LONDON EDUCATION BILL.

HC Deb 15 July 1903 vol 125 cc771-816

As amended, further considered.

DR. MACNAMARA

said he desired the Government to insert at the end of the schedule a proviso to the effect that the Education Committee of the local education authority should transact all its ordinary business in public. He wished that the representatives of the Press, and, as far as accommodation allowed, the ratepayers, should be admitted to the ordinary business of the Committee. That had been the policy of the great School Boards ever since the passing of the Act of 1870; no difficulty had arisen, for whenever a personal question, or some matter for which publicity was not desired, came up, the representatives of the Press and others had been asked to withdraw, and had withdrawn. They would be told, perhaps, that these new authorities were merely Committees of the great municipal authority, and therefore did no business which it was necessary should be transacted in public. He, however, denied that suggestion; in reality they were great public boards. In the case of London the education authority would undertake work equal in magnitude to the whole education of Scotland, or three times greater than the education of Wales, and the financial responsibility amounted to very nearly £4,000,000. In the past London had suffered very severely from jobbery and malfeasance owing to the lack of such publicity as he now advocated. In reference to the Bill of last year the Prime Minister, on July 30, had said in answer to a Question, that— Everything would be done in public, and that— Nothing henceforth could be done in secret nothing could be done except in the full light of day and in the blaze of publicity. As a matter of fact that statement was beside the mark; for in Surrey, Northumberland, and Somerset, and he believed in other localities, the education authority had recommended that its meetings should be private, and this had been agreed to by the County Council. The right hon. Member for East Somerset had suggested that if conducted in private the proceedings would be shorter; that might be so, and he rather imagined that if there were no reporters the proceedings in the House of Commons would not be so lengthy, and that the popularity of this House, with Members, too, would not be so great. There was this great set-off, however, that the presence of the Press secured that the administration should be wise, sound, and above suspicion. He might be told by the Parliamentary Secretary, because there was no other answer, to trust to the County Council. But in this connection it should be remembered that the proceedings of the County Council's technical education board were not public; and its transactions were, practically, never canvassed in public. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 4, line 6, at the end, to insert the words (10) The education committee of the local education authority shall transact all its ordinary business in public'"—(Dr. Macnamara.

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

*MR. COHEN

said the hon. Member for Camber well spoke with unrivalled authority in this House on the procedure of the London School Board. He himself spoke with less, but still with some, authority of the London County Council. Although he was not entirely in sympathy with the policy of the London County Council he was bound to admit that their work was conducted with business-like dispatch and regular procedure. In committee work no party spirit was imported, and everyone confined himself solely to the consideration of administrative and business matters which contrasted favourably with the oratorical and Party spirit that invariably was displayed on Tuesdays, when in the presence of the reporters members of the Council were apt to play to the gallery rather than to address themselves to the matters in question. The hon. Member had spoken of the necessity of protecting the administration of this large amount of money from the possibility of malfeasance and jobbery. Anyone who had done him (Mr. Cohen) the honour to follow what he had said when London County Council matters had been discussed in this House and he had always felt it his duty to defend the London County Council from the many libellous statements that had been made in respect of it—would agree with him when he said if there was one body which was as free as the London School Board had always been from any amount of malfeasance, that body was the London County Council. He thought that any errors that might be committed in Committee could be put right, and would be put right, when the matter came before the supreme tribunal-the education authority. He did not know what the attitude of the hon. Baronet would be towards the Amendment, but he could assure him, speaking from experience, that if there was one body it was superfluous to protect against the accusation of corruption that body was the London County Council. He was sorry that there should be any hesitation on the part of his hon. friend the Member for Camberwell, or in any quarter, to trust the Education Committee of the London County Council because reporters were not present.

*MR. YOXALL

said he hoped they would brush away all this talk about corruption and malfeasance as being irrelevant. It was no question of corruption or malversation either of the London County Council or the School Board, nor was it a question of whether the London County Council should sit in public. It was a question of whether the Education Committee should sit in public. It was not a question of the length or brevity of speeches. The important thing was that the decisions to which those speeches led up should be arrived at in the full light of publicity, with the knowledge that they would be reported in the Press and therefore must be as wise as could be arrived at. He hoped this question would not be argued on the ground of the saving of time. It was not a question of the debates that would take place on a Technical Educational body, a body dealing with one branch of education alone and dealing with comparatively few schools. It was a question of whether that body, being replaced by one which would have a much wider purview and multifarious duties to perform and giving much more time to the subject in view, should, like that body, conduct its proceedings in private. The practice hitherto adopted by the London School Board was to conduct its proceedings in the presence of the Press and he would hardly think the hon. Baronet would like to think there was any risk whatever that proceedings which had hitherto been conducted in public would now be conducted in private. It was not in the interest of peace or public tranquility that these proceedings should be conducted in private. They could not eliminate the denominational heat from these discussions so long as they had two classes of schools; and if the proceedings of this body were not reported, if there was the least suspicion of the suppression of them and their seclusion from the public eye, the suspicion outside would become tenfold more acute than it was at the present time. It could do no harm to specify in this Act that the Education Committee should meet in public, and if there was any danger of its not meeting in public it was the duty of this House to prevent any such thing taking place. For these reasons he hoped the Amendment would receive the favourable consideration of the hon. Baronet.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said that the Amendment had been discussed as if the Government had a preference for private proceedings on the part of the Education Committee. No one had any desire that the proceedings should be in private; and the real question was whether the County Council should be allowed to regulate the procedure of its own Education Committee. With all their confidence in popularly-elected authorities, some hon. Members seemed never able to trust such authorities to do the thing they desired to be done unless they were constrained by an Act of Parliament. The London County Council was quite capable of regulating the proceedings of its own Committee. It was said that great financial operations would be dealt with and large sums of money would be spent, and that the public ought to know what was being spent; but after all the County Council was the financial authority, the Education Committee could not borrow money, and the County Council would publish their accounts and these education accounts would be published with the others. He did not think there was the slightest desire to conceal from the public their proceedings; but there were a good many matters the initiation of which the members of the Committee would wish to discuss thoroughly in private. Any one who had taken part in municipal proceedings must be aware how striking was the difference between the proceedings which were private and those in which Members spoke to the gallery, and during which really little business was done. He thought it was better to leave the arrangement of this matter to the County Council which, he believed, was sufficiently alive to the wishes of the electorate in London to decide whether or not it was desirable in the interests of education in London that their proceedings should be conducted in public. He did not wish to make any distinction between the London County Council and the other County Councils in regard to the manner in which they should conduct their business. He was prepared to leave the matter to the good sense of the London County Council, and to the public opinion of the people of London.

MR. CAUSTON (Southwark, W.)

said that as a London Member, he thought that the proceedings should be conducted in public. If Parliament thought it was right that the proceedings should be carried on in public, Parliament should say so; and he considered it would have been a great deal better had Parliament said so in the Bill of last year.

MR. CROOKS (Woolwich)

said he wished to add his voice to the appeal for publicity. The hon. Baronet, in introducing the Bill to the House, said that there was the great lack of public interest in education in London. Was he going to make that interest still less by allowing the education authority to carry on its business behind closed doors? If there was any business which would be better discussed in private, that would not be prevented by accepting the Amendment. The private business could be carried on by means of sub-committees. The more the people of London and the world knew of this great business of education the better. As an educational power there was nothing in the world like the public Press. It kept administration square. Their desire was for the betterment of education. Of course there were Members who thought that this Bill was for the worsement of education; but whether it was for the better or the worse they could only know if publicity was given to the proceedings of the education authority.

MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (Yorkshire, Cleveland)

said that the hon. Baronet asked why a distinction should be made in this Bill, compared with that of last year, and why the London County Council should not be left free to make its own arrangements in this matter. The reply was obvious, that experience had shown that Parliament made a mistake last year, because several County Councils had conducted their business in private. The hon. Baronet said that that was the affair of the County Councils; he maintained that it was not the affair of the County Councils, but the affair of the public. The London School Board conducted their proceedings in public, and why should not the new authority do so also? The present County Council might be trustworthy, but that was even doubtful, because reporters were not admitted to the meetings of the Technical Education Committee. He thought that Parliament ought to express its mind clearly on this matter.

SIR MICHAEL FOSTER

said that his natural tendency would be to support the hon. Baronet in refusing this Amendment, because his own experience had proved to him that if business had to be done the public must be excluded, as far as possible, from a share in the proceedings. They were all human, and there was an invariable tendency to talk to the gallery, so that the more the public were admitted to proceedings of this nature the less chance was there for the real conduct of business. In spite of that, however, he distinctly recognised that the Education Committee was an agent for London, and for this reason there might be an instruction of the House on this occasion that it should conduct its official business in public. He thought that there was a difficulty about the word "ordinary." If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Camberwell provided the safeguard that the meetings of the Committee should be public only for the general advantage of the children, then he would be disposed to support him.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he ventured very respectfully to appeal to the House to come to a decision on this question now. Surely the issue before the House was clear and distinct His hon. friend who had just spoken had some doubt as to the advisability of passing the Amendment, and the hon. Member for Woolwich, on the other hand, attached undue importance to the publicity of debate when he said that without publicity a good deal of the work done would not be so valuable. He was sure that a great deal of the work which the hon. Member had done, and by no means the least useful, had been work done without the presence of reporters. The London County Council was supreme on all matters of education, and could direct that in all matters of education there should be publicity. They were constantly told—"Why don't you trust the local bodies?" But when they proposed to trust them in this matter it was argued that they should be cribbed, cabined, and confined. Surely the greatest municipality in the world should have the right to say that their proceedings at certain times should be in private.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said that there was no intention of hon. Members on that side of the House to delay business, but they regarded this as one of the most important Amendments that could be discussed that evening. He thought that the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill had really misunderstood the proposal of the hon. Member for Camberwell. None of them wished that all business should be done in public. What they desired was that when the education authority arrived at a conclusion on any question an opportunity should be given to the ordinary citizens of London to know what had been done. In order to meet a point which had been made on the other side he suggested a verbal alteration in the Amendment by which it would read that the Committee should carry out its ordinary meetings in public. That would put it in the same position as the School Board, whose business was carried on in public. Interest in education in London had not been so great as many of them wished, and this Bill would entirely destroy what interest there was if there was not some opportunity of keeping educational matters before the public.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.)

said that from personal experience he could testify that every meeting in Wales of the education authority had been for the past twelve years conducted in public in the presence of reporters, and no difficulties whatever had arisen, He failed to see what possible inconvenience could arise from accepting his hon. friend's Amendment. Past experience was in favour of it, and any inconvenience likely to arise could easily be obviated by going into Committee or requesting the reporters not to report the proceedings.

LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)

agreed that occasionally matters were required to be dealt with in a confidential manner. At the same time he thought some County Councils might be inclined to go rather further in the direction of excluding reporters than was desirable Under the Act of 1902, all the business except financial business might be delegated to the Committee by the County Council did delegate came back as a matter of course to the County Council itself in full session for discussion when the reporters were present. He thought the reporters ought to be present as a matter of right in regard to matters where there was a complete delegation, but in regard to a large and important class of business not delegated to the Committee it should be reserved for the final decision of the Council. If the Government thought that this was a matter which could not be left to the decision of the London County Council itself, the Amendment should be framed so as to bear in mind the distinction in Section 17 between the business delegated and that which was not delegated.

MR. HUMPHRYS OWEN (Montgomeryshire)

said that some time ago they heard complaints that they talked a good deal about politics but very little about education. This was purely an educational matter, and it should not be made a question of Party politics. It was simply a matter of how the new bodies should carry on their business. Allusion had been made to the way the Welsh education authorities conducted their business. Quite apart from politics, he thought the members of any Welsh educational body would say that the present system under which the reporters were freely allowed to be present on the understanding that, when private business was brought on, they would cease to report, had worked to the complete satisfaction of those bodies, and there had never been a difficulty of any kind. This was a question of ordinary human nature, and he did not see why a system which worked well in Wales should not work in the Metropolis. There was always a certain amount of jealousy between the lay and the academic elements, and the latter, he thought, was sometimes a little too eager to get to business, and apt to neglect thorough discussion of all the aspects of a question. It was very important for the progress of education that details should be discussed and less appreciated, not only by the experts, but also by the rank and file of the elected bodies, and there was no better means of securing that than it being known that the speeches would be reported, and that public attention would be called to the business through the Press. He hoped that even now the Secretary to the Board of Education would accept the very reasonable Amendment moved by his hon. friend.

MR. BRYCE

asked the two representatives of the Government who were present whether, after what had been said by the noble Lord the Member for Wiltshire, they could not see their way to allow some modification of the Clause.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he was bound to say that nothing which had fallen from the noble Lord and other hon. Members had led them to change their mind. The London County Council could be very well trusted to deal with this matter. [An HON. MEMBER: The Education Committees deal with it.] But the London County Council absolutely controlled the work of the Committees, and if the Council chose to lay down that the proceedings of the Education Committees should be held in public it was perfectly competent for it to do so. They had not done so in regard to the Technical Education Board. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had frequently said that it was because the London County Council had not adopted this course that he had felt it necessary to move this Amendment.

MR. CAUSTON

Can we take it that the London County Council have that power?

MR. WALTER LONG

Certainly, for they have absolute control over the proceedings of the Technical Education Board at present, and they would exercise the same power over the Education Committees. The proposal they were asked to accept was one which would involve enormous difficulties, because it invited the House to say there should be no distinction between the duties performed by the London County Council and the Committees. He thought this was a matter which must be left to the discretion of the local education authority.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 76; Noes, 156. (Division List, No. 171.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Griffith, Ellis J.	Reckitt, Harold James
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Rickett, J. Compton
Barlow, John Emmott	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Black, Alexander William	Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Shackleton, David James
Broadhurst, Henry	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)	Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Jacoby, James Alfred	Soares, Ernest J.
Burt Thomas	Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Caldwell, James	Langley, Batty	Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.
Cameron, Robert	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Causton, Richard Knight	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Weir; James Galloway
Cawley, Frederick	Levy, Maurice	White, George (Norfolk)
Cremer, William Randal	Lewis, John Herbert	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Crooks, William	Lloyd-George, David	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Fenwick, Charles	Newnes, Sir George	Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund	Norman, Henry	Yoxall, James Henry
Foster, Sir Michl. (Lond. Univ	Partington, Oswald
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Perks, Robert William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Fuller, J. M. F.	Philipps, John Wynford	Dr. Macnamara and Mr.
Furness, Sir Christopher	Plummer, Walter R.	Herbert Samuel.
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Priestley, Arthur
NOES.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Coghill, Douglas Harry
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Bigwood, James	Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Blundell, Colonel Henry	Ceilings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Arrol, Sir William	Brassey, Albert	Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas
Atkinson, Right Hon. John	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.	Bull, William James	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy	Burdett-Coutts, W.	Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Butcher, John George	Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.	Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r	Dautley, Henry Strother	Dalkeith, Earl of
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey	Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)	Denny, Colonel
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds	Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Hamlets
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.	Chapman, Edward	Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Charrington, Spencer	Doughty, George
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers
Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Faber, George Denison (York)	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Fardell, Sir T. George	Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas	Lundon, W.	Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)
FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-	Macdona, John Cumming	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Maconochie, A. W.	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Flavin, Michael Joseph	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside
Flower, Ernest	M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)	Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Forster, Henry William	Majendie, James A. H.	Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Fyler, John Arthur	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.	Milvain, Thomas	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M. Taggart
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Tollemache, Henry James
Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ry S. Edm'nds	Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Grenfell, William Henry	Mount, William Arthur	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Groves, James Grimble	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Valentia, Viscount
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute	Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Hall, Edward Marshall	Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Hare, Thomas Leigh	Myers, William Henry	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.	Webb, Col. William George
Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)	Welby, Lt-Col A. C. E. (Taunton
Helder, Augustus	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)
Hogg, Lindsay	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Houston, Robert Paterson	Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm	Percy, Earl	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Hudson, George Bickersteth	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Pretyman, Ernest George	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Wylie, Alexander
Kenyan, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh	Purvis, Robert	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop	Randles John S.	Young, Samuel
Kerr, John	Ratcliff, R. F.
Keswick, William	Redmond, William (Clare)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Knowles, Lees	Reid, James (Greenock)	Mr. Anstruther and Mr.
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Remnant, James Farquharson	Fellowes
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool	Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.	Renwick, George

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. YOXALL

, in moving the Amendment standing in his name, said that at the present time a ratepayer had the right to inspect documents such as the minutes and accounts of the School Board for London, and what he was asking for now was something less than that. He did not ask for an inspection of accounts, but the local Education Committee would have minutes and they had no guarantee that the proceedings would be conducted in public. Therefore, they had an additional right to ask that the minutes should be open to the inspection of any ratepayer. There were plenty of arguments which might be used, but he would only cite one particular case which went to show the danger of anything like privacy. The minutes would doubtless contain copies of reports by Government inspectors of denominational schools. It was now the practice to place upon the doors of denominational schools a copy of the inspectors' report, but in this Bill the Government did not insist upon this practice, and therefore that safeguard had passed out of existence. If something of the same kind was not provided for in the future it would give rise to suspicion and the friction which already existed upon this subject would be increased instead of being diminished. For the sake of peace, educational efficiency, public right, conistency in local government, and other reasons he begged to move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 4, line 6, at end, to insert the words '(10) The minutes of proceedings of the Education Committee of the local education authority shall be open to inspection by any ratepayer in London.'"—(Mr. Yoxall.)

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

MR. WALTER LONG

said the real objection to this proposal was that it sought to make a distinction between the Education Committee of the London County Council and any other committee of any other local governing body in the country. The section of the Act of 1870 which conferred this right of inspection was repealed in the Act of last year because it was felt that, in the changed circumstances, it had become altogether impracticable. If that was true of the ordinary County Councils in the provinces how much more must it be true of the London County Council, with its vast number of ratepayers. In his opinion the hon. Member in moving the Amendment had done so from a mistaken point of view. He had said it was desirable that these bodies should be open to public criticism. No doubt; but surely they were responsible bodies and were not likely to be influenced in their work because the minutes were open to inspection. He hoped the House would not spend too much time in discussing a matter which in his opinion was only of minor importance, but would proceed to deal with the more important questions still to be reached.

DR. MACNAMARA

denied that this was a minor consideration, and held that the privilege was one of the most valuable the public had enjoyed since 1870.

MR. WALTER LONG

I did not say it was a minor matter. I said it was minor compared with some of the questions remaining to be dealt with.

DR. MACNAMARA

repeated that it was a most important question, and reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the section in the Act of 1870 to which he had referred was repealed in the schedule of the Act of 1902, which was closured without a single word of discussion. If they had had the opportunity they would have most strenuously opposed its repeal, and it was adding insult to injury to tell them now that they must not discuss this Amendment because the question was settled last year. The Government were robbing the people of London of a priceless advantage they had enjoyed for thirty years, and he regarded this proposition as one of the most scandalous features of the educational policy of the Government. "The blaze of publicity," and "the full light of day," which were to be the accompaniments of educational administration disappeared under the Act of 1902.

MR. WALTER LONG

The hon. Gentleman seems to take this matter very much to heart.

DR. MACNAMARA

said he did.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he did not object to that. What he did object to was the proposal to discriminate between the Loudon County Council and the rest of the country.

DR. MACNAMARA

said his point was that the right of inspection was a great public privilege. It must be remembered that £1,000,000 of public money was now involved year by year.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said every ratepayer in the country ought to have the right of inspecting the minutes of proceedings of the local education authority and of its Committee in the same way that shareholders had a right to make copies of minutes of their companies. From 1870 onwards that elementary right had been conceded.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the ratepayers had the right to inspect the minutes of the London County Council.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said the business would be transacted by the Education Committee. What would be the use of having a right to inspect the minutes of the Council if they did not bear on the matter? This elementary right which had never been abused was now to be taken away, and he had heard no argument in support of that course. He hoped the House would give more time to the discussion of this matter. They ought not to shirk their responsibilities merely in order that hon. Members might go to their beds.

MR. BULL (Hammersmith)

pointed out that every Committee of the London County Council reported to the Council all the details of its work, and, as the meetings of the Council were public, it seemed to him that there was sufficient publicity.

SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE (Huddersfield)

said the law with regard to any municipal corporation was that any ratepayer might inspect the minutes, not only of the Council, but also of its committees. In the case of the Manchester Corporation, the Lord Chief Justice had decided that the ratepayers were entitled to see, not merely the resolutions of the Council, but the acts and proceedings of the Committees of the Council.

MR. WALTER LONG

If the hon. Gentleman has given a correct interpretation of the law, perhaps he will tell us what is the object of this Amendment.

SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE

said the Amendment at least affirmed the principle contained in the Act of 1870. Surely there could be no objection to its acceptance.

SIR JOHN GORST

said, if it was the law that the ratepayers had the right of inspection, that was a very good reason for the repeal of the section in the Act of 1870 by the Act of last year, because it became unnecessary. In the case of School Boards, it was necessary that ratepayers should have a statutory right to inspect the minutes, but that provision was no longer necessary when the minutes became the minutes of a committee of a municipal authority.

SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE

said the London County Council was not included in the Municipal Corporations Act.

SIR JOHN GORST

said the proceedings of the Committees of the London County Council were reported to the Council and were now open to the public under the London County Council Act. The Amendment was as unnecessary as the clause which was repealed in the Act of last year.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said they ought to know whether the ratepayers of London had this power or not. The Amendment was proposed on the assumption that they had not that power. The President of the Local Government Board had also replied on that assumption, and defended the repeal of the section on principle. He said it was a wrong thing and that the power should not be given. The Government abolished the power of inspection last year, but now they were told that the ratepayers still had that power. It was a great pity that none of the law officers of the Crown were present. They were all agreed this power was desirable, and as it was clear there was a doubt whether there was the power, what possible harm could the Amendment do? Let the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill agree to the inclusion of words ensuring to ratepayers the right to inspect the minutes. That would save the time of the House. Such a power of the ratepayers ought not to be abolished unless it could be shown that it had been abused. A great deal of petty jobbery went on in different parts of the country in connection with contracts, and so forth, and the mere fact that the ratepayers possessed the right to inspect the minute-books was a check upon such practices. Reference had been made to the practice of the Committees of the London County Council in publishing a report every week. But this Committee would not be on the same basis at all. The disposition throughout the country was to delegate powers to the Education Committee, and practically to convert it into a separate and independent body. It would not report from week to week The decisions of an ordinary Committee had to be adopted by the County Council before they had any effect, but to the Education Committee no end of things would be delegated absolutely, and it was in the small matters that possibilities of jobbery arose. In the interests of municipal purity it was of the greatest importance that every conceivable check should be placed upon possibilities of that character. If the public were deprived of the right of examining documents and seeing what was going on, a blow would be struck against the dignity and usefulness of public institutions, and against the confidence which the public at present reposed in them.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he had already pointed out that it was very undesirable that there should be any distinction made between the Education Committee of the London County Council and those of any of the other Councils. In the Local Government Act the Municipal Corporations Act was applied to the London County Council.

SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE

Where in the provisions is the right of the ratepayers applied?

MR. WALTER LONG

said he was informed that under Section 233 of the Municipal Corporations Act the minutes of proceedings of a Council were open to the inspection of the burgesses. That section was applied to the County Councils by Section 75 of the Local Government Act, 1888. That was the information given to him, and he was confident it was correct. If the hon. Member for Huddersfield was correct the Amendment was unnecessary; if he was incorrect they reverted to the position to which the Government adhered viz., that there should be no distinction between this Committee and the Committee of any other local authority.

MR. BRYCE

said the House were in a most unsatisfactory position, the President of the Local Government Board having practically said that he did not know whether the minutes of the Committee of the London County Council would be open to inspection or not. Assuming the Committee not to be subject to the Municipal Corporations Act the minutes would not be open to inspection. Since the passing of the Act of 1870 every ratepayer had had a right to inspect the minutes, and no harm had ensued, but that right was now to be taken away.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that that was not the case. The right of inspection was conferred by Section 75 of the Local Government Act and Section 233 of the Municipal Corporations Act. The section which the House was discussing had nothing to do with either, and the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in thinking that the Government were seeking to alter the law.

MR. BRYCE

contended that the House ought to be told positively whether or not the ratepayers would have the right of inspecting the minutes of the Committee which would now correspond to the School Board. That right had been enjoyed hitherto; why then should it now be taken away?

MR. WHITLEY

thought the matter ought to be cleared up. The Government, althongh they were not seeking to alter the law, were seeking to alter the rights of the ratepayers.

MR. WALTER LONG

No.

MR. WHITLEY

asked whether at present the ratepayers had not a right to inspect the minute-books of the education authority.

MR. WALTER LONG

Only of the School Board.

MR. WHITLEY

said that that being so by this Bill the Government were ipso facto depriving the ratepayers of that right. How then could the right hon. Gentleman say that the Government were not proposing any alteration of the existing state of things? As the Government seemed not to know what the law really was he suggested that they should insert this Amendment, and, if it were found to be unnecessary, remove the superfluous clause in another place.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

was understood to read a section of the Act of 1888 by which it was provided that Committees need not report their proceedings to the Council. That being so, the provisions of the section to which reference had been made would not give the right asked for in the Amendment.

MR. LOUGH

asked why the people of London should be deprived of a right they had hitherto enjoyed? The argument was that no exception should be made to the general law. But London was just a case in which exceptions should be made, and departures from the general law were constantly being made in connection with the Metropolis. He suggested that the words should be now inserted, and if they were found to be surplusage they could be struck out in another place.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he could not agree to put in these words, holding the views which he had expressed, but he recognised fully that there was some element of doubt as to what the law exactly was. He was quite prepared to undertake on behalf of the Government that if there was any doubt which would leave this Committee, in consequence of this Amendment, in a position different from that occupied by the Committee of any other local authority—[Cries of "No, no," from the Opposition, and "We want the rights we now have in London."] Those rights applied solely to education accounts, and if that section were incorporated in this Bill it would alter the law as to the inspection of the whole of the accounts of the County Council. That was not what hon. Members wanted. It was said that the Lord Chief Justice had decided that the law would render the accounts open to inspection. If that was the case, and if this section affected that right, he would undertake on behalf of the Government to propose an Amendment in another place which would remove that difficulty.

MR. BRYCE

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking would go the length that, if it should be found that the right of inspecting minutes of Committees was possessed in the case of municipal boroughs, he would assimilate the law to that relating to municipal boroughs.

MR. WALTER LONG

Certainly.

MR. WILLIAM JONES (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

said the following had beeen placed in his hands— As to the minutes of the Council, the inspection has been held to extend to the minutes of Committees which have been submitted to the Council for approval, whether approved or not. The question was, therefore, whether the minutes of the education Committee under this Bill would be submitted to the County Council; if so, they would come under the provision, and the public would have a right to inspect them.

DR. MACNAMARA

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman undertook that the present right of the ratepayers of access to the minutes and accounts of the School Board would be perpetuated.

MR. WALTER LONG

thought that was rather a difficult question to answer. If it was perpetuated as it stood, it would cover other ground altogether. He thought the ground was very well covered by the point of the hon. Member for the Arfon division. If there was any limitation imposed by Section 82 upon the rights conferred by Sections 75 and 233 of the Municipal Corporations Act, the Government would take care that that limitation was removed.

MR. YOXALL

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. MANSFIELD

said the idea of the Amendment he desired to move was that there should not be a fixity of tenure with regard to the managers of schools. There vas no provision in the parent act in any way fixing the term for which managers were appointed. That managers should be periodically re-elected was very important, as long terms of office were not conducive to efficiency. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 4, line 6, at end, to add the words '(10) The managers of all public elementary schools shall not be elected for a longer period than three years, at the end of which period they shall be eligible for re-election.'"—(Mr. Mansfield.)

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

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said the hon. member had called attention to an undoubted defect in the parent Act, and he was prepared to accept the Amendment if the word "appointed" was substituted for "elected".

MR. MANSFIELD

said he was quite prepared to make the alteration.

Proposed Amendment amended by leaving out the word "elected" in line 2, and inserting the word "appointed."—(Sir William Anson.)

MR. MANSFIELD

said the Amendment which he now desired to move proposed to give power to the local education authority to close any public elementary school which in their opinion on the grounds of economy or the inefficiency of the teaching or the premises was unnecessary. He thought it was desirable that this power should be giver, even though it might not be often used. It certainly would tend towards efficiency, and help to raise the non-provided schools to a higher standard. Many schools required a great deal of improvement; and that improvement would be carried out if the local authority had power to close such schools. He had no fear that the local authority would use its power in an arbitrary manner. It had been pointed out again and again in the course of the discussions that the London County Council was very favourable to voluntary schools; and if they had this power it would enable them to improve the standard of these schools. A school would not be closed where it could be avoided, because another school would have to be built. Therefore, there was no danger of the power being abused. In the interests of efficiency and economy, he asked leave to move his Amendment, which he hoped the Government would accept.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— After the words last inserted to insert the words '(11) The local education authority shall have power to close any public elementary school which in their opinion is unnecessary on the grounds of economy, or the inefficiency of the teaching or of the premises.'"—(Mr. Mansfield.)

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

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he believed that the Amendment was unnecessary. The schools would be bound to carry out the directions of the local education authority, and maintain a certain standard of efficiency; and if they failed in that they would lose their right to be maintained. Further, the local education authority and the Board of Education could determine whether a school was or was not necessary; and there was ample security not only in the Act of 1870, but in the Act of last year that the local authority need not maintain any school which was not up to the proper standard.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. LOUGH

said the Amendment which he was about to move provided that no teacher should be required, as a condition of being appointed or continuing a teacher in any school or college aided or maintained by the local education authority, to belong to any particular religious denomination, or to attend or abstain from attending any place of religious worship or religious observance or Sunday school. He thought such a provision was more required in London than in any other part of the country. The system of imposing tests on teachers was perhaps most objectionable of all the provisions in the Act of last year. All teachers in elementary schools, whether voluntary or provided, would now he civil servants; and it was very repugnant to the general feeling of the community that any religious test should be imposed upon them. There was, of course, no objection to a test as to the ability of a teacher to discharge his duties; but in London especially it was very obnoxious to the general feeling that any test of a religious character should be applied. A very strong feeling existed regarding the matter; and he hoped the Government would be able to remove it.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— After the words last inserted, to insert the words '(11) No teacher shall be required as a condition of being appointed or continuing a teacher in any school or college aided or maintained by the local education authority to belong to any particular religious denomination, or to attend or abstain from attending any place of religious worship, or religious observance, or Sunday school."—(Mr. Lough.)

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

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he was not prepared to alter the law as it now stood. The speech of the hon. Member suggested some misconception on the matter. There was at present only one sort of teacher who in certain circumstances was subjected to any kind of test, and that was the head teacher of a school the trust deed of which required that the teachers should be members of a particular Church. The House decided that where there was such a trust deed the deed should not be interfered with, so far as the head teacher was concerned. The Act of last year, however, left it open to the managers to appoint the other teachers from persons of any denomination. The Government could not go further than that. The manager who wanted a teacher of a particular sort could not be prevented from ascertaining in one way or another which candidate was most likely to give the teaching required. I the teacher was considered unsuitable on educational grounds the local education authority could, under last year's Act, refuse to ratify the appointment, so that security was taken for the teacher's efficiency. With regard to the proposal that the teacher should not be required to attend any place of religious worship or observance, he would remind the House that last autumn they discussed for some time the question whether they should put into the Bill provisions which would make it impossible for the teacher to do any work or enter into obligation outside his teaching duties. The House was then satisfied that provisions of that nature should be inserted in the Code. The undertaking he gave to the House was carried out, and there was now a provision in the Code stating that every engagement of a teacher must contain the following clause— A teacher shall not be required to perform or abstain from performing any duty outside the ordinary school hours or unconnected with the ordinary work of the school. Therefore a teacher could be under no obligation to his managers to attend a place of religious observance or a Sunday school.

MR. BRYCE

said he did not at all agree with the view presented by the hon. Baronet on this question. The hon. Baronet put it as if under the Act of last year all teacher ships were thrown open, and no test could be applied except in the case of a trust deed requiring the head teacher to be a member of a particular religious denomination. But what the Act of last year really said was that in non provided schools assistant teachers and pupil teachers might be appointed, if it were thought fit, without reference to their religious denomination. That left all teachers subject to tests at the option of the managers. The only effective way to deal with tests was to adopt the plan employed in the Act of 1871, which forbade any tests in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. This was a very great grievance. It was a monstrous proposition, and inconsistent with the free institutions under which they claimed to live, that these sectarian tests should be imposed on a body of public servants. A large number of managers of denominational schools were pledged to support and maintain sectarianism; and, therefore, they would feel bound to impose sectarian tests. The only dispensation given was the paltry provision by which assistant teachers and pupil teachers might be relieved from such a restriction. To his mind, so far from this being a small grievance, it was a small exemption, all the rest being grievances. Nothing would satisfy those who strongly objected to the provisions of the Act of last year except the throwing open of all teacher-ships without their being subject to any religious test whatever. Previously, the voluntary schools were supported, to some extent at least, by members of a particular religious denomination; but now they were all public schools, and the teachers were just as much public servants as the members of any other branch of the public service. Under those circumstances, it was monstrous that a sectarian test should be imposed on a large body of public servants. His hon. friend did well in moving his Amendment, and he hoped he had succeeded in explaining to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the ground and nature of the grievance.

MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk N.W.)

said he thought the House would be surprised at the manner in which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had dealt with the Amendment. As the Bill only applied to London, the Amendment raised a smaller question than that connected with the Bill of last year; but the hon. Baronet must be aware that no part of the Act of last year was more resented throughout the country that the imposition of tests on teachers. He was, therefore, very much surprised that the Government should propose to perpetuate so great an injustice which, to the credit of hon. Gentlemen opposite, was not defended by them. Formerly, the voluntary schools were supported to the extent of one third by private subscriptions; but now they were maintained solely from public funds. He would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to justify a position which precluded a head teacher from being appointed unless he were a member of the Church of England. That was practically the position. There might be cases in which broad-minded clergymen would appoint teachers who were not members of the Church of England; but he was quite sure that there would not be very many under the permissive clause proposed in the Bill. He knew of instances where Nonconformist teachers in such schools were called upon to conform to the doctrines of the Church of England or to quit. He knew of two such cases already. Only a day or two ago there was an advertisement in The School muster which clearly showed that even the provision of the Act of last year was not being complied with. Teachers were advertised for who were expected to discharge extraneous duties, such as superintending Sunday schools, keeping order in church, and matters of that kind. He protested against such an injustice being perpetuated. Nothing caused more resentment and more opposition to the Act of last year than the imposition of tests on teachers; and that it should be carried into the Metropolis showed a great want of foresight and prudence on the part of the Government. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that he was bringing into London a condition of things which he would be sorry for before many months were over. He would ask whether any hon. Gentleman could justify the position that public servants paid entirely out of public funds should be prevented from reaching the highest point in their profession, and, in many cases, from entering the profession at all, because they belonged to a certain Church. This was a principle that existed in the country generations ago, but it had remained for the present Government to perpetuate it in this new Act. It was a principle which he was sure no fair minded man would get up to defend.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he agreed with the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk in regard to the gravity of the question in the public mind. It had deeply stirred hundreds of thousands, he might say millions, of people in the country He did not think the Parliamentary Secretary had treated it with sufficient seriousness, He would give a concrete case which, he thought, was only one out of thousands that could be quoted in different parts of the country. Take a parish school in which ninety in 100 were Nonconformists. Probably the other ten might be the children of parents who were members of the Church of England. In that school the headmaster must be a communicant of the Church of the minority in the parish. It was true that the County Council could make Nonconformists pupil teachers, but when they went beyond the stage of pupil teachers the largest promotion they could receive was to the position of assistant teachers. They knew perfectly well that they could not be head teachers in their own parish school. That was a monstrous system. It was imposing a disqualification on good and loyal citizens. Practically all the farmers in the parish were Nonconformists.

MR. WHITMORE

said this was a London Bill.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said there were many cases in London of a similar character. He was discussing the principle. If hon. Members opposite gave up the case with regard to the country he would have no more to say.

MR. WHITMORE

said he thought the hon. Member's argument was addressed to the case of this particular Bill. There were no farmers in London and the provisions of this clause could only apply to the voluntary schools in London. He did not think the objections the hon. Member was raising to the principle of the Act of last year were applicable to this Bill.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he thought the hon. Member was wrong as to there being no farmers in London; at any rate the Agricultural Rating Act applied to London. This was a Bill to adapt and extend the Act of last year to London. The principle was in the Bill of last year and if the hon. Member for Chelsea regretted and apologised for supporting that Bill he was prepared to give that up. There were denominational schools in London to which children went very often, not so much because their parents were communicants of that particular Church but because there was no other school convenient. There were many districts in London where children of a tender age must go to the voluntary school because it was the only one within reasonable reach. Why should a privilege which was given to the children of one class of ratepayers be denied to the children of another class? It was a perfectly monstrous principle which was only applied to this branch of the Civil Service. The whole of the salaries, speaking roughly, in the voluntary schools of this country, amounted to £3,600,000. These salaries were paid by the State. Why should the State that employed these teachers draw a distinction between one man and another simply on account of creed? He was not surprised that there were millions of people who resented it as an insult to their religious faith. Did the hon. Gentleman approve of this sort of advertisement?— Wanted, mistress, trained and certificated, must be confirmed, and communicant; require to attend Sunday school alternate Sundays, and every Sunday keep order among children in the church. Salary to be arranged in consultation with the County authorities. That salary would be paid by the County authorities out of the rates and money received from the Imperial Exchequer for the purpose of assisting a sectarian school, and for the purpose of keeping order in the church of one denomination. The test was that no one had a right to apply except a communicant in a particular Church. This Amendment would make it clear that the Legislature disapproved of that, and considered it grossly unfair. He would not say unfair merely to the teachers who were ruled out, but unfair to the school itself, because, in the appointment of teachers, there ought to be the widest range of selection. There were 1,200 voluntary school appointments in London, and the whole of these were confined to men and women of one sect, although everybody contributed to the Treasury out of which they were paid. It was wrong in principle, and unfair to the children and the teachers. He thought the House of Commons ought to express its disapproval of the action of the Government.

DR. MACNAMARA

said this was a great question of public policy. There were in London 1,200 public servants in voluntary schools, every farthing of whose salaries was paid for out of rates and taxes. In the past they had been paid partly by private and charitable contributions, and that might be regarded as a good reason for superimposing on their other qualifications something in the nature of a religious test. Who was to settle the qualifications for those teachers? Would the hon. Member for Chelsea say that any private agency, religious or otherwise, had any right to superimpose any special qualification over and above that demanded by the authority which found the money? This thing could not be maintained. Of course the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich would at once turn round and ask—What are we to do for religious instruction? If religious instruction had to depend on religious tests imposed on public servants paid out of public funds, it was resting on a very rotten foundation. Teachers were only human, and nothing undermined their probity and independence like denominational tests. He should be the last man to say anything disparaging of them, but religious tests were a premium on hypocrisy. Those who desired the continuance of a particular form of religious instruction were ill serving their purpose when they imposed tests on public servants. He knew dozens of cases in which, in order to secure appointments in denominational schools, head teachers had changed their religion—as any human being would do who had considerable obligations resting on him. He did not put teachers on a higher platform than the public generally. Those who desired for their children the religious instruction of a particular denomination must find other means of giving it than through public servants on whom religious tests were imposed.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said if the Government desired to make this Bill work smoothly it would be wise to have regard to the position which had been rendered perfectly plain by the proceedings in the country. Appeals had been made to the other side to get up and defend this monstrous proposal, but hon. Members could not do it. He would put the case from the point of view of expediency. Suppose a man who was a ratepayer in London applied for a position as head teacher in London, and he was informed that he could only get the appointment if he was a communicant of the Church of England and was willing

to work in the Sunday school, but that otherwise he could not. That teacher might say, "If these positions are refused to me, I refuse to pay my rates." If the Government would abolish religious tests as they were now asked to do they would sweep away a great deal of the opposition to the Bill, and there would be a better prospect of its working smoothly.

MR. MOON (St. Pancras, N.)

said hon. Members opposite had pressed for a reply to the question why head teacherships in voluntary schools should be reserved to those professing a particular creed. He thought they in return might be asked the question whether they did not think that some reasonable compensation should not be given to those who provided the fabrics.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 88; Noes, 173. (Division List No. 172.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Griffith, Ellis J.	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Allan Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Roe, Sir Thomas
Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale	Rose, Charles Day
Black, Alexander William	Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)	Runciman, Walter
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Broadhurst, Henry	Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.	Shackleton, David James
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh	Jacoby, James Alfred	Shaw, Thomas (Hawich, B.)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Lambert, George	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Caldwell, James	Langley, Batty	Soares, Ernest J.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)	Stevenson, Francis S.
Causton, Richard Knight	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Cawley, Frederick	Levy, Maurice	Tennant, Harold John
Cremer, William Randal	Lewis, John Herbert	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.
Dalziel, James Henry	Lloyd-George, David	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Lough, Thomas	Tomkinson, James
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-shire	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Toulmin, George
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	M'Laren, Sir Chas Benjamin	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	White, George (Norfolk)
Duncan, J. Hastings	Markham, Arthur Basil	Whitley J. H. (Halifax)
Edwards, Frank	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)
Elibank, Master of	Moulton, George Fletcher	Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)
Emmott, Alfred	Newnes, Sir George	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)	Partington, Oswald	Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd
Fenwick, Charles	Philipps, John Wynford	Yoxall, James Henry
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith	Pirie, Duncan V.
Foster, Sir Michael (Lond, Univ	Price, Robert John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Fuller, J. M. F.	Priestley, Arthur	Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Furness, Sir Christopher	Rea, Russell	Mr. William M'Arthur.
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Rickett, J. Compton
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds,
Arrol, Sir William	Bailey, James (Walworth)	Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch
Atkinson, Right Hon. John	Bain, Colonel James Robert	Banbury, Sir Frederick George
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Grenfell, William Henry	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.
Bigwood, James	Gretton, John	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Bill, Charles	Groves, James Grimble	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n
Bond, Edward	Guthrie, Walter Murray	Percy, Earl
Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex	Hall, Edward Marshall	Pilkington, Colonel Richard
Brassey, Albert	Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Bull, William James	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd	Pretyman, Ernest George
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Butcher, John George	Heath, James (Staffords N. W.)	Purvis, Robert
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ	Henderson, Sir Alexander	Randles, John S.
Cautley, Henry Strother	Hogg, Lindsay	Ratcliff, R. F.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire	Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faver'h'm	Reid, James (Greenock)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton	Remnant, Jas. Farquharson
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Johnstone, Heywood	Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh	Renwick, George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop	Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc	Kerr, John	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Chapman, Edward	Keswick, William	Robertson, H. (Hackney)
Charrington, Spencer	Kilbride, Denis	Round, Rt. Hon. James
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Knowles, Lees	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow	Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Collings, Right Hon. Jesse	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside
Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Smith, James, Parker (Lanarks.)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Leveson-Gower, Frederick, N. S.	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile	Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.	Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart
Cust, Henry John C.	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.
Dalkeith, Earl of	Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Denny, Colonel	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxford Univ.
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestof't	Valentia, Viscount
Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth	Walker, Col. William Hall
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Faber, George Denison (York)	Macdona, John Cumming	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r	Maconochie, A. W.	Webb, Colonel William George
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire	Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Majendie, James A. H.	Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.	Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd
Fisher, William Hayes	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Flower, Ernest	Milvain, Thomas	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Forster, Henry William	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Fyler, John Arthur	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Galloway, William Johnson	Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow	Wodehouse, Rt, Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.	Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Wylie, Alexander
Gordon, Maj Evans (T'r Haml'ts	Mount, William Arthur	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby (Salop	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.	Myers, William Henry	Mr. Anstruther and Mr.
Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs	Nicholson, William Graham	Fellowes.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he wished to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Morley. He thought it was a perfectly fair proposition, and he could not see how anyone could complain of it. He begged to move—

Amendment proposed to the Bill— After the words last inserted, to insert the words, '(10) In every school for education other than elementary aided by the local authority the authority shall be represented on the governing body in such proportion as will, as nearly as may be, correspond to the proportion which the aid given bears to the income from all other sources.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

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

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said that if a secondary school desired the assistance of the local educational authority, the local education authority were not bound to give it anything, but they might say they would give so much and would, as a condition of the grant, have such and such representation on the governing body. It was better to leave the local education authority to make its own terms, because the school must accept those terms if it wanted the money. The hon. Member's Amendment might perhaps force on the local authority

a representation which might be inconvenient.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 66; Noes, 152. (Division List No. 173.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.	Shackleton, David James
Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)	Lambert, George	Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Langley, Batty	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall	Sinclair, John (For farshire)
Black, Alexander William	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Soares, Ernest J.
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Levy, Maurice	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Broadhurst, Henry	Lewis, John Herbert	Tennant, Harold John
Caldwell, James	Lough, Thomas	Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)
Causton, Richard Knight	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Cawley, Frederick	M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.	Tomkinson, James
Cremer, William Randal	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Toulmin, George
Crooks, William	Markham, Arthur Basil	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Philipps, John Wynford	White, George (Norfolk)
Duncan, J. Hastings	Pirie, Duncan V.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Edwards, Frank	Priestley, Arthur	Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)
Elibank, Master of	Rea, Russell	Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)
Fenwick, Charles	Rickett, J. Compton	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Fuller, J. M. F.	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Roe, Sir Thomas	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Rose, Charles Day	Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr.
Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-	Runciman, Walter	Samuel Evans.
Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.	Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole	Hogg, Lindsay
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Howard, John (Kent Faversham)
Arrol, Sir William	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton	Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile	Kerr, John
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Dalkeith, Earl of	Keswick, William
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Denny, Colonel	Knowles, Lees
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Faber, George Denison (York)	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Bigwood, James	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Bill, Charles	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.
Bond, Edward	Fisher, William Hayes	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex	Flower, Ernest	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham
Brassey, Albert	Forster, Henry William	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Bristol, S.
Bull, William James	Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.	Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Fyler, John Arthur	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Butcher, John George	Galloway, William Johnson	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ	Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'r H'mlets	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Cautley, Henry Strother	Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby- (Salop)	Macdona, John Cumming
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ry S. Edm'nds	Majendie, James A. H.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs	Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W. F.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Grenfell, William Henry	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm	Gretton, John	Milvain, Thomas
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc	Groves, James Grimble	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Chapman, Edward	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.
Charrington, Spencer	Guthrie, Walter Murray	Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Midd'x	Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)
Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Collings, Right Hon. Jesse	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Mount, William Arthur
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Heath James (Staffords, N. W.	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Nicholson, William Graham	Robertson, H. (Hackney)	Webb, Colonel William George
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-	Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln	Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne
Percy, Earl	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Pilkington, Colonel Richard	Smith, Abel., H. (Hertford, East	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Pretyman, Ernest George	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Purvis, Robert	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)	Wylie, Alexander
Randles, John S.	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Ratcliff, R. F.	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ
Reid, James (Greenock)	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Remnant, Jams Farquharson	Valentia, Viscount	Mr. Anstruther and Mr.
Renwiek, George	Walker, Col. William Hall	Fellowes.
Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

MR. LOUGH

said he regarded the Amendment which he now proposed to move as of great importance. It dealt with the supplying of school places for all grades of education; and he particularly desired to raise the question of education other than elementary. In Section 16 of the Act of last year it was provided that if the local education authority did not provide a sufficient number of places for elementary education the Board of Education should be empowered to provide them. Therefore, he would not press the matter with regard to elementary education; but it was a matter of the greatest importance as regarded secondary education, as the demands of education were increasing every day. The School Board had had great difficulty in the matter owing to the Cockerton judgment; and the object of his Amendment was to provide machinery for, so to speak, "mandamusing" the local education authority in connection with higher grade education. He believed such a provision was more necessary in London than in any other part of the Kingdom. He did not know whether the whole of his Amendment was necessary or whether better words might not be suggested; but the matter was one of the greatest importance, and he hoped they would obtain satisfaction from the Government in connection with it.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— After the words last inserted, to insert the words, '(11) if at any time after the expiration of one year from the commencement of this Act it is represented to the Board of Education that there is in any district an insufficient amount of school accommodation under public management for any grade of education, and the Board of Education are satisfied after inquiry that such is the case, the Board of Education shall direct the deficiency to be supplied in manner provided by Section sixteen of the principal Act.'"—(Mr. Lough.)

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

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said that the hon. Gentleman must know that he was very fully alive to the needs of London in respect of secondary education, but the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman appeared to him to be impracticable. It was perfectly easy to say whether there was or was not a proper supply of school places for elementary education; but secondary education, unlike elementary education, was not compulsory; and the means of obtaining secondary education were extremely varied. In one particular area a different kind of secondary education might be desired to that in another, and the Board of Education would have to undertake an elaborate course of inspection and inquiry, at the end of which it would probably have no material at its disposal to justify it in putting compulsion on the local authority. The local authority would be better able to know the needs of any particular locality than the Board of Education, and he would ask the hon. Gentleman not to compel the Board of Education to put any such compulsion on the local education authority.

MR. J. H. LEWIS

said when the principal Act was under discussion it was pointed out over and over again that unless something mandatory was done the local authority would not do their duty in regard to secondary education, as their time would be occupied with the details of elementary education. Those prophecies had been borne out by the facts, as practically nothing in the direction of secondary education had been done, and there was no prospect of anything substantial being done for some time to come Secondary education was the crying need of the country; its proper organisation was even more important than that of elementary education, and the Amendment would ensure something, at any rate, being done in the right direction. The hon. Baronet had raised unnecessary difficulties. The Amendment could do no harm, while, on the other hand, it might be the means of promoting one of the most important branches of education which

at present, in consequence of the pressure of other duties, was only too likely to be neglected.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

pointed out that higher education now included, in addition to technical education, such matters as the training of pupil teachers and the provision of evening continuation and higher grade schools. It was, therefore, very desirable that some mandatory provision should be inserted in the Bill.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 65; Noes, 137. (Division List No. 174).

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)	Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.	Shackleton, David James
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)	Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Lambert, George	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Black, Alexander William	Langley, Batty	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall	Soares, Ernest J.
Bryce, Right Hon. James	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Strachey, Sir Edward
Caldwell, James	Levy, Maurice	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Causton, Richard Knight	Lloyd-George, David	Tennant, Harold John
Cawley, Frederick	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)
Cremer, William Randal	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Crooks, William	M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.	Toulmin, George
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Markham, Arthur Basil	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Duncan, J. Hastings	Philipps, John Wynford	White, George (Norfolk)
Edwards, Frank	Pirie, Duncan V.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Elibank, Master of	Priestley, Arthur	Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)
Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)	Rea, Russell	Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)
Fenwick, Charles	Rickett, J. Compton	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Griffith, Ellis J.	Roe, Sir Thomas	Mr. Lough and Mr.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Rose, Charles Day	Herbert Lewis.
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.
Arrol, Sir William	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Fisher, William Hayes
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm	Forster, Henry William
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc	Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy	Chapman, Edward	Fyler, John Arthur
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Charrington, Spencer	Galloway, William Johnson
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Clive, Captain Percy A.	Gordon, Maj. Evans (Tr. Hmlts
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby- (Salop
Halfour, Captain C. B. (Hornsey)	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.)
Bigwood, James	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs
Bill, Charles	Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)	Grenfell, William Henry
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile	Gretton, John
Bond, Edward	Dalkeith, Earl of	Groves, James Grimble
Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Brassey, Albert	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Guthrie, Walter Murray
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Mid'x
Butcher, John George	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ	Faber, George Denison (York)	Hare, Thomas Leigh
Cautley, Henry Strother	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r	Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.)
Hogg, Lindsay	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm	Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George	Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)	Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside
Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Kerr, John	Mount, William Arthur	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Keswick, William	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Knowles, Lees	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jno. M.
Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Valentia, Viscount
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Percy, Earl	Walker, Col. William Hall
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Pilkington, Colonel Richard	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.	Pretyman, Ernest George	Webb, Colonel William George
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)
Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham	Purvis, Robert	Whitely, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.	Randles, John S.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)	Ratcliff, R. F.	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowstoft)	Reid, James (Greenock)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Lucas, Reginald, J. (Portsmouth)	Remnant, James Farquharson	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Macdona, John Cumming	Renwick, George	Wylie, Alexander
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire	Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Majendie, James A. H.	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.	Robertson, H. (Hackney)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford	Mr. Anstruther and Mr.
Milvain, Thomas	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander	Fellowes.

*MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)

said the Amendment he had to propose raised a point of very considerable importance indeed, which had not been raised in the discussions on this Bill and wan only slightly alluded to in the discussions on the principal Act. The point was discussed on the question of powers and duties of the education authorities on the principal Act, but at the request of the Government discussion was deferred to a later stage which was however never reached owing to circumstances over which they on that side of the House had no control. What was the state of affairs he desired to remedy by this Amendment? In many districts throughout the country and in London there were cases in which the managers of denominational schools had transferred their schools to the School Board. They had found out that they did not receive the support they had expected from the denominationalists; consequently the strain was too much for them, and in days gone by they had handed over their schools to the School Board. The circumstances were entirely changed by this Bill and that strain was entirely removed. He wanted to know whether or not these denominations were to be allowed to take these schools back again and turn them into non-provided schools. An important point he desired the House to recollect was this, that all over the country members of the Government and their supporters had said over and over again that although the education policy of the present Government destroyed School Boards not a single Board school would be affected, yet if this Amendment was not accepted many a Board school would be destroyed. The schools which had been transferred in the way he had indicated had been transferred under Section 23 of the Education Act of 1870 which set out the mode in which the transfer could be made. Section 24 of the same Act set out the manner of re-transfer, and by that section, in order that such a re-transfer could be made it required a resolution to be passed by two-thirds of the members of the School Board present at the time; and in the second place it required the consent of the Education Department. Under this Bill the powers of the old School Board were vested in the education authority, and therefore in order that a school might be re-transferred in the way he had indicated it would require in the first place the consent of two-thirds of the members of the education authority present at the time; and in the second place the consent of the Education Department. He thought if these transfers were permitted it would be grossly unfair because the conditions had entirely changed. The expenses for the maintenance of those schools were now borne by the public, and that was a very substantial change indeed. It must also be borne in mind that the teachers of those schools had hitherto been appointed by the public, but if a re-transfer were made they would be appointed by the denomination and subject to all those religious tests which were so much disliked on this side of the House.

This idea of a re-transfer was not by any means a chimerical one. There could be no doubt that the bishop in every diocese would proceed, as soon as he had a little leisure, to look about to see what further schools could be captured for the Church, and he would begin with those schools which had been transferred to the School Board. Although many a parson would be willing to see the status quo continued, unfortunately they would have, sooner or later, to climb down and consent to the demand of the Bishop. The hon. Baronet the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, speaking on this subject on 14th July last year said— Quite apart from the difficulty of the two-thirds majority, which had been referred to, it had to be remembered that heretofore a school, when re-transferred, was tranferred to a body prepared to take over its maintenance, whereas now it would be transferred to a body which would continue to repair the buildings, but would not be responsible for the maintenance. Under these circumstances the position was so very different that he hoped the Government would promise favourably to consider the repeal of Clause 24 when the schedule was reached. On the same day the Prime Minister said:— It was perfectly true that the policy of the Bill was that under certain circumstances new denominational schools might be built not at the expense of the denomination, but that was very different from a case in which a denomination was unwilling or unable to continue the cost of a school, and had transferred it to the local authority under conditions which made a re-transfer impossible unless there was some extraordinary change in local circumstances. It would be a rather strong order to say that there should be a transfer to a denomination when the burden of keeping up the schools had been so largely diminished. His own inclination would be to say that this power of re-transfer—which he thought was rarely if ever used—should not be continued, but that the denominations should be content with the very large powers given to them to erect denominational schools where there seemed to be a real necessity for them. He interpreted these speeches as amounting to a distinct pledge that the schools should not be transferred. He hoped the Government would see their way to redeem that pledge on this opportunity. It might be said that these schools had been leased at a nominal rent. He was willing, if this power of re-transfer was done away with, that a substantial rent should be paid by the local education authority, or that the local education authority should buy the school at a fair price, making a deduction of all those moneys which had been provided by the country. He hoped the hon. Baronet in his reply would not say that this was a matter on which the County Council could be safely trusted because they had the power of veto. Although hon. Members on this side were entirely satisfied with the political composition of the London County Council at present, it was possible that some day that composition might change, just as the composition of the present Government was destined very speedily to change, and under those circumstances it might not be so satisfactory to them. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— After the words last inserted, to insert the words '(11) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section eight of the principal Act no school which was transferred to the School Board for London previous to the passing of this Act shall be so re-transferred under that section and under Section twenty-four of the Elementary Education Act of 1870, as to be treated under this Act or the principal Act as a non-provided school.'"—(Mr. Soares.)

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

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said the Question of re-transfer would now be in the hands of the local authority, and except by resolution of a two-thirds majority proceedings for transfer could not even be initiated. He could not accept the Amendment, but he would look into this question, and if the position of London was found to be exceptional in respect of the number of schools which might be re-transferred, he would see whether it was possible to devise some preferential treatment for London.

DR. MACNAMARA

said he wished to express his own satisfaction with what the Parliamentary Secretary had just said. In regard to London, the case was very singular indeed. No fewer than 354 denominational school departments had found themselves unable since 1870 to continue their work because they had to provide voluntary contributions to maintenances and these voluntary contributions were not forthcoming. Therefore they had asked the School Board to take over these schools and pay a rent for them. Now, the position was that they had no charge whatever for maintenance, and the denominational managers asked that these schools should be given back to them. These 354 schools had an average attendance of 200 children each, so that over 70,000 children had been sent to these common schools where they received undenominational teaching at the instance of the denominations themselves. Now, all of a sudden it was said that the schools should go back to the Church of England. There was the case of the 354 teachers in these schools who had all been appointed by the School Board of London without reference to creed at all. If these schools were re-transformed into Church of England schools, the teachers might be asked by the managers to give henceforth Church of England teaching. But he should say it was obviously unjust to ask these teachers, who might not be members of the Church of England, to give Church of England teaching on pain of dismissal. He hoped that the Government would look into this matter very carefully before the final stage of the Bill, and that something would be done to make these re-transfers very difficult, if not impossible.

MR. BRYCE

said it was clear to his mind that there ought to be no case in which a re-transfer should be allowed; and he could not understand how it was that the hon. Baronet did not accept the Amendment at once. He would not dissuade his hon. friend from accepting the undertaking of the Baronet, for he was certain that that undertaking would be carried out.

MR. SOARES

said, having regard to the undertaking given by the hon. Baronet, he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be read the third time on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 279.]