrol, Sir William Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn Plummer, Walter R.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby- (Salop Pretyman, Ernest George
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Goulding, Edward Alfred Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Bain, Colonel James Robert Graham, Henry Robert Purvis, Robert
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed. Randles, John S.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury) Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch Groves, James Grimble Reid, James (Greenock)
Bhownaggree Sir M. M. Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Bill, Charles Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx Renwick, George
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)
Bousfield, William Robert Hare, Thomas Leigh Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson
Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Midd'x) Harris, Frederick Leverton Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Brassey, Albert Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Rutherford, John (Lancashire
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Heath, James (Staffs, N. W.) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Bull, William James Helder, Augustus Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Butcher, John George Henderson, Sir Alexander Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Cautley, Henry Strother Hickman, Sir Alfred Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Hoult, Joseph Simeon, Sir Barrington
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Howard, Jno. (Kent, Faversham Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Chapman, Edward Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Kerr, John Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Keswick, William Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Spear, John Ward
Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R. Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cranborne, Viscount Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Cripps, Charles Alfred Lowe, Francis William Thornton, Percy M.
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent) Tollemache, Henry James
Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Macdona, John Cumming Valentia, Viscount
Denny, Colonel M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway) M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W. Webb, Colonel William George
Doughty, George M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire) Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Manners, Lord Cecil Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)
Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore Milvain, Thomas Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)
Duke, Henry Edward Mitchell, William (Burnley) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Morrell, George Herbert Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.) Morrison, James Archibald Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)
Faber, George Denison (York) Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed. Mount, William Arthur Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry) Young, Samuel
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Myers, William Henry
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway N. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Fisher, William Hayes Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Sir Alexander Acland-
FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Caldwell, James Elibank, Master of
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Cameron, Robert Emmott, Alfred
Barran, Rowland Hirst Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Cawley, Frederick Fenwick, Charles
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Cremer, William Randal Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund
Bond, Edward Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Flavin, Michael Joseph
Brigg, John Dewar, John A. (Inverness-shire Foster, Sir Michl. (Lond. Univ
Broadhurst, Henry Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Furness, Sir Christopher
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh Dillon, John Goddard, Daniel Ford
Bryce, Right Hon. James Doogan, P. C. Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Burns, John Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Burt, Thomas Duncan, J. Hastings Griffith, Ellis J.
Buxton, Sydney Charles Edwards, Frank Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Paulton, James Mellor Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West Perks, Robert William Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Horniman, Frederick John Philipps, John Wynford Toulmin, George
Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Price, Robert John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Kilbride, Denis Priestley, Arthur Tritton, Charles Ernest
Kitson, Sir James Rea, Russell Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Langley, Batty Rickett, J. Compton Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Rigg, Richard Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Leng, Sir John Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Weir, James Galloway
Levy, Maurice Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) White, George (Norfolk)
Lewis, John Herbert Roche, John Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)
Lloyd-George, David Roe, Sir Thomas Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Runciman, Walter Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
M'Crae, George Russell, T. W. Williams, O. (Merioneth)
M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj. Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland) Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)
Mansfield, Horace Rendall Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen Shipman, Dr. John G. Yoxall, James Henry
O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Soares, Ernest J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
O'Dowd, John Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Mr. William M'Arthur
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.) and Mr. Spencer.
Partington Oswald Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 11, after the word 'borough' to insert the words 'after consultation with the local education authority and.'"—(Mr. Peel)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 12, to leave out the words 'Provided that.'"—(Mr. Peel.)

Amendment agreed to.

DR. MACNAMARA

said the Amendment he wished next to move dealt with the proportion of managers to be nominated by the Borough Councils. The Bill as it stood provided that three-fourths should be so nominated, and his proposal was to secure that only one-third should be selected by the minor authority, and two-thirds by the major body. This was an important point, because the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had again and again said that they desired that the County Council should have supreme control in their scheme of municipalisation, just the same as other municipal authorities throughout the country, and if the Government were sincere in this desire the least they could do was to give the authority the same amount of representation as was contained in last year's Act. He feared that the Borough Councils would feel a good deal of irritation against the Government in respect of this measure. At the outset they were offered lots of things which none of them asked for, and all had since been withdrawn. It might be they would desire to appoint their proportion of the members from their own body. There was a certain amount of patronage in connection with the management of elementary schools in London. The management, for instance, had the entire appointment of assistant teachers, and the final selection for the head teacher-ship from three names sent down to choose from. Apart from their zeal for education, therefore, he could well understand that the borough councillors would be anxious to serve personally, so as to have a share of the patronage attaching to the office. This might produce conflicts with the County Council, which was nominally supreme. If the borough councillors themselves constituted three-fourths of the managing body, a large number of the existing managers would have to be got rid of. All were agreed that those managers were doing admirable work, and it certainly would be a great pity to lose their services. He understood that the Parliamentary Secretary did not want to bring that about, but the temptation to the borough councillors to elect themselves would be very great. He did not mean to suggest that they would exercise their powers of patronage unworthily. The Government had refused to give them special treatment for London, and had said they must accept last year's Act. What did that Act say in this respect? It said that as regarded urban districts the local authority need not have any managers at all, but if any were appointed four should be chosen by the major authority—the council of the county—and two only by the minor authority—the urban district council. Why was that scheme to be departed from in the case of London? According to the Act of last year the Borough Councils should only appoint one-third instead of three-fourths of the managers. If the County Council was to be really supreme, it should be supreme in regard to these nominations. He had been looking through the list of managers in London, and he doubted very much if the Borough Councillors would be able to find a sufficient number of persons to act. Take the case of Stepney. Many of the existing managers were drawn from the West-end of London, but if the choice was to be confined to the borough he was convinced it would not be possible to find nine managers for each separate school.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 12, to leave out the words 'three-fourths,' and insert the words 'one-third.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)

Question proposed, "That the words three-fourths stand part of the Bill."

MR. W. F. D. SMITH (Strand, Westminster)

said the House must be weary of discussing the comparative merits of the County Council and Borough Councils. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Camberwell that the London boroughs should be looked on in the same light as the urban district councils, neither did he believe they would necessarily limit their choice to residents of local areas. People in the East-end of London would still be able to have the assistance of those from the West end, and under the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Manchester the present managers would get due representation on the new Board. It must be clear to everybody that, although the Borough Councils would have a majority of the members, as a matter of fact they would be powerless to interfere with or run counter to the policy of the local education authority. But he thought the figures as they stood were rather extreme, and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would see his way to modify them by giving two-thirds instead of three-fourths to the Borough Councils. If opportunity offered he would himself propose an Amendment to that effect.

MR. ERNEST GRAY

said he was anxious not to delay the Bill unnecessarily, but the Amendment before the House was one of considerable importance. Steadily step by step the House was forging the chain of control from the County Council authority down wards. In the Bill as originally presented the chain was broken in the constitution of the Committee and in the establishment of boards of management, but the House itself, with the Government very reluctantly acquiescing, had established the first principles of the control of the County Council over its own Committee, following upon the control of the Committee over the schools in the several boroughs. Now he was anxious to complete that chain of control. A large amount of detail work would undoubtedly have to be delegated to the managers of the schools, but the Education Committee would never consent to delegate powers to a body over which they were not able to exercise control. If the provision in the Bill was retained he believed the County Council would refuse to delegate this detail work, because the Education Committee could have no confidence in boards of management so constituted. They had repeatedly been told that the County Council must have full confidence in the managers, but how could it have such confidence under an arrangement like this. He hoped that before the debate closed the House would agree to provide that one-half of the managers should be appointed by the County Council and one-half by the Borough Councils. That would be a reasonable Amendment. He was anxious to enlist the services of women, and he thought the County Council would be more likely to appoint women than the Borough Councils would be. He agreed with the argument that the Borough Councils would be strongly tempted to elect their own members as managers. They would forget that two-thirds of the children in the schools were either children of tender years or girls, and that therefore it was most desirable to appoint women as managers. It was useless, perhaps, to appeal to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, but he would appeal to hon. Members on this question to try and disregard Party pressure, and to arrive at a decision in the interests of the schools in this effort to complete the chain of control. The thing once done would not be undone for many years to come, and in the interim much mischief might be perpetrated. The schools were now being placed under an entirely new system, a great experiment was being entered upon, and he appealed to those who wished to see the education given in the Metropolis equal, if not superior, to anything in the Empire to give the County Council a paramount voice in the selection of boards of managers for each school or group of schools. Personally he would support the omission of the words "two-thirds" in the hope that later on one-half would be substituted.

LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)

said it was scarcely necessary to do more than move the Amendment, because of the arguments that had already been put so forcibly in its favour. He hoped the Government would facilitate the proceedings by at once announcing that they would consent to the Motion, and thus obtain an equality of representation.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

thought hon. Members had forgotten to look at the schedule in the Act of last year, which prescribed the powers of the Committees of Managers to deal with matters relating to the management, but subject to such conditions and restrictions as should be suggested by the local education authority. He hoped, having provided that those bodies should be brought into consultation with one another, that the consultations would bring about such an interchange of opinion as would enable the selection of the boroughs to command the confidence of the local education authority. He bore in mind what had been said as to the difficulty of getting managers, experienced by the School Board. Surely they might draw from that the lesson that they would lighten the heavy burden of the local education authority, and, to some extent, obviate the difficulty experienced by the School Board if they required the Borough Councils to find the larger proportion of the board of managers. He confessed that unless precautions were taken to ensure the presence of women on the board of managers, as well as the presence of former managers, he should hesitate to entrust the boroughs with this large proportion, but, as it was, he wanted to retain the best of the old, and, at the same time, strike a new vein by giving the boroughs the larger number. He quite agreed, however, with the hon. Member for the Strand Division that three-fourths was a large proportion, and, besides, it was somewhat inconvenient arithmetically. Bodies of six, nine, twelve, and fifteen were easier to be sub divided than were those of four, eight, twelve, and sixteen. Therefore, although he could not go to the length suggested by the hon. Member for West Ham, and accept the proposal to give one-half, he should be quite prepared to accept the proportion of two-thirds nominated by the Borough Councils, and one-third by the County Council.

MR. BRYCE

could not follow the arithmetical argument of the hon. Baronet that it was easier to divide by three than by two. He should have thought that if the Government was willing to depart from the three-fourths proportion they might have accepted one-half. Surely sufficient opinion had been expressed on the Government side to make it clear that the House would be content with one-half. They were willing to withdraw further objection to the scheme if the principle of equality were agreed to, and that proportion would be most in accord with the general feeling of the House, whilst no slur would be cast on either council.

*MR. BOND

called attention to what had taken place earlier in the Bill, when it was proposed to mak the London County Council the local education authority. As to the possibility of that Council undertaking, in addition to its other duties, the vast work of the School Board, and controlling the voluntary and elementary schools of London, the fears then expressed were mitigated by the suggestion that there must be a certain amount of delegation. It was said that the London School Board did not delegate sufficiently, and that the new authority ought to do more in that direction than the School Board had done in the past. How could it delegate powers if the Committee contained two-thirds whom it did not appoint? Then it had been suggested that the powers of managers were but trifling in importance, but could it be contended that the appointment and control of the teachers was a trifling matter. He could not help thinking that unless there was a majority appointed by the local education authority, the work of the central education authority as regarded the management of elementary schools, instead of being made less would be greater, so much so, in fact, as to entail a risk of the machine breaking down under the pressure. Every consideration pointed in the direction of giving a considerable majority to the nominees of the local educasion authority upon the boards, but he thought it was quite possible that if a large majority of these managers were appointed by the Borough Councils, the borough councillors might be tempted to go upon these governing bodies—a step that would not conduce to the interests of education. The hon. Member for Camberwell had drawn attention to the Act of last year, and said if they followed that precedent they would have two-thirds appointed by the central authority and one-third by the local authority. In the small towns, dealt with by last year's Act, people knew each other, and those selected to act were recognised as the right people to undertake the business, but in large boroughs, like Camberwell or Paddington, where there were an enormous number of schools to be managed, it was not so likely that the really right people would be picked out. If it was desirable in the case of rural councils to give two-thirds to the central authority and only one-third to the local authority, then à fortiori it was much more right to give the larger nominations to the central authority in London. He hoped that the Amendment would be accepted, and if they could not get that they must get something as near to it as possible.

MR. BOUSFIELD

ventured to think that in making the concession the Government had gone as far as they ought in the direction desired by the hon. Member for Camberwell. The difference in the policies advocated was that they desired the Borough Councils to take as much interest as possible in education, and for that reason they thought it right that they should have some real power, without which they would take no real interest. They did not want to carry control into every detail of administration. So far as real control over policy was concerned, the County Council had absolute and ample control. They on that side of the House who had advocated the Borough Councils having some power, had desired that the County Councils should have the real controlling power as regarded the policy of Education in London, and they had got that. If the management did not carry out the policy of the County Council the latter had the power to alter it on vital matters of administration, but he submitted that the paramount consideration was not that the County Council should be able to carry its control into the very smallest details of administration, but that they should have a body of men engaged in the work of education that knew something about it and were devoted to it. From that point of view some increase of interest and power in the Borough Councils was absolutely necessary to create a race of men willing and capable to take upon themselves those administrative duties. What they wanted were men in every district interested in the education of their locality. The Government had now suggested a modification of two-thirds nominated by the Borough Councils and one-third by the County Councils. That meant that as far as possible two-thirds would be inhabitants of the borough. It had been suggested that they would probably be borough councillors, but he did not think that was likely, because he knew how heavy the duties of those gentlemen were already, and he could not imagine that they would take upon themselves these additional duties. Under the proportions proposed, they would have two-thirds of the managers chosen by the locality, and one third from outside. He hoped the Government would adhere to the compromise that they had suggested.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he rose for the purpose of making a further appeal to the Government. It was quite clear from what had occurred that afternoon and evening, and especially with regard to that Amendment, that there was a very strong feeling, certainly among the majority of Members, that the County Council, as the local authority, ought to have supreme authority in this matter. No reason had been given why the Government should depart from their Bill of last year, which gave a substantial majority to the local authority. The proposal that in regard to the local authority the counties should be in a minority on the boards of managers was resisted by the Leader of the House last year, when he said that the County Council was to be the supreme authority in all matters of education, and, that being so, it was only reasonable to give them the majority on the boards of managers. It would be extremely foolish after deciding that the County Council was to be the supreme authority, to hand the majority over to the local body. He (Mr. Buxton) could not see how the Government could resist a proposal they themselves adopted last year in regard to this matter. He hoped the hon Baronet, in order to meet the feeling which was not confined to any one quarter of the House, would carry this matter out on the lines of the Act of last year.

MR. LOUGH

suggested that as the hon. Baronet had intimated his willingness to make a concession, the point should be settled at one-half.

DR. MACNAMARA

asked leave to withdraw his proposal in order that the substitution of "one-half" might be moved, the latter proportion appearing to carry more favour. ("No.") Then he would take the "one-third" to a division.

Question put, and negatived.

Question put, "That the words 'one-third' be there inserted."

The House divided:—Ayes, 110; Noes, 172. (Division List No. 162.)

Cautley, Henry Strother Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Midd'x Plummer, Walter R.
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd Pretyman, Ernest George
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Hare, Thomas Leigh Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Harris, Frederick Leverton Purvis, Robert
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.) Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm Heaton, John Henniker Reid, James (Greenock)
Chapman, Edward Henderson, Sir Alexander Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Clive, Captain Percy A. Hickman, Sir Alfred Renwick, George
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hogg, Lindsay Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)
Collings, Right Hon. Jesse Hoult, Joseph Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson
Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole Jameson, Major J. Eustace Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Compton, Lord Alwyne Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred. Royds, Clement Molyneux
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Cranborne, Viscount Johnstone, Heywood Sackville Col. S. G. Stopford-
Cripps, Charles Alfred Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton Kerr, John Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Keswick, William Sharpe, William Edward T.
Dalkeith, Earl of Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Simeon, Sir Barrington
Denny, Colonel Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R. Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C. Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore Lowe, Francis William Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Duke, Henry Edward Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas- Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ
Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.) Macdona, John Cumming Thornton, Percy M.
Faber, George Denison (York) M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Tollemache, Henry James
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh W.) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. (Manc'r M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Manners, Lord Cecil Tuke, Sir John Batty
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Martin, Richard Biddulph Valentia, Viscount
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Milvain, Thomas Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.
Fisher, William Hayes Mitchell, William (Burnley) Webb, Colonel William George
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Welby, Lt.-Col A. C. E. (Taunton
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.) Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)
Flower, Ernest Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)
Forster, Henry William Morrell, George Herbert Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W. Morrison, James Archibald Willox, Sir John Archibald
Fyler, John Arthur Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)
Galloway, William Johnson Mount, William Arthur Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin and N'rn Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wylie, Alexander
Goulding, Edward Alfred Myers, William Henry Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Graham, Henry Robert Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N. Young, Samuel
Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.) Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gretton, John Percy, Earl Sir Alexander Acland-
Groves, James Grimble Pilkington, Col. Richard Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Platt-Higgins, Frederick
*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

moved the insertion of "two-thirds."

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 12, after the last Amendment, to insert the words 'two-thirds.'"—(Sir William Anson.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Bain, Colonel James Robert Blundell, Colonel Henry
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Balcarres, Lord Bousfield, William Robert
Anson, Sir William Reynell Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Brassey, Albert
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds Bull, William James
Arrol, Sir William Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Butcher, John George
Atkinson, Right Hon. John Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Campbell, John (Armagh, S.
Aubrey Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Bill, Charles Cautley, Henry Strother

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

The House divided: — Ayes, 177; Noes, 105. (Division List No. 163.)

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midlx Pretyman, Ernest George
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Hare, Thomas Leigh Purvis, Robert
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Harris, Frederick Leverton Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.) Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. Henderson, Sir Alexander Reid, James (Greenock)
Chapman, Edward Hickman, Sir Alfred Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Clive, Captain Percy A. Hogg, Lindsay Renwick, George
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Hoult, Joseph Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Jameson, Major J. Eustace Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Compton, Lord Alwyne Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred Royds, Clement Molyneux
Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Cranborne, Viscount Johnstone, Heywood Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Cripps, Charles Alfred Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton Kerr, John Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile Keswick, William Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Dalkeith, Earl of Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)
Denny, Colonel Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R. Sharpe, William Edward T.
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Smith, James Parker (Lanarks
Doughty, George Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Stanley, Ed. Jas. (Somerset)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lowe, Francis William Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Duke, Henry Edward Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth) Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.) Macdona, John Cumming Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Faber, George Denison (York) M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Thornton, Percy M.
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed. M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W. Tollemache, Henry James
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Manners, Lord Cecil Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Martin, Richard Biddulph Valentia, Viscount
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Milvain, Thomas Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Fisher, William Hayes Mitchell, William (Burnley) Webb, Colonel William George
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants) Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)
Flower, Ernest Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne
Forster, Henry William Morrell, George Herbert Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W. Morrison, James Archibald Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Fyler, John Arthur Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Willox, Sir John Archibald
Galloway, William Johnson Mount, William Arthur Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby (Salop Murray, Charles J. (Coventry Wylie, Alexander
Goulding, Edward Alfred Myers, William Henry Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Graham, Henry Robert Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N. Young, Samuel
Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed. Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Greene, W. Raymond- (Cumbs. Percy, Earl Sir Alexander Acland-
Gretton, John Pilkington, Colonel Richard Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Groves, James Grimble Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Plummer, Walter R.
NOES.
Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud) Caldwell, James Fuller, J. M. F.
Asher, Alexander Causton, Richard Knight Furness, Sir Christopher
Ashton, Thomas Gair Cawley, Frederick Goddard, Daniel Ford
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy. Cremer, William Randal Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Crooks, William Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick
Barran, Rowland Hirst Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Griffith, Ellis J.
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Doogan, P. C. Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Hay, Hon. Claude George
Bond, Edward Duncan, J. Hastings Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-
Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.
Brigg, John Elibank, Master of Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.
Broadhurst, Henry Fenwick, Charles Hope, John Deans (Fife, West
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Horniman, Frederick John
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Foster, Sir Michl, (Lond. Univ Jones, William (Canarvonshire
Buxton, Sydney Charles Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Kitson, Sir James
Langley, Batty Price, Robert John Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall Priestley, Arthur Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings
Leigh, Sir Joseph Rea, Russell Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Levy, Maurice Rickett, J. Compton Tomkinson, James
Lewis, John Herbert Rigg, Richard Toulmin, (George
Lloyd-George, David Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Lough, Thomas Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Wason, E. (Clackmannan)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Roe, Sir Thomas Weir, James Galloway
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Runciman, Walter White, George (Norfolk)
M'Crae, George Russell, T. W. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Mansfield, Horace Rendall Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford) Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)
Markham, Arthur Basil Shipman, Dr. John G. Wilson, John (Darham Mid.)
Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside Yoxall, James Henry
Moulton, John Fletcher Soares, Ernest J.
Partington, Oswald Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Paulton, James Mellor Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice
Perks, Robert William Tennant, Harold John and Mr. Henry Hobhouse.
Philipps, John Wynford Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen E.
Pirie, Duncan V. Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan E.
MR. MANSFIELD

moved to substitute the word "may" for the word "shall" in that part of the clause which provides that the Borough Councils shall appoint three-fourths of the school managers. At the present moment the number of those who had the appointment of those managers was very small indeed. The ratepayers had decided that the Borough Councils were not the proper authorities to elect the managers, and the ratepayers of London had declared that they did not wish the Borough Councils to have the appointment of managers. In some cases, the very Councils upon whom the Government wished to put the duty of electing the managers, had declined to have anything to do with the Act at all. How was the Secretary to the Board of Education going to deal with that difficulty? How he would deal with the Borough Councils who refused to elect managers he was at a loss to understand. They would, in all probability, have to call out the 5th and 6th Army Corps in order to adjust these matters in London. The Government were finding out in the country that there was such a thing as opposition to the Education Bill of last year, and what they wanted to do now was to prevent the passive resistance movement spreading from the provinces to London. He was anxious to reduce that resistance to a mimimum, so that this Bill should have a chance of becoming popular and securing success. It was notorious that the Borough Councils were not looked upon as a good authority to elect those managers, and he desired to take out the word "shall" and insert the word "may," so that some degree of elasticity might be introduced. He proposed this Amendment in order that the County Council as the education authority might have supreme power.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 12, to leave out the word 'shall' and insert the word 'may.'"—(Mr. Mansfield.)

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

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he had some difficulty in understanding the object of the hon. Member's Amendment. He did not know whether he meant this power to be permissive or not. If he meant it to be permissive then he could not accept the Amendment in its present form. If he meant that the Borough Councils might decline to appoint managers and a deadlock might arise he wished to point out that in the first schedule of the Act the Education Committee might appoint Sub-committees consisting partly of its own members and partly of other persons, and therefore the management might go on under Sub-committees. He could not consent to leave it to the option of the Education Authority as to whether the boroughs should appoint these managers or not.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

thought there was a good deal more in this Amendment than the hon. Baronet seemed to think. After all, in his opinion, it would facilitate arrangements being made between the two parties, and he hoped his hon. friend would press the matter to a division.

DR. MACNAMARA

thought this was a more practical proposal than the

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Dickinson, Robert Edmond Henderson, Sir Alexander
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C. Hickman, Sir Alfred
Anson, Sir William Reynell Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somrst E.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Doogan, P. C. Hogg, Lindsay
Arrol, Sir William Doughty, George Hoult, Joseph
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore Hudson, George Bickersteth
Bain, Colonel James Robert Duke, Henry Edward Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse
Balcarres, Lord Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r. Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.) Johnstone, Heywood
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Faber, George Denison (York) Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed. Kerr, John
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Keswick, William
Bill, Charles Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.
Bond, Edward Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex Fisher, William Hayes Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Brassey, Albert Fitzgerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Bull, William James Flower, Ernest Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Butcher, John George Forster, Henry William Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol S.
Campbell, John (Armagh S.) Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W. Lowe, Francis William
Cautley, Henry Strother Fyler, John Arthur Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Galloway, William Johnson Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond. Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin and N'rn Macdona, John Cumming
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby- (Salop M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Goulding, Edward Alfred M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. Graham, Henry Robert M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire
Chapman, Edward Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Martin, Richard Biddulph
Clive, Captain Percy A. Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ry S Edm'nds Milvain, Thomas
Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury) Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs. Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Gretton, John Morrell, George Herbert
Compton, Lord Alwyne Groves, James Grimble Morrison, James Archibald
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Cranborne, Viscount Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Midd'x Mount, William Arthur
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton Hardy, Laurence (Kent. Ashfd Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Hare, Thomas Leigh Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Cust, Henry John C. Harris, Frederick Leverton Myers, William Henry
Dalkeith, Earl of Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.) Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway N.

Secretary to the Board of Education realised, because two-thirds in this case would mean eight persons. Suppose, as was quite conceivable, the Borough Councils could not appoint eight persons, in that case they at once created a deadlock. He could see no other way out of the difficulty at all except making this proposal more elastic. In regard to the practical working of this scheme by putting in the word "shall," they were asking them to do an impossibility in the East-end of London. They would send eight or twelve persons, who would not always be the most suitable for the office. Surely the Secretary to the Board of Education, with his zeal to make this thing workable, would be well advised to make it as elastic as possible.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 176; Noes 83. (Division List No. 164.)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Valentia, Viscount
Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.
Percy, Earl Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Warde, Colonel C. E.
Pilkington, Colonel Richard Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Webb, Colonel William George
Platt-Higgins, Frederick Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone W.) Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Plummer, Walter R. Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.
Pretyman, Ernest George Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Purvis, Robert Smith, James Parker (Lanarks Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand Willox, Sir John Archibald
Reid, James (Greenock) Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Renwick, George Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. Wylie, Alexander
Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Thornton, Percy M. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Sir Alexander Acland-Hood
Royds, Clement Molyneux Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- Roe, Sir Thomas
Asher, Alexander Hayter, Rt. Hon Sir Arthur D. Runciman, Walter
Ashton, Thomas Gair Hope, John Deans (Fife, West Russell, T. W.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy. Horniman, Frederick John Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Kitson, Sir James Shipman, Dr. John G.
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Langley, Batty Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Broadhurst, Henry Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall Soares, Ernest J.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Leigh, Sir Joseph Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants
Buxton, Sydney Charles Levy, Maurice Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe
Caldwell, James Lewis, John Herbert Tennant, Harold John
Causton, Richard Knight Lough, Thomas Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.
Cawley, Frederick Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Cremer, William Randal M'Arthur, William (Cornwall Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Crooks, William M'Crae, George Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj. Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Markham, Arthur Basil Tomkinson, James
Elibank, Master of Moulton, John Fletcher Toulmin, George
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith Partington, Oswald Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Paulton, James Mellor Weir, James Galloway
Fuller, J. M. F. Philipps, John Wynford Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Furness, Sir Christopher Pirie, Duncan V. Williams, O. (Merioneth)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Price, Robert John Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Priestley, Arthur Yoxall, James Henry
Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick Rea, Russell
Griffith, Ellis J. Rickett, J. Compton TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Rigg, Richard Mr. Mansfield and Mr.
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) George White.
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd Robson, William Snowdon

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 13, to leave out the words 'one-fourth' and insert the words 'one-third."—(Sir William Anson.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

, in moving the adjournment of the House, gave notice that, as a measure of precaution, he proposed to ask for the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule to-morrow night in order to finish the Education Bill.

MR. LOUGH

said he did not think there was any reason to give notice that the twelve o'clock rule should be suspended. Although there was a very strong feeling against the Bill there had not been any obstruction, and he did not think there was the slightest risk in regard to the passage of the Bill.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he believed that what had just fallen from the hon. Member was quite true, and the Motion he should make for the suspension of the rule was not intended in the least to be coercive.

And, it being Midnight, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended, to be further considered this day.