LONDON EDUCATION BILL.

HC Deb 15 July 1903 vol 125 cc713-71

As amended, further considered.

On the second proviso to Sub-section 1 of Clause 2 (Provision as to management and sites of provided schools)—"Provided also that due regard shall be had to the inclusion of women on the said bodies of managers."

MR. PEEL (Manchester, S.)

moved to leave out "Provided also that," and insert "but." He added that it was a purely drafting Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 15, to leave out the words 'provided also that' and insert the word 'but.'—(Mr. Peel.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

, on behalf of the hon. Member for East Nottingham, moved to leave out all the words after "that" and insert "not less than one-third of the managers appointed by each appointing authority shall be women." He said he thought this Amendment better than the one he had himself put on the Paper. This question had been discussed several times, and there appeared to be a general consensus of opinion, from which the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had not dissented, that there should be some security provided in the Bill for a considerable proportion of women to be members of the Managing Committees. At the present moment, of the 1,700 managers, 550 were women. It was important to secure that a large proportion of women should be appointed to the boards of management. Not only were two-thirds of the teachers women, but two-thirds of the children were girls and infants who should come under the care of women managers. Some statutory provision was all the more necessary by reason of the fact that certain local bodies had interpreted the Act of last year to mean that one woman member only was necessary.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 15, to leave out from the last Amendment to the end of line 16, and insert the words "not less than one-third of the managers appointed by each appointing authority shall be women."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'due regard shall be had' stand part of the Bill."

SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)

supported the Amendment. He said it was a proposal of a practical character; and had the strong recommendation that it would perpetuate the existing state of things. The London School Board had been in existence for thirty-three years, and under it there had grown up a system of management in which about one-third of the managers were women. It was most essential that that state of things should be preserved. During his official experience he had always thought that the number of women engaged in the management of schools was far too few. A large proportion of our so-called schools were not schools at all, but nurseries in which the children of the poor were taken care of and amused, and a certain amount of intellectual exercise was given to them. The care of those nurseries was essentially women's business, and they would not allow a state of things to prevail—as did now in some cases—in which these poor little children of three, four or five years, were put through a course of reading, writing and arithmetic much more suitable for older children. The House ought also to consider the case of girls' schools, which were presided over almost entirely by women teachers. There were various things in connection with those schools, such for instance as sanitation, with which only women managers could properly deal Certainly in girls' schools it was most essential for the superintendence of the schools and the wise spending of money that they must insist on a considerable number of women being appointed as managers. On all these grounds, he hoped the hon. Baronet would give a definite answer to the proposal to insert in the Bill some provision which would secure a definite number of women on the boards of management.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said that the right hon. Gentleman had been preaching to the converted. There was no question in any part of the House as to the desirability of securing the presence of women on the boards of management. He, however, objected to any fixed proportion or number being put into the Bill. The number of one-third as a minimum would almost inevitably become the maximum, and one-third might turn out to be extremely inconvenient. Something had been said as to the impossibility of women being chosen by the local educational authority, but it was a very different matter to ask women to attend meetings of the Education Committees of the County Council where they would have to make periodically long journeys. The conditions were so different that no conclusion could be drawn as to the number of women who should be placed on the boards of management of Borough Council schools. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to perpetuate the existing system. He desired to do the same thing, and they would better attain that purpose by adopting the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Manchester. In the case of any difference between the two local authorities reference could be made to the Board of Education. There was no compulsion on the School Board to appoint women, and no one would deny that the School Board made very fair and reasonable provision for women being on the boards of management; and was there any doubt that the London County Council would not do the same? He, himself, had no doubt whatever. The old practice would go on, and if there was a difference of opinion — he thought that the local education authority would be more insistent than the Borough Councils on having women on the boards of management—an appeal could be made to the Board of Education which was now, and always would be, in sympathy with the idea that women should be largely represented on the boards of management, and which would give them the necessary guidance. He would oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Poplar and support that of the hon. Member for South Manchester.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen S.)

said he regretted the decision of the hon. Baronet. He did not think that the hon. Gentleman's arguments, when examined, would be proved to be sound. The hon. Gentleman began by asking, "Why not give the same latitude to the local authorities as was given to the present School Board?" But it should be remembered that the School Board had always had women as elected members, and elected members had a position of authority and a status which co-opted members never had. Moreover, the number of elected women members had tended to increase, which showed how necessary and efficient was the system. They could not have the same reliance on a body like the Borough Councils, which contained no women, securing the due presence of women on the boards of management, as they had had in the case of the School Board. Therefore, there was a very clear and strong distinction between the experience of the past, to which the Parliamentary Secretary appealed, and the case of the future. Then, the hon. Baronet said that a reason why women would not be appointed more frequently on the boards of management was because of the long journeys they would have to make; but surely that was a question for the women themselves to decide. When, after all the pious expressions of opinion last year as to the necessity of women being on the boards of management, they found that so little had been done by the County Councils and the Borough Councils in that direction, that was the strongest proof that they should have something far more than the Board of Education proposed to give them. The House should remember that as two-thirds of these managers would be chosen by the Borough Councils, and as the Borough Councils would have no women upon them, there was far less chance now of women being appointed. He did not like the suggestion that it should be left to the Board of Education to impose compulsion on the two local authorities. Suppose one authority did not want any women, and that the other authority said they wanted so many, why bring in this bone of contention between the two authorities, and between both of them and the Board of Education? He thought it was far better for the House to lay down an irreducible minimum: and no one could say that the minimum proposed in the Amendment was too large. He could not for a moment accept the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary, and he hoped the hon. Member for Poplar would divide on the matter. It ought to be put on record that they were not satisfied with what was suggested by the Government.

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)

said he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen South. His experience of the working of last year's Act rendered it necessary that there should be something more in the Bill than was proposed by the hon. Member for South Manchester. They knew that the schemes sanctioned by the Board of Education simply resulted in one woman being appointed on a board of forty or sixty persons. It should be remembered that the great proportion of the new managers would be appointed by the Borough Councils. The Borough Councils were excellent bodies in their way, but they had strenuously resisted any women being admitted into their ranks. He remembered the hard fight for the admission of women into the Borough Councils in the debates on the London Local Government Act a few years ago, when it was decided in the other House, and afterwards accepted in this House, that no women should be put on the Borough Councils. If women had been admitted to these Councils it would not have been found nearly so necessary, in the present circumstances, to press for a minimum number of women being made school managers. He would remind the Parliamentary Secretary, who was so sympathetic on this subject, that there would have to be consultations between the two local authorities, and there would not be the least difficulty in their arriving at a conclusion as to which of them was to put the women on the boards of management. He did not feel so strongly in regard to the exact proportion; but if no substantial concession was made by the Government, he should be bound to vote for the Amendment, which embodied the principle that women should be, in the future as in the past, managers. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had said, many of the schools were nurseries, and a large proportion of the teachers were women, and it was far better that the women teachers should bring their grievances to a woman than to a man.

MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)

said he ventured to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on the facility and case he had acquired in giving Ministerial answers in the negative. The hon. Baronet preferred an Amendment by tire hon. Member for South Manchester which did not specifically mention women, but which gave the Board of Education the right to interfere in cases where women were not elected. The Act of last year expressly mentioned women, but, as had been shown, the Board of Education in their schemes only approved of one woman.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said that although the schemes only mentioned one woman as necessary, there were generally various other persons whose sex was not mentioned. There was, therefore, no reason to suppose that the presence of women was not desired by the Board of Education.

MR. YOXALL

said that although there were two women on several Committees, and three on others, and even as many as five on some, still it was a very small proportion out of a total number of sixty or seventy. Having regard to the fact that the bulk of the teachers belonged to the sex they were now discussing, the bulk of the managers ought to belong to the same sex. But for business and other reasons that could not be obtained, and therefore the House ought to lay down in set terms that there should be a minimum proportion of women Every attempt in this direction in the past had failed, because the matter had been left to the good sense of the appointing authority or the overruling powers of the Board of Education. If the Parliamentary Secretary was anxious—and he believed he was—that women should be represented, he did not see any good reason why he should not now say that a certain proportion of the managers should be women.

MR. BOND (Nottingham, E.)

said that he had put an Amendment on the Paper making the proportion of women one-third of the managers, because he was informed, and he believed correctly, that the women on the boards of managers under the London School Board were about one - third of the whole number. He thought one-third was not at all an undue proportion. On the one hand it would enable them to render the services they very efficiently could, and on the other hand it would satisfy the natural desires of those who had been associated with work of this kind to continue to take their proper share in the work. Having regard to the services rendered by them in the past to the School Board, it would be a good thing for the education of London if it were made quite plain in the Bill that there should be a due proportion of women managers in the future. The hon. Baronet said that the proportion of one-third would be a minimum which might become a maximum; but he ventured to think that women would be satisfied with it, and would not be likely to ask for more. If any other proportion than one-third were suggested he would be prepared to consider it. Unless, however, a fixed proportion were provided in the Bill, a great deal of red tape would be introduced. He thought the House was much too regardless of the effect of the legislation which it passed. For himself, whenever he got an opportunity, he was always anxious to put things as clearly as possible; and in that way to avoid the supererogatory work which indefinite legislation brought about. For that reason he preferred that a definite proportion should be specified; and he hoped his hon. friend would be able to accept the Amendment.

MR. J. H. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

said he hoped the Government would see their way to respond to the appeal which had been made in regard to this question. The feeling was strongly shared on both sides of the House that women should have a definite sphere of work assigned to them. Unless some proportion were definitely mentioned in the Bill, he was afraid that women would not be able to obtain that share in the work of education to which they were justly entitled. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it would be dangerous to put in a precise proportion in the Bill; but it would be equally dangerous to leave it out. When the Act of last year was in Committee, he moved an Amendment providing that at least one member of the local managing body should be a woman; but that was opposed by the Prime Minister, principally on the ground that it might as well be proposed that at least one member of the managing body should be a man. They, however, knew, as a matter of fact, that the proportion of women on the Local Education Committees was disgracefully small; and in some cases women were excluded altogether from the management of the schools, although one-half of the scholars were girls, and a considerable proportion of the boys were infants. Men understood very little about the education of infants; whereas, women were entitled to the consideration of the House for the share they had already taken in the educational work of the country. Women were better workers in the educational field than men. They attended the meetings better, and did their work more conscientiously. He had obtained statistics to support that view. The average number of the attendances of the women members of the London School Board in 1901 was 163, the average attendance of the male members being 115. At the thirty-four meetings of the Board the attendances of the nine women members were thirty-four, thirty-four, thirty-three, thirty-two, thirty-two, thirty-two, thirty-three, twenty-nine, and twenty-four. That showed that the lady members of the Board paid very close attention indeed to their work. The House had decided that a certain number of members should be appointed by the Borough Councils. But the Borough Councils had not that experience with reference to the educational work of women which the London School Board and the London County Council had; and a considerable amount of prejudice would exist, with the result that a small number of women would be appointed. He thought it was absolutely necessary, in such circumstances, that the House should lay down a definite proportion as to the number of women to be appointed.

*MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)

said he was surprised that most of the hon. Members who had spoken had addressed the greater part of their arguments to the necessity — it was more than expediency—of having women on the boards of management. No one objected to that; and, therefore, the only question before the House was how the object which they all desired could be best achieved. The point at issue was whether it was necessary, or even advisable, to lay down a hard and fast rule. He submitted that it would not only be not advisable, but would be extremely inadvisable, to fetter the local education authority by any scheme obliging them to appoint a certain proportion of women members, and not allow them full liberty of choice in a matter about which, he believed, no apprehension need be entertained. His right hon. friend the Member for East Somerset said that it would be advisable to support the Amendment in order to secure the perpetuation of the existing system, and he had apprehensions about women being appointed on the ground that the Borough Councils would be disinclined to act in that direction. He felt bound to protest against that groundless reflection on the Borough Councils.

MR. J. H. LEWIS

said that the statement was based on the action of the Borough Councils in the country.

*MR. COHEN

said that the Borough Councils in the country might have imperfectly discharged their duties; but was that any reason for making a statement concerning the Borough Councils of London based, not on past neglect, but on possible future neglect? There was no body so directly interested in the managerial machinery of the schools of their own district as the Borough Councils, and the House need not be apprehensive that their action would be against the presence of these women; their influence would be in the exactly opposite direction. The influence of the Borough Councils in this matter was the most perfect guarantee they could have in favour of securing this provision. The hon. Member for South Manchester seemed to think the London Borough Councils would not have the same view as the London County Council as to the value of these women, but he was quite sure that they had a perfect conviction of the necessity of the presence of women on these bodies, and as regards experience the London County Council and the Borough Councils stood in identically the same position. Whatever doubt might be entertained as to the Borough Councils, the same doubt must be entertained with regard to the London County Council. He thought, in the interest of the people, the provision with regard to the presence of women ought to be left to the free and unfettered discretion of the Borough Councils.

MR. EMMOTT (Oldham)

was unable to see, if the Borough Councils were such extraordinarily enlightened bodies, and if they agreed to the proposition that women should become members of these Committees, why they should not be tied down to the terms of the Amendment. Those who supported this Amendment were very disappointed with the number of women who were put on these Committees under the Act of last year, and they desired to amend that point so far as London was concerned. The question they had to consider was, whether a hard and fast line would be better than that an inadequate number of women should be on these boards. He did not think, if this matter was left to the discretion of Borough Councils, an adequate number of women would be put on, and therefore he desired to have a hard and fast line. He did not care very much what the proportion was; if "one-third" was too much let them make it "one-fourth." He objected to a new bone of contention being thrown down for the Board of Education to decide. The hands of the Board of Education were pretty full already, and he did not know why they should be so greedy of having points to decide which might be very well dealt with by this House. He heartily supported the Amendment.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,) Bristol, W.

said there was no difference of opinion between the different speakers on the main question as to the advantage to be derived from the presence of women on these boards. The only question was, whether they should leave it to the local authority to elect women, and as many as they thought fit, or whether they should be compelled to elect a statutory number. It was suggested that one-third of these bodies should be women. That seemed to be undesirable from two points of view. What they wanted to do was to get a fair proportion of the most experienced and best women available for the whole area. As it was undesirable to prolong the debate, he would suggest as a compromise that instead of being one-third of each of the appointed bodies, they should be one-third of the Committee as a whole. As a matter of drafting, he thought it ought to come a little lower down in the clause. The Government would leave it to the House to say whether the number should be fixed in the Bill, or left to the discretion of the Borough Councils.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

thought that such a suggestion could be agreed to without going to a division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 16, after the word 'women,' to insert the words 'in the proportion of not less than one-third of the whole body of managers.'"—(Mr. Bond.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. PEEL

said the next Amendment was only a verbal one. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 15, after the word 'had' to insert the words 'in selecting managers.'"—(Mr. Peel.)

Amendment agreed to.

DR. MACNAMARA

said the last word of the clause was now "managers," and he desired to insert after managers, "and members chosen from the existing body of managers." He hoped the Government would accept this, as it was consonant with the frequently expressed desires of the Government.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— After the last Amendment to insert the words 'and members chosen from the existing body of managers.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)

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

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

thought the object of the hon. Member would be better met by the Amendment to be proposed by the hon. Member for South Manchester.

DR. MACNAMARA

said that if the hon. Baronet preferred the form of words suggested by the hon. Member for South Manchester, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PEEL

thought it unnecessary to detain the House by speaking in support of the Amendment of which he had given notice, and therefore formally moved.

Amendment moved to the Bill— After the last Amendment to insert the words 'and, in the case of the first body of managers, also of members chosen from the then existing bodies of managers, and the Borough Council and the local education authority shall carry out any directions given by the Board of Education for the purpose of giving effect to this provision.'"—(Mr. Peel.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

thought it possible that a deadlock might arise in certain cases unless some such proviso as he suggested were inserted. He therefore moved.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— After the words last inserted to insert the words 'provided also that until new groups are arranged and new managers are appointed the existing groups of schools and the existing manager's shall be continued.'"—(Mr. Lough.)

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

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

hesitated to accept the Amendment, as it would put an inducement before the authorities not to bring the provisions of the Bill into operation as quickly as they might. There would be no difficulty in preparing before the appointed day to appoint bodies of managers, nor was there any danger of a deadlock. However, if the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment, he would undertake to look carefully into the matter, and if such a danger existed, to see that words were inserted.

MR. BRYCE

thought there was a possibility of difficulty arising, unless such a proviso as was suggested by the Amendment were inserted. If people were not ready it would be a reason for making the appointed day later.

MR. LOUGH

, in view of the hon. Baronet's promise, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LOUGH

moved to omit Sub-action (2). He thought it would be much better to drop the sub-section than to attempt to amend it. The Government evidently thought it was not in a satisfactory condition, as the hon. Baronet had a substantial Amendment on the Taper in reference to it. The Borough Councils had their share of authority in the appointment of managers; why then should they be brought into the question of the selection of sites? It was a most difficult matter, and one that should be carried on secretly, so that there was no chance of jobbery; consequently it was very undesirable that it should be discussed between several bodies. He believed the consensus of opinion was against the sub-section, and he hoped the Government would agree to drop it.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 17, to leave out Sub-section (2)."—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'be' in line 23, stand part of the Bill."

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

thought the sub-section with the Amendment he would subsequently propose could do no harm, and might do a considerable amount of good. There was no doubt that the question of sites excited a great deal of interest, but if the hon. Member read the clause carefully he would see that there was no possibility of jobbery such as he had suggested. All that was required was that a site should not be determined upon until the Borough Council had been consulted, and that in the case of compulsory purchase if there was difference of opinion the Board of Education should not make an order authorising the purchase unless they were satisfied that the concurrence of the Borough Council should be dispensed with. He thought this was really a matter in which the opinion of the locality ought to be consulted, though it did not necessarily follow that that opinion would carry the day or be accepted by the local authority or the Board of Education.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

regretted the decision of the hon. Baronet. This proposal was part of the original scheme under which the local bodies were to have the management of the schools, and under such circumstances there was much to be said in favour of the Borough Councils having a considerable voice in the selection of sites. But the Councils were no longer in that position, and the reason for them having a voice in the matter had disappeared. He hoped, therefore, the Government would agree to drop the sub-section. The acquisition of sites involved large expenditure, and the School Board by private negotiations had frequently been able to secure sites at 20, 30, or 50 per cent. less than they would have had to pay had their intentions been publicly announced. If the Borough Councils had to be consulted secrecy would be impossible, and the knowledge that a certain site was wanted would certainly enhance the price. The London County Council were in touch with the Borough Councils, and, in the event of any dispute as to a site, could invite local members to attend the Committee privately, and thus avoid the matter becoming public. Unless this sub-section disappeared from the Bill there was every probability of the ratepayers being mulcted in a much larger sum than would otherwise be the case.

MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea)

said he hoped the Government would adhere to this sub-section. He thought the Borough Councils should be consulted in regard to the selection of sites for new public elementary schools. This subsection certainly made it clear that in a matter of this kind in which local knowledge was of great importance the site should not be determined upon until alter consultation with the Borough Council

DR. MACNAMARA

said that as the Bill originally stood the Borough Council had to select the site, but the Government saw that would be unworkable, and they provided that the Borough Council should be consulted and in case the Borough Council disagreed with the education authority the Board of Education had power to substitute any other site proposed by the Borough Council. What the hon. Member for Chelsea put forward as reasonable was done at the present time. Since the existence of the Borough Councils there was not a case where they had not been consulted as to the best place for erecting a school. There were, however, words in the last part of the hon. Baronet's proposed Amendment which he did not quite understand and which he was afraid would lead to interminable delay. The words he alluded to were— And in such a case shall make a special report to Parliament, stating their reasons for dispensing with that concurrence. An interminable debate would then take place, promoted by the Borough

Council. At the present time it took four or five years to provide a new school, and if this new procedure were adopted it might run to an interminable number of years.

MR. HARRY SAMUEL (Tower Hamlets, Limehouse)

thought the hon. Member for North Camberwell was quite right in saying that there had been communications with the Borough Councils in all cases in reference to the selection of sites since the Councils were called into existence. He wished to say, however, that he had not found that kind consideration for the wishes of the locality indicated by the hon. Member opposite, because in his constituency the School Board had ridden rough shod over the Borough Council, and they had selected sites which were of the greatest importance for the accommodation of the poor people when others might have been chosen. It was quite right that the Borough Council should have some voice in the matter.

CAPTAIN JESSEL (St. Pancras, S.)

said that in regard to sites, all sorts of communications passed between the central and the local authority, but the matter was dealt with by the various committees and. the Council knew nothing about it until it was practically settled. He did not attach much importance to the proposed Amendment of the Secretary to the Board of Education, because it was only a matter of machinery. He thought, however, that the local authorities ought to be consulted.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 201; Noes, 104. (Division List No. 166.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds	Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire
Aird, Sir John	Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Cayzer, Sir Charles William
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Bill, Charles	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Blundell, Colonel Henry	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Bond, Edward	Chapman, Edward
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Brassey, Albert	Churchill, Winston Spencer
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)	Clive, Captain Percy A.
Baird, John George Alexander	Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasg.)	Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.
Balcarres, Lord	Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ	Coghill, Douglas Harry
Baldwin, Alfred	Carew, James Laurence	Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Collings, Right Hon. Jesse	Hogg, Lindsay	Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready	Hoult, Joseph	Redmond, Jn. E. (Waterford)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm	Reid, James (Greenock)
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Remnant, James Farquharson
Cranborne, Viscount	Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton	Johnstone, Heywood	Renwick, George
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile	Kennedy, Patrick James	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Denny, Colonel	Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Dickinson, Robert Edmond	Kerr, John	Rutherford, John (Lancashire
Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.	Knowles, Lees	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stanford-
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Donelan, Captain A.	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Doughty, George	Lawson, John Giant (Yorks, N. R	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)
Duke, Henry Edward	Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew
Faber, George Denison (York	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Fardell, Sir T. George	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r	Lowe, Francis William	Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)
Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.	Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Fisher, William Hayes	Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose	Macdona, John Cumming	Stroyan, John
Flannery, Sir Fortescue	M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Flower, Ernest	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.
Forster, Henry William	Malcolm, Ian	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Galloway, William Johnson	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Valentia, Viscount
Gardner, Ernest	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans	Milvain, Thomas	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	Mitchell, William (Burnley)	Webb, Colonel William George
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton)
Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby- (Salop	Morgan, David J. (Walth'mstow	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts
Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim	Mount, William Arthur	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Graham, Henry Robert	Murray Col. Wyndbam (Bath	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.	Mve's, William Henry	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs	Nicholson, William Graham	Wilson, John [Falkirk)
Grenfell, William Henry	Nolan, Col. John. P. (Galway, N	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Groves, James Grimble	O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Gunter, Sir Robert	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Gutbrie, Walter Murray	Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley	Wylie, Alexander
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd	Pemberton, John S. G.	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Hare, Thomas Leigh	Percy, Earl	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Harris, Frederick Leverton	Pierpoint, Robert	Young, Samuel
Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Pilkington, Col. Richard
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	Plummer, Walter R.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Pretyman, Ernest George	Sir Alexander Acland-
Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.	Randles, John S.	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Heaton, John Henniker	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Helder, Augustus	Ratcliff, R. F.
NOES.
Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc. Stroud	Channing, Francis Allston	Farquharson, Dr. Robert
Asher, Alexander	Cremer, William Randal	Fenwick, Charles
Atherley-Jones, L.	Crombie, John William	Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith
Barlow, John Emmott	Crooks, William	Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Foster, Sir Michl. (Lond. Univ
Black, Alexander William	Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan	Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.
Broadhurst, Henry	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Fuller, J. M. F.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.
Burt, Thomas	Duncan, J. Hastings	Goddard, Daniel Ford
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Dunn, Sir William	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Caldwell, James	Edwards, Frank	Harwood, George
Cameron, Robert	Elibank, Master of	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Ellis, John Edward	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.
Causton, Richard Knight	Evans, Sir Francis (Maidstone	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.
Cawley, Frederick	Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan	Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Brist'l, E

Holland, Sir William Henry	Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe	Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West	Markham, Arthur Basil	Stevenson, Francis S.
Horniman, Frederick John	Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William	Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen	Tennant, Harold John
Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.	Newnes, Sir George	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Jacoby, James Alfred	Partington, Oswald	Tomkinson, James
Jones, David B. (Swansea)	Paulton, James Mellor	Toulmin, George
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.	Pirie, Duncan V.	Wallace, Robert
Kitson, Sir James	Price, Robert John	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Langley, Batty	Rea, Russell	Weir, James Galloway
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall	Rickett, J. Compton	Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Layland-Barratt, Francis	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Leng, Sir John	Roe, Sir Thomas	Williams, O. (Merioneth)
Levy, Maurice	Russell, T. W.	Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)
Lewis, John Herbert	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Lloyd-George, David	Shackleton, David James	Yoxall, James Henry
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall	Shipman, Dr. John G.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)	Mr. Lough and Mr.
Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Soares, Ernest J.	Trevelyan.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said Subsection (2) as it stood provided that in a case where a Borough Council did not concur with the local education authority in a proposed compulsory acquisition of a school site— The Board of Education shall be empowered, as a condition of its approval of the Provisional Order, to require, if it thinks fit, the substitution in the Order of any other site proposed by the council of the metropolitan borough for that inserted by the local education authority.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 23, after the word 'shall,' to leave out to end of clause, and insert the words 'not make the order authorising the purchase unless they are satisfied that, the concurrence of the council of the borough should be dispensed with.'"—(Sir William Anson.)

MR. BRYCE

said this was a substantial improvement of the sub-section.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BRYCE

moved an Amendment to provide that a site required for the enlargement of a public elementary school should not be deemed a new site within the meaning of Sub-section (2). He hoped the Government would see that this Amendment was needed. He did not say that it was absolutely needed in point of law, but he thought it was better that the Amendment should be added in order to make the matter perfectly plain. There was no reason why a site for the enlargement of a school should come within the subsection.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 26, at end, to add the words 'Provided that the site required for the enlargement of a public elementary school shall not be deemed to be a site required for a new public elementary school within the meaning of this sub-section and of Section eight of the principal Act.'"—(Mr. Bryce.)

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

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said the enlargement of a school might require a very substantial addition to the existing site, and if such an enlargement could not be dealt with as a matter of consultation, sometimes the character of a neighbourhood might be almost changed, and some of the objects of the subsection would thereby be frustrated. He thought there were cases in which the enlargement would be so substantial that the Borough Council ought to be consulted.

DR. MACNAMARA

said they were now dealing with a very important matter. The hon. Baronet's fears that they might change a small school into a very large one were absolutely groundless, because the rules of the Education Department prevented the building of a school for more than 1,200 scholars. The existing law provided for all sorts of inquiries when it was proposed to enlarge a school, and these inquiries took a long time, the effect being that all interests were adequately safeguarded. If an additional piece of land had to be bought compulsorily, the authority had to come to Parliament for a Provisional Order which had to stand the fire of criticism. He was convinced that if the Parliamentary Secretary looked into the matter he would see that he already had in the regulations and powers of the Department the most complete, and, he might say, tedious safeguards. It would be highly detrimental if a mere enlargement would have to run through all the gamut of Clauses 7 and 8 of last year's Act, and Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 of this Bill. The Amendment was absolutely necessary for the reasonable carrying out of the provisions of the Act of last year.

MR. LOUGH

said the hon. Baronet could not have thought out this matter when he gave such a blank refusal to the Amendment. There would be continual conflicts if this Amendment were not accepted. The Amendment only spoke of the enlargement of existing schools. An existing school was not a new public elementary school. If the Bill was left without this Amendment it would not be clear that the local education authority could proceed without going to the Borough Councils.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he would accept the Amendment in the following shape— In Clause 2, page 1, line 26, to insert 'Provided that, except in the case of compulsory acquisition, the site required for the enlargement of a public elementary school shall not be deemed to be a site required for a new public elementary school within the meaning of this sub-section.'

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he would rather have had the Amendment he had proposed on behalf of his hon. friend; but they had better take what they could get.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 26, at end, to insert the words "Provided that, except in the case of compulsory acquisition, the site required for

the enlargement of a public elementary school shall not be deemed a site required for a new public elementary school within the meaning of this sub-section.'"—(Sir William Anson.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BRYCE

sad he thought that the words "and of Section 8 of the principal Act," should be added to the Amendment. It was intended to have an open Held as between provided and non-provided schools. But this particular section referred only to provided schools, which made all the difference in the world. These words were necessary, and he begged to move their insertion.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— After the words last inserted to insert the words 'and of Section 8 of the principal Act.—(Mr. Bryce.)

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

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he could not help thinking that these words should not be inserted here, for though they seemingly referred to an enlargement of a school with reference to consulting Borough Councils under certain conditions, they really repeated in the case of London a provision of the principal Act.

DR. MACNAMARA

said that if these words were not put in, the matter would be left entirely to the Board of Education. His experience of the Board of Education since 1895, was that it had been under considerable denominational influence, though he did not say it was under the hon. Baronet. All sorts of delays had been caused by the pressure of the managers and friends of denominational schools, who thought the enlargement of a school, or the provision of a new school would do injury to their schools. He certainly thought the addition of the words was necessary in order to prevent long delays, and 300 or 400 children being kept waiting for places.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 111; Noes, 212. (Division List No. 167.)

AYES.
Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)	Ashton, Thomas Gair	Barran, Rowland Hirst
Asher, Alexander	Barlow, John Emmott	Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.
Black, Alexander William	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Broadhurst, Henry	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Roe, Sir Thomas
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)	Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)	Russell, T. W.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Holland, Sir William Henry	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Burns, John	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Sehwann, Charles E.
Burt, Thomas	Horniman, Frederick John	Shackleton, David James
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.	Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Caldwell, James	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Cameron, Robert	Jacoby, James Alfred	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea	Soares, Ernest J.
Causton, Richard Knight	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants
Cawley, Frederick	Langley, Batty	Stevenson, Francis S.
Channing, Francis Allston	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Cremer, William Randal	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Crombie, John William	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Tennant, Harold John
Crooks, William	Leng, Sir John	Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, S.)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Levy, Maurice	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan	Lewis, John Herbert	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Lloyd-George, David	Tomkinson, James
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Lough, Thomas	Toulmin, George
Dunn, Sir William	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Edwards, Frank	M'Kenna, Reginald	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Elibank, Master of	M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Weir, James Galloway
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Fenwick, Charles	Markham, Arthur Basil	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund	Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Foster Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Wilson, Chas. H. (Hull, W.)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Monlton, John Fletcher	Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)
Fuller, J. M. F.	Newnes, Sir George	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Furness, Sir Christopher	Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham	Yoxall, James Henry
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Partington, Oswald
Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick	Paulton, James Mellor
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Pirie, Duncan V.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd	Price, Robert John	Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Harwood, George	Rea, Russell	Mr. William M'Arthur.
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Rickett, J. Compton
NOES.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry	Forster, Henry William
Aird, Sir John	Chapman, Edward	Foster, Philip S.
Anson, Sir William Roynell	Churchill, Winston, Spencer	Galloway, William Johnston
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Clive, Captain Percy A.	Gardner, Ernest
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Gibbs, Hn. A. C. H. (City of Lond
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Coddington, Sir William	Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Alhans
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.
Bailey James (Walworth)	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Collings, Right Hon. Jesse	Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc
Baird, John George Alexander	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Balcarres, Lord	Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim.
Baldwin, Alfred	Cox, Irvin Edwd Bain bridge	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Graham, Henry Robert
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds	Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile	Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.	Denny, Colonel	Grenfell, William Henry
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Haml'ts	Groves, James Grimble
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.	Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Beckett, Ernest William	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Gunter, Sir Robert
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Doogan, P. C.	Guthrie, Walter Murray
Bill, Charles	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore	Hare, Thomas Leigh
Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex	Duke, Henry Edward	Harris, Frederick Leverton
Brassey, Albert	Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.
Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Faber, George Denison (York)	Hay, Hon. Claude George
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasg.	Fardell, Sir T. George	Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.	Helder, Augustus
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r)	Hogg, Lindsay
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Hoult, Joseph
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas	Hudson, George Bickersteth
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Fisher, William Hayes	Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton
Cecil, Lord, Hugh (Greenwich)	Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon	Johnstone, Heywood
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm	Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.	Flower, Ernest	Kerr, John

Knowles, Lees	Myers, William Henry	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)
Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.	Nicholson, William Graham	Smith, H. C. (North'mb Tyeside
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Nolan, Col. John P. (Gaway, N.	Smith, James Parkers (Lanarks.
Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Lawson, John Grant (York, N. R.	Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley	Stroyan, John
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Pemberton, John S. G.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester
Leveson-Gower Frederick N. S.	Percy, Earl	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxfd Univ
Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Pierpoint, Robert	Thornton, Percy M.
Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.	Pilkington, Colonel Pilchard	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Plummer, Walter R.	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham	Pretyman, Ernest George	Valentia, Viscount
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Lowe, Francis William	Purvis, Robert	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)	Pym, C. Guy	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)	Randles, John S.	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowerstoft	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Webb, Colonel William George
Lucas, Reginald, J. (Portsmouth	Ratcliff, R. F.	Welby, Lt.-Col A. C. E. (Taunton
Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Rattigan, (Sir William Henry	Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)
Macdona, John Cumming	Reid, James (Greenock)	Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Maconochie, A. W.	Remnant, Jas. Farquharson	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.)	Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)	Renwick, George	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Malcolm, Ian	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.
Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wig'n.	Roberts, Samuel (Shefield)	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Melville, Beresford Valentine	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Round, Rt. Hon. James	Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)
Milvain, Thomas	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Mitchell, William (Burnley)	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander	Wylie, Alexander
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Young, Samuel
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Mount, William Arthur	Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute	Simeon, Sir Barrington	Sir Alexander Acland-
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Question put, and agreed to.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he moved this Amendment in pursuance of an undertaking he had given at an earlier stage.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 26, at end, to add the words '(3) Schools provide by the local education authority for blind, deaf, epileptic, and defective children, and any other schools which, in the opinion of the Board of Education, are not of a local character, shall not be treated for the purposes of the section as public elementary schools.'"—(Sir William Anson.)

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

DR. MACNAMARA

admitted the necessity of moving this now, but he suggested it would perhaps be as well to insert after the word "opinion" of the local education authority and."

CAPTAIN JESSEL

said he attached considerable importance to the subsection of the London Government Act of 1899 having relation to the transference of, powers, and therefore moved the Amendment standing in his name. The history of this clause was that it was moved late in the evening by the hon. Member for West Islington. It was not in the original Bill. The hon. Member in moving the clause pointed out that at the time the London Government Act was passed it was never intended to give the administration of education to the London County Council and the Borough Councils. He thought it would-be a pity to stereotype for all time the system laid down by this Act. If the clause was struck out it would be quite simple by an agreement of the majority of the Borough Councils and the London County Council, with the consent of the Local Government Board, to make any change they desired, and he did not see what objection there could be to an arrangement of that kind. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 27, to leave out Clause 3."—(Captain Jessel.)

Question proposed, "That the words of Clause 3, to the word 'proceedings' in line 28, stand part of the Bill."

MR. LOUGH

expressed his amazement that such a suggestion should be made by the hon. Member. Clause 3 was a very small clause, but it was one which he regarded with some affection because it was the only one which he succeeded in persuading the Government to accept. When he thought of the arduous struggle he made in support of the clause he thought the hon. Member ought not to grudge him the one crumb he had extracted from the Government. The hon. Member evidently thought because the clause was short it was of little use, but he might point out that when the London Government Act was passed there was no thought of entrusting education to municipal bodies. Under the clause in that Act great changes might be made between the Borough Council and the London County Council without the Board of Education being consulted at all, and without any one knowing anything about them. He thought this clause was absolutely necessary, and he hoped the Government would stick to the Bill as it was and not allow the clause to be struck out.

MR. WHITMORE

admitted that the fact that the clause had reference to the Local Government Board and not to the Board of Education might present some little difficulty, but inasmuch as after the sanction of the Local Government Board was obtained a Provisional Order was necessary it would be convenient to omit this clause.

MR. WALTER LONG

said it was the invariable practice when one Department of the Government was asked to do something closely affecting another Department for that Department to ask for the views of the Department affected and follow out those views and adopt the suggestions made. The Local Government Board in this case would be a purely administrative Department and would adopt the views and carry out the suggestions of the Board of Education. They adopted the Amendment in the Committee stage of the Bill because they were then in a fatigued condition. The hon. Member pressed it on the Government—it was his one child, his ewe lamb, and it was accepted. But he thought on the whole the best course now would be to leave it out of the Bill.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

thought the House was not being fairly treated in this matter. The Amendment was accepted without protest as a safeguard against possible contingencies, and, the Government having accepted it, it would be rather ungracious of them now to throw it over.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON (Hackney, S.)

said although he should strongly object to any large powers being thrust upon the Borough Councils by this clause he could not congratulate the hon. Member on his ewe lamb. The hon. Member objected to powers being transferred to the Borough Councils, but he did not object to powers being transferred to the Corporation of London which was done by a subsequent clause of the Act of 1899. He could conceive that it might bedesirable to make changes with regard to secondary and technical education, and he therefore asked the House to allow the law to stand as it was and not make a special exception in this case.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

did not think the Government were acting fairly in leaving this matter to be decided by the House, which meant rejection, without giving notice of its intention to do so. He gathered that there had been some discussion as to an Amendment which the Government proposed to move in the clause, and therefore their present action was discourteous to the author of the clause.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he should be sorry to leave this point unanswered. What really happened was that a month ago a list of necessary Amendments to the Bill was brought before him; among them was one to the clause of the hon. Member. He called the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the Amendment was necessary, and it never occurred to him that by doing so he was doing anything unfair one way or the other or pledging himself to retain the clause. He was sorry that his action had led to any misapprehension. He had no intention of misleading the hon. Member or the House, and he still said if this clause remained the Amendment was necessary.

MR. BRYCE

thought in a case of this kind the Government ought to stand by the Bill. It was not treating the House quite fairly for the Government, after having accepted this clause, to fall down and surrender to the Member who moved the Amendment. The Amendment was accepted as a compromise.

MR. WALTER LONG

No.

MR. BRYCE

said that as the debate was proceeding the Government thought they could give satisfaction by accepting the Amendment, so that it might fairly be described as a compromise. Now, without the lightest notice, that compromise was being abandoned. He really thought that was not the way in which these things should be done. If the Government thought the balance of argument was in favour of the clause being dropped, they ought themselves to have proposed its omission. If powers of such importance were to be transferred to the Borough Councils, it ought to be done by statute, and go through all the forms which such proceedure involved.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire Mid)

thought the Government ought to adhere to the decision at which they arrived, perhaps hurriedly, during the debates in Committee. Possibly his hon. friend's Amendment did not go far enough, but that could easily be remedied. It was true there were safeguards against the powers of devolution being exercised, but the objection was to the possibility of the Local Government Board or the Board of Education, or both, allowing the devolution of such important powers as

was possible under the section. It ought to be made clear that Parliament did not intend that any such application should be successfully made by the County and Borough Councils, and that no Provisional Order would be obtainable.

DR. MACNAMARA

said the ultimate effect might be very serious financially. The present County Council were not likely to devolve much, but, without any great stretch of imagination, he could conceive a County Council with a majority of such a character that it would be the easiest thing in the world to pass a resolution devolving powers to such an extent as to confer practical autonomy for educational purposes upon each Borough Council. It would also be possible to devolve upon each Borough Council the right to raise a differential rate for elementary education, and it would be to the interest of a majority of the Borough Councils to petition for such a devolution of powers, because they would get off with a smaller rate. What would be the result? With its rateable value and the number of children to be provided for, Westminster could manage with a ¾d. rate (the rate for the whole of London was 14d.), whereas in Bethnal Green it would be 30½d., in Poplar, 34½d., in Camberwell, 37d., and in Battersea, 29d. Apart from educational administration, such a result would be financially disastrous to the poorer parts of the Metropolis. In the interests of a unified rate and of wise administration the provision ought to remain in the Bill.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 120; Noes, 214. (Division List, No. 168.)

AYES.
Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)	Burns, John	Crombie, John William
Asher, Alexander	Burt, Thomas	Crooks, William
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.	Buxton, Sydney Charles	Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)
Atherley-Jones, L.	Caldwell, James	Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan
Barlow, John Emmott	Cameron, Robert	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Black, Alexander William	Causton, Richard Knight	Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Cawley, Frederick	Dunn, Sir William
Broadhurst, Henry	Channing, Francis Allston	Edwards, Frank
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Elibank, Master of
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Cremer, William Randal	Emmott, Alfred
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan	Levy, Maurice	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Lewis, John Herbert	Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside
Fenwick, Charles	Lloyd-George, David	Soares, Ernest J.
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants
Foster, Sir Michl. (Lond. Univ	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Stevenson, Francis S.
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.	M'Kenna, Reginald	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Fuller, J. M. F.	M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.	Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)
Furness, Sir Christopher	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Markham, Arthur Basil	Tomkinson, James
Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick	Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William	Toulmin, George
Griffith, Ellis J.	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Moss, Samuel	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd	Moulton, John Fletcher	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Newnes, Sir George	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Harwood, George	Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham	Weir, James Galloway
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Partington, Oswald	Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.	Paulton, James Mellor	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.	Philipps, John Wynford	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Holland, Sir William Henry	Pirie, Duncan V.	Williams, O. (Merioneth)
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Price, Robert John	Wilson, Chas. H. (Hull, W.)
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)	Rea, Russell	Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)
Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.	Rickett, J. Compton	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Jacoby, James Alfred	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea)	Roe, Sir Thomas	Yoxall, James Henry
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	Runciman, Walter
Labouchere, Henry	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Langley, Batty	Schwann, Charles E.	Mr. Lough and Mr. Alfred
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)	Shackleton, David James	Hutton.
Layland-Barratt, Francis	Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Leigh, Sir Joseph	Shipman, Dr. John G.
NOES.
Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)	Charrington, Spencer	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.	Churchill, Winston Spencer	Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Clive, Captain Percy A.	Gilhooly, James
Aird, Sir John	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Coddington, Sir William	Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn
Anstruther, H. T.	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby- (Salop
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Graham, Henry Robert
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton	Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ry S. Edm'nds
Baird, John (George Alexander	Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile	Grenfell, William Henry
Balcarres, Lord	Dalkeith, Earl of	Groves, James Grimble
Baldwin, Alfred	Denny, Colonel	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r	Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets	Gunter, Sir Robert
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds	Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.	Guthrie, Walter Murray
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Doughty, George	Hall, Edward Marshall
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore	Hare, Thomas Leigh
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Duke, Henry Edward	Harris, Frederick Leverton
Bill, Charles	Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.
Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Hay, Hon. Claude George
Brassey, Albert	Faber, George Denison (York)	Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.
Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)	Fardell, Sir T. George	Helder, Augustus
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.	Henderson, Sir Alexander
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r	Hickman, Sir Alfred
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Hogg, Lindsay
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Finch, Rt. Hon. Goorge H.	Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver hm
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire	Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas	Hudson, George Bickersteth
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Fisher, William Hayes	Johnstone, Heywood
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Kerr, John
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.	Flower, Ernest	Knowles, Lees
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc	Forster, Henry William	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Chamberlayne, T. (Southmptn	Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow
Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry	Galloway, William Johnson	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool
Chapman, Edward	Gardner, Ernest	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Nicholson, William Graham	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand
Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham	Pemberton, John S. G.	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.	Percy, Earl	Stroyan, John
Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Pilkington, Colonel Richard	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ
Lowe, Francis William	Plummer, Walter R.	Thornton, Percy M.
Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)	Pretyman, Ernest George	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Valentia, Viscount
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft	Purvis, Robert	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth	Pym, C. Guy	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Randles, John S.	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Macdona, John Cumming	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Webb, Colonel William George
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool	Ratcliff, R. F.	Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.	Rattigan, Sir William Henry	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire	Reid, James (Greenock)	Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund, Lyne
Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n	Remnant, James Farquharson	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Melville, Beresford Valentine	Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Renwick, George	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Milvain, Thomas	Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Mitchell, William (Burnley)	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.	Wylie, Alexander
Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.	Round, Rt. Hon. James	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Rutherford, John (Lancashire	Young, Samuel
Mount, William Arthur	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)	Captain Jessel and Mr.
Myers, William Henry	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert	Bull.

MR. MANSFIELD (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

moved an Amendment with the object of postponing the date for the Act coming into operation from 1st May, 1904, as proposed, to 1st May, 1907. By delaying the commencement of the Act, the people of London would be given an opportunity of declaring whether they wanted it or not. This Amendment raised the question of the mandate of the Government for the passing of the Act. It was notorious that at last election not a single constituency was asked whether they desired the School Boards to be extinguished. Not a single elector suspected, when he voted for a Conservative candidate that he was voting for the abolition of the School Boards. The only mandate the Government professed to have was the mandate of necessity. The Prime Minister said that the Act was brought in because the necessities of the case demanded that education should be dealt with. If necessity was the mandate surely they ought to have started with the War Office instead of education. Seeing that the Government had absolutely no mandate from the people of London in regard to the Act he proposed that the date for its coming into operation should be so extended that they would have an opportunity of saying, in other parts than Hyde Park and the Albert Hall, whether they wanted the measure or not. He believed that practically nobody in London wanted it. The School Board of London, which had been doing the work admirably for years, did not want to be extinguished, and no serious objection had been made to the manner in which they had carried out their duties.

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member can hardly make a Second Reading speech upon a Motion to postpone the date upon which the Bill is to come into operation.

MR. MANSFIELD

said it was difficult to know exactly where the Government had taken their instructions from. They were constantly told that the people had never asked for the Bill. The object of his Amendment was to give the people of London an opportunity of considering the matter which affected not only their children but the future of London. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 10, to leave out the word 'four' and insert the word 'seven.'"—(Mr. Mansfield.)

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

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he would not follow the hon. Member into the general discussion as to whether the Bill was wanted or not, because he was not disposed to make a speech on the general merits of the measure such as he had had to make before and might have to make on the Third Reading. He would rather reply to any general reflections on the Bill when it came to be read a third time. This was an Amendment for the postponement of the date of the commencement of the Bill for three years beyond the date contemplated. The hon. Member had not assigned any reason for that change. His whole speech was directed to the undesirability of bringing in the Bill at all. He could not accept the Amendment.

DR. MACNAMARA

said he would vote for the Amendment readily, but he really thought that it did not matter very much, because before the first of April, 1904, a certain event would have happened. In the first week of March there would be a County Council election. The people of London would settle all this, and he had not a shadow of a doubt that they would return to Spring Hardens an overwhelming majority on three issues. The first was—We will not administer this Act because we have too much to do, and you are putting on us work which will break the whole machinery down.

*MR. SPEAKER

I think this is matter for the Third Reading. If this line of argument were allowed upon this Amendment, the whole merits of the Bill might be discussed.

DR. MACNAMARA

said he did not wish to discuss the whole merits of the Bill. He thought the date of commencement ought to be postponed until the voice of the people could be heard. He had not a shadow of a doubt that there would be a more effective postponement than the change from 1904 to 1907, because before it came into operation it would have to be drastically altered.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

agreed that they ought to postpone the commencement of the Act. A similar Motion was made with regard to last year's Act and he supported it. It was true that the County Councils were then with a majority of Conservatives who were in sympathy with the Government The line they took was that as the County Councils were to frame schemes and to have the whole direction of the general policy of their particular areas the operation of the Act ought to be postponed so that the County Councils might consider the general lines on which it ought to be administered. Now they were dealing with a County Council which was Progressive and in general sympathy with Liberal views. They were not taking this course purely and simply because of the political complexion of the Councils. They said, as a general proposition, that Parliament was casting on the authority work which, when that authority was brought into existence, it had not the remotest idea that anything of the kind would be proposed. The County Councils were elected in England and Wales three years ago. They had not the faintest notion that before the end of their term of office functions of this kind would be cast upon them. He was sure the electors had no idea of it, and, therefore, they had no opportunity of selecting men qualified for this purpose. The functions to be cast by this Bill on the London County Council were greater in their financial magnitude than anything they had got at the present moment. The amount of money they had to distribute and the work they had to do under this Bill was of a higher quality. He had every regard for the work of the County Council, but he did not think it was so important as that which was to be cast upon it by the Bill in connection with the training of the young of London. They were not legislating entirely by this Bill. The County Council would begin to legislate by means of schemes. What were the schemes throughout the country? They were so many little Education Acts for each local authority, and anyone who looked at them would see the great diversity of educational ideals which existed. He thought the local electors ought to be consulted as to the general lines of policy and as to the kind of men who ought to be entrusted with the work. He was not sticking up for 1907, but he thought the Act should not be put into operation until the Parliamentary electors were consulted as well. It was perfectly obvious that they were legislating against the wish of the people. They had not been consulted upon it at all. He was certain that nobody in the House believed that this was an Act or Parliament which would be in operation inside or outside London three years hence. What he found taking place in Wales was what he was certain would take place throughs out the whole country. Men on both sides were beginning to realise that this was not an Act of Parliament that would work, and they were coming together and practically framing an Act of Parliament of their own by general agreement. If the Government postponed this Act for a year or two he believed that a

general agreement would be arrived at in London as to the lines on which educational administration ought to be carried on in future. It seemed to him that the Government were acting in a very head strong way. It was quite incomprehensible to him. They must see that they were legislating against the force of public opinion. What possible chance did they imagine education would get in the country? The whole country was rent by sectarian disputes. He said postpone the Bill for a year or two until they got something more in consonance with the general view of the people of the country.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 221; Noes 111. (Division List No. 169.)

AYES.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Coddington, Sir William	Gosehen, Hon. George Joachim
Aird, Sir John	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Graham, Henry Robert
Arnold-Foster, Hugh O.	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Colston, Chas. Kdw. H. Athole	Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Grenfell, William Henry
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Groves, James Grimble
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile	Gunter, Sir Robert
Baird, John George Alexander	Cust, Henry John C.	Guthrie, Walter Murray
Balcarres, Lord	Dalkeith, Earl of	Hall, Edward Marshall
Baldwin, Alfred	Denny, Colonel	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.	Hare, Thomas Leigh
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Disraeli, Conningsby Ralph	Harris, Frederick Leverton
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers	Hatch, Ernest Frederick George
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore	Hay, Hon. Claude George
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Duke, Henry Edward	Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart	Holder, Augustus
Bnownaggree, Sir M. M.	Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Henderson, Sir Alexander
Bill, Charles	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Donglas	Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somrst E
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Faber, George Denison (York)	Hogg, Lindsay
Bousfield, William Robert	Fardell, Sir T. George	Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Brassey, Albert,	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm
Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)	Fergussoh, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r	Howard, J. (Miss., Tottenham
Bull, William James	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Hudson, George Bickersteth)
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Butcher, John George	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Johnstone, Heywood
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow	Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas	Kennedy, Patrick James
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.	Fisher, William Haves	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. A. W. (Salop)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose	Kerr, John
Carew, James Laurence	Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon	Knowles, Lees
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Flannery, Sir Fortescne	Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire	Flower, Ernest	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Forster, Henry William	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Calloway, William Johnson	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.	Gardner, Ernest	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond	Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Chamberlayne, T. (Southmptn	Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans	Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.
Chapman, Edward	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Charrington, Spencer	Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby- (Salop	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.)	Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)
Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth	Purvis, Robert	Thornton, Percy M.
Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Pym, C. Guy	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Maconochie, A. W.	Randles John S.	Tritton, Charles Ernest
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Ratcliff, R. F.	Valentia, Viscount
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W	Rattigan, Sir William Henry	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
M'Killop, James (Sttrlingshire)	Remnant, James Farquharson	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n	Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Renwick, George	Webb, Colonel William George
Milvain, Thomas	Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green	Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Mitchell, William (Burnley)	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Whitely, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Morgan, David, J. (Walthamstow	Robinson, Brooke	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Round, Rt. Hon. James	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Mount, William Arthur	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute	Sadler, Col, Samuel Alexander	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Myers, William Henry	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Nicholson, William Graham	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.	Seton-Karr, Sir Henry	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Simeon, Sir Barrington	Wylie, Alexander
Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley	Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Pemberton, John S. G.	Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)	Young, Samuel
Percy, Earl	Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Pilkington Colonel Richard	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Plummer, Walter R.	Stone, Sir Benjamin	Sir Alexander Acland-
Pretyman, Ernest George	Stroyan, John	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)
Asher, Alexander	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Partington, Oswald
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.	Griffith, Ellis J.	Paulton, James Mellor
Barlow, John Emmott	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Philipps, John Wynford
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	Pirie, Duncan V.
Black, Alexander William	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Price, Robert John
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Harwood, George	Rea, Russell
Broadhurst, Henry	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Rickett, J. Compton
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.	Runciman, Walter
Burns, John	Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E	Samuel, Herbert, L. (Cleveland
Burt, Thomas	Holland, Sir William Henry	Schwann, Charles E.
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Shackleton, David James
Caldwell, James	Humphreys-Owen. Arthur C.	Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Cameron, Robert	Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Causton, Richard Knight	Jacoby, James Alfred	Stevenson, Francis S.
Cawley, Frederick	Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Channing, Francis Allston	Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Cremer, William Randal	Kitson, Sir James	Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Crombie, John William	Langley, Batty	Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Crooks, William	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Tomkinson, James
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Toulmin, George
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardig'n	Leng, Sir John	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)	Levy, Maurice	Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Lewis, John Herbert	Weir, James Galloway
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Lloyd-George, David	Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)
Dunn, Sir William	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Edwards, Frank	M'Arthur William (Cornwall)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Elibank, Master of	M'Kenna, Reginald	Williams, O. (Merioneth)
Ellis, John Edward	Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe	Wilson, Chas. H. (Hull, W.)
Emmott, Alfred	Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William	Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Fenwick, Charles	Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose	Yoxall, James Henry
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund	Moss, Samuel
Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.	Moulton, John Fletcher	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.	Wewnes, Sir George	Mr. Mansfield and Mr.
Fuller, J. M. F.	Norman, Henry	Soares.

Question put, and agreed to.

COLONEL LEGGE (St. George's, Hanover Square)

said that the object of the Amendment he had on the Paper was to put London on the same footing as the rest of the country in regard to the rate for technical and secondary education. Under the Technical Instruction Act of 1889 the rate was limited to 1d. in the £. That Act was repealed last year and under the Education Act of last year the limit was raised to 2d. in the £ for higher education. In the County of London no rate for this purpose had ever been raised at all. The London County Council—and he did not say it in a spirit of hostility to that body, as he was a Member of it for five years—had not raised a penny of rates for their technical education work, which had been of the very best. They had not even spent the whole of the whiskey money on technical education. They had been able to spend as much money as was necessary for that purpose and at the same time to devote a certain amount of the money received from the whiskey account to the reduction of rates. It seemed to him that it was quite unnecessary that, in this Bill, London should be given the power to levy an unlimited rate for higher education. For the year ending 31st March, 1902, he found that the Beer and Wine duties amounted to £212,712, and that the County Council grant to the Technical Education Committee was only £180,000, leaving a sum of £32,712 for the reduction of rates. A rate of 2d. in the £ for London produced £338,256, which added to the Beer and Wine duties for the year 1902, made a total of £550,968. The London School Board spent in the same year, 1902, on the education of pupil teachers £25,732, and on Evening Continuation Schools £106,558, making a total of £132,290. There was also Lord Rosebery's scheme which had been launched, and in which his Lordship made a demand on the London County Council for the annual sum of £20,000. Adding all these amounts together—the two penny rate, the amount granted for technical education, for evening continuation schools, and for Lord Rosebery's scheme, there would be available for further expenditure a sum of £218,678. That being the case it seemed to him that there could be no sufficient reason for not limiting the rate for London to the same limit as that throughout the country. He begged to move— In page 3, to leave out lines 14 and 15."—(Colonel Legge.)

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

DR. MACNAMARA

said he did not think the 2d. would be wanted, and he was quite sure it would not be raised at once. But whether that was so or not the hon. Gentleman was entirely incorrect when he stated that his Amendment would put London in the same position as the rest of the country was under the Bill of last year. Surely what the Government intended to do for London was what it did for Leeds, Birmingham and other large towns in the country. The hon. Member could not have read Section 2, which allowed towns to raise anything they pleased but restricted the rate raised by the counties to 2d. The 2d. was put on for what were called the agricultural counties. It was never intended that that limit should apply to urban districts. Owing to the unfortunate fact of London being described as a county governed by a County Council it was thought to bring it under this restriction and restrict the rate to 2d. When this section was under discussion the whole debate turned on the necessity of leaving the great towns to raise exactly what they pleased whilst the limit so far as the agricultural counties were concerned was restricted to 2d. He appealed to the Parliamentary Secretary not to place London, simply because it was a county, on a different footing from Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, and the other great urban communities of the country. The limit of 2d. was removed from those communities under the Act of last year, and was confined to Rural County Councils. He hoped that decision would be adhered to in the case of London.

MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)

hoped that, in the interests of education in London, the Government would not allow this matter to go by default but would stand by their Bill, and would not be led away by the demands of their supporters.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

said he sincerely hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary would accept the Amendment. It seemed to him that there was already plenty of money for the purposes of higher education, and, indeed, the hon. Member for Camberwell admitted that there was an ample margin, because he said he did not think the 2d. would be raised in the first instance. The rates in London were very high as it was, and, in view of this fact, as well as of the circumstance that there was a sufficient margin to provide double the amount of higher education now given, he thought the views of London members on that side of the House, who were almost unanimous, might be respected in this matter.

MR. BRYCE

said he ventured to hope the Government would not take the course suggested by the hon. Baronet opposite. The acceptance of this Amendment would be tantamount to reversing one of the most important decisions arrived at last year. Last year the House deliberately resolved that the great towns should have power to rate themselves without any limit. He agreed that they must not be extravagant, but it would be an unheard-of thing if they were to deprive London of a power which all the other great communities in the country enjoyed. It was merely an accident that London was governed by a County Council, and he looked forward to the time when it would become a great city governed by a city council. He hoped the powers given to other great towns would be given to London.

CAPTAIN JESSEL

did not see why the same law which applied to other County Councils should not apply in his matter to the London County Council. Hon. Members could not have it both ways. London was either a town or a county, it could not be both. With regard to the two penny rate it had been conclusively shown that there was a margin of £250,000 so that they could expend exactly double the amount they were now spending before they reached the limit. He thought the Amendment was a reasonable one. If the education authority of London had a free purse to draw upon, it might lead to reckless expenditure. Both in the interests of economy and of those who had to pay the rates, it was only fair that the safeguard provided by his hon. friend's Amendment should be adopted by the Government.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he was sorry to find himself in conflict with his hon. friends, but he could not possibly accept this Amendment. They were told by his hon. friends that London would not want all this money, that it had not spent the whole of the £250,000 applicable to secondary education, and that a two penny rate would produce as much as this again and leave a large margin. If that were so, what was it his hon. friends were afraid of? London had never yet raised any rate for secondary education; and as a two penny rate would produce the large sum mentioned by his hon. friend who moved the Amendment he could not see any grounds for the fear that London would be overburdened by rates for higher education. His hon. friends must bear in mind that secondary education was the part of their education which had been hitherto most starved, which needed money more than any other department of their education, and on which the country demanded that money should be spent. He would also remind them that there would be, when this Bill came into operation, a considerable sum taken off the charge for elementary education and thrown on to the charge for secondary education when the Cockerton schools all passed into the region of secondary education. His reason for not accepting the Amendment was that he felt he must save London from itself. Last year there was a limit proposed not only in the case of the agricultural counties but in the case of all the county boroughs. The county boroughs pressed to be allowed to deal freely with their own, and asked to have the limit taken away, and to be able to spend what they liked on secondary education. The limit was removed, and he should not be willing— in fact, he could not consent—to take powers from London which were possessed by Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, and other places in the country. For these reasons it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment, and he was sorry it had been moved and supported as strongly as it had been by friends with whom he had acted.

SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE (City of London)

said the Amendment he proposed to move was practically the same Amendment he moved in May last in connection with the secondary schools of the City of London. The hon. Baronet on that occasion accepted the Amendment, but subsequently withdrew his acceptance because, as he stated, he did not understand it to refer to elementary schools but to secondary schools. He hoped the Government would have no difficulty in accepting the Amendment now. Its object was to render it noncompulsory for the elementary schools of the City of London to come under the jurisdiction of the education authority should the governors other wise decide. In the City of London they had three Board Schools which, however, were on the confines of the east boundary, and educated children who came principally from the other side. On the other hand they had thirteen or fourteen Church, National, and Parochial schools, none of which, with one exception, received either aid from the Parliamentary grant or from the educational authority. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Baronet in charge of this Bill would be able to see his way to accept this Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, at the end of line 15, to insert the words 'The provisions of Section 5 and Sub-section 2 of Section 6 of the principal Act shall not be construed so as to subject any endowed elementary school in the City of London not applying for a Parliamentary Grant or for aid from the local education authority to the control or management of the local education authority.'"—(Sir Joseph Dimsdale.)

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

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

pointed out that the provision was not necessary, inasmuch as in the principal Act one of the conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in order to obtain the Parliamentary grant was that it should be maintained under, or comply with, the provisions of Section 7, otherwise it was not entitled to the Parliamentary grant; if it was not entitled to receive the Parliamentary grant, then under Section 7 of the Act of 1870 it was not a public elementary school, and did not come under the control of the local education authority.

SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE

said after the explanation of the hon. Baronet he would, with permission of the House, withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 17, to leave out the words 'of Sub-section one' In page 3, line 19, to leave out the words 'enables the local authority to group,' and insert the words 'relates to.' In page 3, line 20, to leave out the word 'them,' and insert the words 'the local education authority.'"—(Sir William Anson.)

Amendments agreed to.

SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE

said the Amendment he now moved would recall to the House the Bill as it was originally introduced, of which very little if anything remained. He asked that what was offered to the City of London in the Bill, originally might be restored to the Bill and that the City of London might be placed in the position in which it had been placed by successive Governments in matters affecting the government of the Metropolis. In asking for direct representation for the City of London, he pointed out that special representation had been given to the City on the School Board by the Education Act of 1870, and on the County Council by the Local Government Act of 1888. In other Acts also special representation had been given to the City. The City of London had always had special recognition in matters relating to the Metropolis, the London Government Bill specially exempting the City of London from its provisions. He asked that they might have representation in the matter under discussion, first, because they claimed to be a county in themselves, and secondly, what the City had done for education in the past, they having been practically the pioneers of education in this country, gave them a claim which might reasonably be looked upon with favour by the House. The Government could not plead that they were unaware of the feelings of the City on this matter, inasmuch as their views were clearly expressed to Lord Londonderry and the Parliamentary Secretary on the occasion of a deputation as far back as January last. The City desired nothing more than to be left alone, to be the education authority for the City of London; but, failing that, they strongly urged that they should have direct representation on the central body. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, after line 20, at the end, to insert the words 'Any scheme made or approved under Section seventeen of the principal Act shall provide for the representation of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London, in Common Council assembled, by at least two members on the Education Committee."'—(Sir Joseph Dimsdale.)

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

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he could only repeat very much what he had said yesterday in response to the appeal of hon. Members from the City that the City might be treated as a separate county. He then said that it was from no want of a sense of the value of the services of the City to education in the past that the Government found themselves unable to accede to that request. As this Bill was first presented there was a statutory Committee formed, and to representation on that Committee the City had a special claim, but that scheme was removed from the Bill. It was impossible now to go back to that principle of a statutory Committee and to introduce certain members on to the Committee perforce, however deserving and important they might be. Having framed the Bill as it now stood, leaving he London County Council in a position, like the other County Councils in the kingdom, to choose its own Committee, the Government could not now place on that Committee persons who were not required to be there under the general terms of the principal Act. He regretted the City had not the place it was originally intended to occupy, but it was too late now to alter the character of the Committee.

MR. ALBAN GIBBS (London)

pointed out that the position of the City of London greatly differed from that of other boroughs. As the hon. Member for Camberwell had pointed out, they spent about £100 for every child within its area, whereas the actual cost was only about £5, the remainder being the contribution of the City towards the general fund for education. No other borough was in that position. It might be true that one borough contributed as much as the City, but that borough had a great many more children, and so got more value for its money in that way. They did not complain of having to provide the money, but they thought that those who paid the piper should call the tune.

SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON (Preston)

regretted the Government had not seen their way to give the City of London a special position in this matter. He thought that some regard might have been had to the long connection of the City with education, and there was no doubt that that special representation would have been an element of great value. The changes the Bill had undergone had, to some extent, impaired the quality of the body to which the management of education was to be entrusted, as it would not now be necessary to consult those bodies which had every interest in putting on to the Education Committee the persons best qualified for the work.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said the request of the City representatives was tantamount to a declaration that they had not in the City any persons acquainted with the needs of the schools, or experienced in matters of education, because if they had such persons they could be brought in by the schemes which the County Council had to put forward. If the history of the City was as had been represented, it would be quite competent for them to have representatives on the Committee.

Question put, and negatived.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

moved an Amendment providing that the Board of Education may, on the application of the trustees of an endowment, direct that any money which would be payable to the County Council under Section 13 of the principal Act shall be applied in manner provided by a scheme made by the Board of Education, if the Board consider that it is expedient to make such a scheme, with a view to preserving the benefits of the endowment to the locality for which those benefits were intended. He said it was quite clear that the endowment clause in the principal Act was not applicable to London. That clause provided that endowments should go in one of two ways, either for the purposes the managers had to meet or for purposes the local authority had to meet, and in the latter case the money came back in aid of the rates of the parish for which the endowment was given. This could not happen in London. Where the income of an endowment was of considerable magnitude, there was generally an opportunity of suggesting that in order to meet difficulties which might arise it would be better to frame a scheme under which some other purpose than the simple, ordinary purposes of the education authority or the repair of the fabric might be met and something done for the children outside the ordinary provision of a school. The object of the Act was that the endowment should go to the locality intended to be benefited, and from that principle the Government were not prepared to depart. But, as he had said, the clause was not applicable to London; hence this Amendment.

His proposal was that— The Board of Education may, on the application of the trustees of the endowment, direct that any money which would be payable under the said section thirteen to the County Council shall be applied in manner provided by a scheme made by the Board if the Board consider that it is expedient to make such a scheme with a view of preserving the benefits of the endowment to the locality for which those benefits were intended. He wished to point out that the money which would otherwise go simply in aid of the rates might be diverted by this proposal to some of the higher purposes of education for the benefit of the locality. His right hon. friend the Member for Aberdeen had an Amendment on the Paper to insert after the word "endowment" the words "or of the local education authority." He should be quite willing to accept those words. He did not think, however, that it would be quite fair to accept the right hon. Gentleman's next Amendment, leaving out all words from the word "scheme."

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 23, at end, to insert the words 'but the Board of Education may, on the application of the trustees of the endowment, direct that any money which would be payable under the said section thirteen to the County Council shall be applied in manner provided by a scheme made by the Board if the Board consider that it is expedient to make such a scheme with a view of preserving the benefits of the endowment to the locality for which those benefits were intended.'"—(Sir William Anson.)

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

SIR MICHAEL FOSTER (London University)

said he was very gratified that the hon. Baronet had seen his way to introduce this Amendment. The great usefulness of this small concession would only become apparent when it was put into operation. Although the principle of the Bill was the co-ordination of secondary and elementary education, still the Bill had left many gaps between the two, and a provision of this kind would be a ready and easy method of bridging over that gap in very many cases. It would provide what he might call the luxuries for deserving children in the elementary schools, and he felt very much gratified that such a proposal had been added to the Bill. He was glad that the Secretary to the Board of Education had seen his way to accept the first Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Aberdeen, and he should have been pleased if the hon. Baronet could have accepted the second Amendment also. Undoubtedly the Board of Education in all their schemes would have due regard to the interests of the locality, but he could conceive of cases arising in which the whole of the endowments would not be spent to the best profit in what was spoken of as "the locality." The Amendment of the light hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen gave the Board of Education the power in those unusual cases to bestow, for the benefit of districts other than the locality, money which, if spent upon the locality itself, might really be wasted.

MR. CRIPPS (Lancashire, Stretford)

said it was most important that they should not interfere with these endowments until they saw exactly what was going to be done. Although these endowments might, to a certain extent, be used in the way of saving the rates, yet he thought the principle should be to get the help of these endowments in order to give special advantages to education and encourage the poor children by means of scholarships and open to them the benefits of secondary education in country districts. It was a great defect in the principal Act that some scheme of that kind was not adopted, He protested against a proposal of this kind not being inserted in the Act of last year, and he had protested constantly against putting educational expense upon the ratepayers as against getting money from other sources. This proposal only dealt with those portions of endowments which would have gone in aid of the rates to the County Council, and it did not in any way touch those endowments which under the principal Act went to the local managers, and which would in the case of voluntary schools be used for their assistance. He agreed that instead of wasting an endowment it ought to be used in the real interests of education. He should most cordially support a proposal that this should be done, not only on the application of the trustees, but also, if necessary, on the application of the local education authority. After all, this proposal only enabled the local education authority to use this money in a particular way, instead of using it in aid of the ratepayers. What they wanted in education was access to sums of this kind, not necessarily very large sums, but which were nevertheless of the utmost importance in order to give those incidental advantages to their educational system which gave opportunities which were not provided by the ordinary rate-aided schools. Both as regarded dealing with endowments and the probable use this money would be put to, he thought this provision was an enormous improvement on the original Bill of last session.

MR. BRYCE

said he was very glad that the Government had seen their way to introduce this clause, carrying out the undertaking which the Secretary to the Board of Education gave when the Bill was in Committee. He thought this was a very great improvement to the Bill, and he was sure that that would be the opinion of all those who knew the condition of endowments both in London and elsewhere. He did not think anyone in their time had done more for this branch of education than the eminent man they had just lost, Sir Joshua Fitch, and almost the last communication he received from that distinguished man was a request that he would bring this matter before the House. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Proposed Amendment to the Bill amended by inserting— in line 2, after the word 'endowment,' the words 'or of the local education authority.'"—(Mr. Bryce.)

MR. BRYCE

said he would now move his second Amendment, to leave out from the word "scheme" to the end of the Amendment. The Secretary to the Board of Education had expressed a disposition not to accept this Amendment, but he would venture to submit a few arguments which might perhaps affect the hon. Baronet's view in regard to his proposal. What was the alternative to the making of a scheme? The alternative would be to let money go back into the general fund to be used for the general relief of the ratepayers of London. That was no benefit to the locality although it might be an infinitesimal benefit to the ratepayers of London. He could not conceive how it could be fair to a locality to throw the money into a fund from which the locality would not derive any benefit whatever. Upon his hon. friend's own showing it would be better for him to accept the Amendment. What was the result of the last words in his Amendment? It was that a scheme could only be made wherever it was possible to preserve the benefits of the endowment to a particular locality. There were places where it, could not be made available to the locality, because that locality might have become practically depopulated. That was the case in the City of London, where many localities had become so depopulated that Parliament passed the City Parochial Charities Act, which took away those charities and applied them all over London. Although that was chiefly the case with the City it was by no means confined to the City, and there were other parts of London outside the City where the same process of depopulation was going on; that was to say, where warehouses and manufactories were rapidly taking the place of inhabited houses. This process was going on, and had been going on for centuries. In cases of that kind it would be impossible to reserve the benefit of the endowment to that part of the country. The descendants of those who were the friends and neighbours of the pious founder some three centuries ago were living now outside London. Why should they not have the benefit of the endowment simply because they had not continued to reside in the particular locality? Why because they were living in West Ham or North Hackney, or farther out, should they not have the benefit the founder intended to give them? He submitted that a real desire on the part of Parliament to follow the wish of the testator would induce them to apply the benefit over the wider area. Might he put this point to the Government? The clause gave the Board of Education absolute discretion. They need not make a scheme unless they liked, and therefore the Government were needlessly tying their hands and limiting their power, and that of their successors, if they introduced the limitation which came at the end of his hon. friend's Amendment. All that they had to do was to satisfy themselves that the case was one in which educational good was to be done. The Government should remember that when the pious founder gave this money he was thinking not only of the locality but of education. He had two objects—one to benefit education, and the other to benefit the locality. Because they could not carry out the object of benefiting the locality, was that any reason why they should not carry out the object of benefiting education? He should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education why it was he thought this action of the Board of Education should be entirely limited to a case in which the locality should continue to be specially benefited, and why the money should not also he applied where education was to be benefited. He hoped his hon. friend would reconsider his views and would feel that if the question was between helping education and the ratepayers, it was rather education than the ratepayers that ought to be the object of the pious founder's benefaction.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill— In line 5, to leave out from the word 'scheme' to the end of the proposed Amendment.

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

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he would repeat now what he said before the right hon. Gentleman spoke—that the locality interested ought to be primarily considered. But it was doubtless true that there were some localities which might have grown out of the endowments, or rather the objects of the endowment would not be satisfied by being confined to the locality for which they were originally intended. He would be prepared to insert the following words— In any such scheme due regard shall be had to the interests of the locality for which the benefits of the endowment were intended.

MR. BRYCE

said he was quite willing to accept that Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill— After the word 'scheme' in line 5, to add the words 'in any such scheme due regard shall be had to the interests of the locality for which the benefits of the endowment were intended.'"—(Sir William Anson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added to the proposed Amendment."

MR. CRIPPS

moved that the word "primarily" be inserted before the word "intended."

Proposed Amendment to the proposed Amendment to the Pill amended— By inserting after the word 'shall' the word 'primarily.'"—(Mr. Cripps.)

Proposed words, as amended, added to the proposed Amendment to the Bill.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

DR. MACNAMARA

moved the insertion of a new paragraph in the first Schedule with the object of ensuring that six women would always be on the Education Committee. At the present time, under the London School Board, the teaching staff consisted of 4,368 men teachers and 8,967 women teachers The women showed a preponderance of two to one. The Government said that they should trust the London County Council to put a due proportion of women on the Education Committee. He was not prepared to trust the London County Council in that matter. At present they had a Technical Instruction Committee consisting of thirty-five members, of whom only two were women. Supposing this Board had seventy members, the proportion which the County Council would give would be four seats to women. He did not think that was enough. He thought the Parliamentary Secretary seriously, but quite unintentionally, misled the House as to the presence of women on the Committees throughout the country. On 20th May he said there was no reason to suppose that the London County Council would be less attentive in this matter than the others had been. There were, he said, councils which had elected five, four, three, and two women, and that the cases in which only one woman was appointed were very few. The Parliamentary Secretary had provided a Return dated down to the end of May this year, which showed that statement to be entirely incorrect. There were sixty-four authorities mentioned, and not one of them had five women, and not one had four. There were two authorities each with three women, forty-five with two women, and seventeen with one woman.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 4, line 6, at the end, to insert the words 'There shall always be at least six women upon the Education Committee of the local education authority.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)

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

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he could explain the discrepancy between the statement he made in the House and the Return to which the hon. Member referred, but would not do so here. He did not mislead the House the other day. He was afraid he must say again what he said in the Committee stage of the Bill that there was no reason he could see for thinking that the London County Council would be less generous than other County Councils, It might be true that there were only two women on the Technical Instruction Committee of the London County Council. Now they were dealing with elementary education and he felt confident that the proportion observed on, the Technical Instruction Committee would be largely exceeded. He was not prepared to see the London County Council treated in a different way from the other County Councils of the country.

MR. BRYCE

said their experience of the other County Councils and Borough Councils since the passing of the Act of 1902, showed that they could not safely trust this to the mere benevolence and good will of bodies consisting mostly of men. It was necessary for this House to fix the statutory minimum in order to secure an adequate attendance of women on those Boards.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 93; Noes, 176. (Division List No. 170.)

AYES.
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud	Griffith, Ellis J.	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Asher, Alexander	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Runciman, Walter
Barlow, John Emmott	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Harwood, George	Schwann, Charles E.
Black, Alexander, William	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Shackleton, David James
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Broadhurst, Henry	Hope, John Deans (Fife West)	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk	Smith, H. C. (North'mb Tyneside
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Scares, Ernest J.
Burns, John	Jocoby, James Alfred	Strachey, Sir Edward
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radclffe
Caldwell, James	Labouchere, Henry	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Cameron, Robert	Langley, Batty	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Causton, Richard Knight	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)	Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Cawley, Frederick	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Channing, Francis Alston	Leng, Sir John	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Cremer, William Randal	Levy, Maurice	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Crombie, John William	Lewis, John Herbert	Weir, James Galloway
Crooks, William	Lloyd-George, David	Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Macdonna, John Cumming	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Douglas Charles M. (Lanark)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Williams, Osmonde (Merioneth
Dunn, Sir William	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen	Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)
Elibank, Master of	Moss, Samuel	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.
Fenwick, Charles	Newnes, Sir George	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund	Norman, Henry	Yoxall, James Henry
Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ	Partington, Oswald
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.	Perks, Robert William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Furness, Sir Christopher	Philipps, John Wynford	Dr. Macnamara and Mr.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Priestley, Arthur	Mansfield.
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Rickett, J. Compton
Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
NOES.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor.	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm)	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Arrol, Sir William	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc	FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Chamberlayne, T. (Southmptn	Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Chapman, Edward	Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Bagot, Capt. Josceline KitzRoy	Charrington, Spencer	Flower, Ernest
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Churchill, Winston Spencer	Forster, Henry William
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Clive, Captain Percy A.	Foster, Philip S. (Warick, S. W.
Baird, John George Alexander	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Galloway, William Johnson
Baldwin, Alfred	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Gardner, Ernest
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds	Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready	Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby- (Salop
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch	Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas	Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ry S. Edm'nd
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Cross, Herb, Shepherd (Bolton)	Grenfell, William Henry
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile	Groves, James Grimble
Bigwood, James	Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Hall, Edward Marshall
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Cust, Henry, John C.	Hare, Thomas Leigh
Brodrick, Kt. Hon. St. John	Dalkeith, Earl of	Harris, Frederick Leverton
Bull, William James	Denny, Colonel	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.
Butcher, John George	Doughty, George	Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasg.)	Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ	Duke, Henry Edward	Helder, Augustus
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart	Henderson, Sir Alexander
Cautley, Henry Strother	Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Hogg, Lindsay
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire	Faber, George Denison (York)	Hoult, Joseph
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Fardell, Sir T. George	Houston, Robert Paterson
Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm	Milvain, Thomas	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Hudson, George Bickersteth	Mitchell, William (Burnley)	Samuel, Harry (Limehouse)
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Johnstone, Heywood	Montagu Hon. J. Scott (Hants)	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop	Mount, William Arthur	Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Kerr, John	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Keswick, William	Myers, William Henry	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.
Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.	Nicholson, William Graham	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Lawson, John Grant	Percy, Earl	Valentia, Viscount
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.	Plummer, Walter R.	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Pretyman, Ernest George	Welby, Lt.-Col A. C. E. (Taunton
Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Purvis Robert	Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd
Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham	Pym, C. Guy	Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S	Randles, John S.	Willox, "Sir John Archibald
Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)	Ratcliff, R. F.	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Reid, James (Greenock)	Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson
Lucas, Regl'd J. (Portsmouth)	Remnant, James Farquharson	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Renwick, George	Wylie, Alexander
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)	Wyndham, Rt. Hun. George
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	Young, Samuel
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Majdndie, James A. H.	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n)	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.	Mr. Anstruther and Mr.
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Round, Rt. Hon. James	Fellowes.

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