HC Deb 18 May 1903 vol 122 cc1005-43

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.

Clause 1:—

Aamendment proposed— In page 1, line 6, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'except as to the constitution of the local education authority for the administrative county of London."—(Dr. Macnamara.)

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."


said the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Camberwell could not be regarded as an educational Amendment pure and simple. It was not one which experts and specialists in educational affairs alone were competent to deal with. It was a matter more of municipal government, and an Amendment on which it might be as well to have the consideration and opinions of those who spent their time in municipal affairs and civic work. He had spent seventeen of the best years of his life as a member of a town council, and, in his opinion, it was attempting an impossibility to ask the County Council to take upon its shoulders—to superadd to its already multifarious duties—the work of the education of the Metropolis. He would be the last to depreciate the ability, energy, and zeal of the County Council. He had the fullest appreciation and recognition of the manner in which they had conducted the affairs of this great city, and, in his opinion, if this House were to mould its debates and manage its affairs on the methods of the great municipal corporations of this country, the harvest of its labours would be greatly increased. The hon. Member for Camberwell was not asking the House to take a retrograde step in voting for this Amendment, nor was he asking any Member of the House to stultify himself in supporting it, and if he thought for one moment that there was any inconsistency in it he should be the last to support it. There was no analogy whatever between the London County Council and the other County Councils in the country. They were not upon the same plane, and what might be appropriate and seemly for one might easily be inappropriate and unseemly for the other. The Bill was seeking to create an educational machine for London, and yet at the outset, in its initial stages, almost before they were dealing with the main phases of the Bill, they were clogging the wheels of the machine by imposing upon the County Council—an already overburdened body—work which they could not possibly do.

The House could not have appreciated the size and importance of the work now done by the School Board. It had to supervise the work of, 5,360 schools. It had to deal with the appointment and dismissal of 13,519 teachers. It had ten special schools for the blind, eighteen for the deaf, sixteen for the mentally defective, four for the physically defective, two industrial, three day industrial, three truant schools, and twelve assistant teacher centres. If the House considered the colossal array of duties to be performed in connection with that work, it would become evident at the outset that any Committee of the London County Council could not for a moment deal with this complex and mainfold work. There was one great central office on the Embankment, and eleven sub-district offices. There was a staff 560, visitors and superintendent visitors 460, school keepers 464; correspondent, artisans, etc., 250. This was the work of the London School Board, and this was the first work which any Committee of the London County Council would have to take over. They might as well put upon a Committee of the London County Council the management of the six new Army Corps which had been hatched by the present Secretary of State for War. They were asking the London County Council to achieve an impossibility. If a man had as many sets of brains or centres of mental and physical activity as a camel is said to have stomachs, it might be possible to achieve this, but until men were so constituted it would be nonsense to attempt it. One of two results were bound to ensue—either the municipal work of the Council would be neglected, or the educational work of the Council would be neglected. It was absolutely impossible for a man to give his attention to both sets of duties. Every authoritative opinion on record was against it. Lord Salisbury and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and other persons of eminence, were all agreed that the County Council had now too much to do; that it could not now carry out its present duties, and therefore it was perfectly ludicrous to impose these new duties upon it.

The scheme of dual representation was ludicrous and farcical. Take the case of the metropolitan borough of Battersea, for instance. Battersea sent a man to the London County Council who rejoiced in the name of Burns. Mr. Burns might be elected to serve upon this Education Committee. The borough of Battersea might, in addition, send a direct representative to the Educational Committee, and these two representatives of Battersea might be absolutely opposed in their opinions, and bicker, and quarrel, and vote against each other on every conceivable opportunity, which would entirely nullify the representation of the borough. The practical solution of this matter was to create the special authority suggested by the hon. Member for Camberwell. The hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill had asked why an ad hoc authority should be more popular in its character than this proposed Committee. No one had argued that it was, all they said was that a body such as was suggested by his hon. friend would devote all its time, zeal, and power to this gigantic task of managing the educational work of London. Education was a matter of such great importance to the County of London that it could not possibly be left to men who were elected for other purposes, who would only devote the dregs of their time to it. He urged upon the Committee that from a municipal standpoint they were attempting to set up an Education Committee which could not perform its duties because the members of it would be physically incapable of carrying on all the multifarious and momentous duties for which they were elected.

MR HARRY SAMUEL (Tower Hamlets, Limehouse)

said the change of attitude on the part of the hon. Gentlemen opposite was extremely peculiar. It was not so many months ago since they had fought and died in the last ditch, as it were, in trying to give the whole control of Water London to the London County Council. It was true that was municipal work, but that did not touch his argument that if they were overworked they had no right to have the whole of the business of Water London in their hands. The analogy of the Borough of Battersea returning one member to the County Council and another member of opposite opinions directly to the Educational Committee had its counterpart in this House. Nothing was so common as a double-barrelled constituency which returned one Member to the Unionists and another to the Liberal side of the House. There was nothing strange in it with regard to the advisability or inadvisability of having an ad hoc authority; in his opinion they had arrived at a deadlock. They had the London School Board entering into the most wasteful competition with other bodies. They competed first of all with the voluntary schools, inasmuch as Board Schools were being dumped down all over the place every month in the year. The ad hoc authority was in competition with the London County Council technical schools and the polytechnic schools, and also with what might be called the monotechnic schools established by the City Guilds. The establishment of a central authority for London was to do away with the overlapping and the extravagant waste of money that was the root of the Government Bill. The argument of the hon. Member for Camberwell in support of his Amendment was that the County Council and the Borough Councils would be in conflict, and the result would be that education would be handed over to the expert, which said the hon. Member, God forbid. That argument was the very strongest argument that could be used against his Amendment, because the ad hoc authority meant the election of experts upon a particular subject; and to hand over education to such a body as the hon. Member proposed, would be to hand it over to experts, a thing which he did not wish to see. So far as he could see, the results obtained by the School Boards were not such that they should ask the House to continue the ad hoc authority. The great difficulty in the way of education was the slack attendance and the early age at which the children left school, and that certainly was not an argument in favour of the continuance of the ad hoc principle, which had obtained only an attendance of 80 per cent. He was deeply impressed with the necessity of such a scheme as the Government had suggested.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston)

said he had always regarded with pride the results obtained under the system of education now to be swept away. The results of that system were remarkably encouraging, and although some thought money had been spent somewhat too lavishly and unwisely, it was in connection with the education of the children, and if there was one thing which had caused any check to our trade it was that we had not spent enough on education or that we had not spent it in a proper way. He regarded the Government's scheme with great apprehension. He thought it was likely to be disastrous to this great city as regarded education. His joy at having a body which would have under its control education in all its grades, was shattered when he thought of the absolute inefficiency of the body that it was proposed to set up. He could not conceive a body more incapable than the body suggested by the Government. The proposal to add selected members to the body was an admission that the body itself was inefficient. These members would not be directly responsible to any constituency, and he believed no man should be placed in a position to spend public money unless he was directly responsible to the people who provided the money. He did not like co-option or selection, on these bodies because it gave to all engaged in a position of public trust less of that great sense of responsibility and interest which was the great element of public work. He was afraid that the scheme proposed by the Government would not produce the most efficient body for carrying on education in the Metropolis. In the old days, before the Act of 1870 was passed, he remembered that Mr. John Bright said that what was wanted was a school in every parish and district managed directly by people chosen by the parents of the children, and in such a way that while they provided the money they would have the full control of the schools. Well, this scheme would not give them that. The recent Act, which had been applied to the whole of England, had destroyed that ideal for a long time at least. The proposal of the hon. Member for Camberwell made some approach to the ideal, for it suggested that there should be a really popular and efficient body directly elected by, and responsible to, the ratepayers of the whole area; that was having the vivifying virtue of direct responsibility to the people who found the money. That was a prime and necessary element in the constitution of any good and efficient body for the administration and control of popular education. Then, that body would be practically efficient because it would have no other work to do except that for which it was directly elected. By dividing itself into Committees and calling in to its assistance managers, the scheme of education could be worked efficiently in every respect.

Under the scheme of the Government they should not have a body directly elected to discharge this enormous responsibility of the education of the whole of London, but a body which had associated with it two other elements more or less heterogeneous in character. The tendency would be for the work to fall more and more on those members of the body who were selected, and less and less on those who were elected. The consequence would be that the non-elected and non-responsible members would have a larger share than they ought to have of the work. Another reason why he disliked the Government system was, that in an overburdened body like the London County Council, with a small infusion from the outside, the work would be thrown to a large extent on the irresponsible officials. In every body in this kingdom, where the private time of the Members was encroached upon by the increased responsibilities thrown upon them, the tendency was to shift more and more of the work on the paid officials, and the consequence was that they had administration by paid officials instead of the good old wholesome system of administration by elected representatives. The tendency of that was to introduce a narrow uniformity which ought not to mark any good scheme of education. He believed that that danger would be obviated by the scheme of the hon. Member for Camberwell. What surprised him more than anything else, was that this enormous responsibility for the education of this wide area of the Metropolis was to be given to the London County Council, even with the addition suggested to the Education Committee. If he mistook not, this Government had shown more than once a desire to limit the functions of the municipalities. It had refused to London the power of looking after its water supply. Surely a body who could not be trusted with the water supply was not a body to which to entrust the duty of the education of the childien—a duty much more sacred and which called for a much greater expenditure of individual labour. In addition to that, the tendency of His Majesty's Government had been, by the appointment of Committees and by remarks made from time to time in the House, to try and check municipal trading on the ground that municipalities were not to be trusted with the expenditure of their own ratepayers' money in connection with tramways, electric lighting, water supply, and other developments of modern municipal life. But these things were a mere trifle compared with the terrible burden and sacred duty which it was now proposed to place on the shoulders of the London County Council in connection with the education of the children. The scheme of the Government would be found to be inefficient, it would lead to the diminution in the excellence of the education of the children; it was bound to produce bad administration, and consequently to bring about public discontent.

MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)

said he thought that a primâ facie case for the Motion of the hon. Member for Camberwell had been proved. The hon. Gentleman's figures, at all events, could not be controverted. In fact, he believed that neither the House nor London itself realised the largeness of the task which had been undertaken. Here were 1,000,000 children to be educated in a locality forty miles in circumference; an army of educated teachers, 20,000 strong; the revenue of a State—£100,000, to be raised and expended every week; the daily toil of mind and body upon the superintending authority, to say nothing of the executive duty which must be committed to the much larger body of managers than could be compassed within the supreme assemblage—if they considered for a moment all these facts there was, as he had said, a good primâ facie case made out for the Motion of the hon. Member for Camberwell. The Parliamentary Secretary had answered this case first by saying that the ad hoc principle had been discussed and, to a certain extent, decided at the Second Reading. No doubt it was discussed at great length on the Second Reading. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education also said that ad hoc assemblies were always extravagant; and, judging from the past, in London they might be admitted to be so. Another objection to an ad hoc body made by the Parliamentary Secretary was the multiplicity of elections. That, no doubt, was a strong objection; but the question was, whether these and other objections urged at the Second Reading were sufficiently valid to overcome the arguments put forward in favour of a directly-appointed body of men by the ratepayers to whom the body ought to be responsible? He was not afraid of the ad hoc principle at all; he was not afraid of the extravagance because he believed the remedies would be equal to the disease. Another objection, or rather what he might call a mitigation of judgment in regard to the ad hoc principle advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary, was that we had in London already municipal machinery on the very large scale adapted to the municipalisation of almost everything. He thought that there was very great weight in that, although it was also true that the water supply had been committed to the hands of a separate Board. It seemed to be admitted on all hands that education formed a fair subject for municipalisation. He did not quite like the range of the thing himself, still he did not see any reason why, if municipal bodies could be entrusted with the sanitary part of domestic life, they should not be entrusted with the education of the young mind. Therefore, he accepted the principle. The Borough Councils and the London County Council furnished machinery capable of carrying out the educational duties of the Metropolis in a very admirable manner.

When the Bill was first brought in there were some men of sound judgment who did not relish at all the idea of committing the care of the education of 1,000,000 children to an overworked body like the London County Council. The Government themselves had admitted, when the Water Bill was being discussed, and on a subsequent occasion, that the London County Council was an overworked body with ever increasing duties. He could not help feeling the force of the observation of the hon. Member for Camberwell that forty two Members were to be taken—because it was always the willing horses that were drawn upon—from the body which could not reach the accomplishment of the work already on their hands. He and his constituents consoled themselves, when they saw from the Bill that the London County Council would be the education authority, with the fact that that was a very dignified body and was entitled to every respect for the admittedly good work which it had done in many directions. Therefore, he willingly bowed to the adoption of the London County Council as the education authority, because the other parts of the machinery, which he considered to be ten times more important, and which reached from end to end of the constituencies of London, were to be committed to the Borough Councils, who were in daily touch with the children, who knew them, and the places where they lived. He had had upwards of fifty years acquaintance with the City and all its doings, but he could not claim to thoroughly know London. But here they had twenty-nine bodies, composed of members who came from the uttermost parts of this great city, that would form a force large enough to deal with the education problems and would give the assistance which the London County Council, as the supervising body, would need. If there was one thing in arranging this great measure for London which ought to be kept supreme in all minds, it was that whoever composed the superintending council, the executive council, or the managing councils, they should be men not only of ability, but who had the time to afford to see that this business was done properly. A mess might be easily made, and they should beware lest in attempting to grapple with some minor points, they made a bad piece of machinery.

He thought that the Borough Councils should have a large share in the executive work, but why should they have lost that link which the Bill as brought in gave them—only one voice to represent 200,000 ratepayers in the counsels of the supreme body when their affairs were being discussed? He passed over the fact that the Government proposed to increase the number of the superintending authority on the Committee from thirty-six to forty two. He gave way to that, because he had strong confidence that whether the London County Council were in a majority or in a minority on the supervising body, their action would be the same. They would be, as it were, the referendum body for the education authority, and at all events all the proceedings would be carried on in the light of day, subject to the public opinion and a certain amount of corrective action from this great Metropolis. But when he found on the Paper an Amendment that this small shred of what was called the representation of the boroughs on the Education Committee, was reduced from one solitary individual to a third of an individual, he failed to see how there could be representation in any reasonable sense. How could the third of a man represent most conflicting districts with conflicting views? He did not know whether the man who was to represent Wandsworth and Battersea, and the former included the Parliamentary Division of Clapham, was to represent Wandsworth with his head, and Battersea with his legs! How was he to report to the superintending body the opinion of the two Councils without possibly being a member of either, and how could he take back the views of the superintending body to the Councils? The great American impresario, Barnum, once quarrelled with his partner as to their property in an elephant, and Barnum solved the difficulty by loading a rifle and declaring that he was going to shoot his half of the elephant. That was a symbol of what might happen in the proposed amended representation of the grouped boroughs! Could anything be more grotesque than to attach the name of representation at all to such a thing—to allow to the third or to the half of a man the representation of a constituency of 250,000 inhabitants. And yet that was to be the fink between the supreme body and the executive management. He agreed with his constituents that rather than submit to such an affront they would prefer to have no representation. He told the Government distinctly that if this was to be the representation as between Borough and County Councils they had better leave it out. They would drive the constituencies of London back to the ad hoc principle. Unless the executive power of the Borough Councils was strengthened there would be dissatisfaction and revolt in the constituencies.

MR. CROOKS (Woolwich)

would not say the County Council could not do the work; they would do it, and perhaps efficiently, but perhaps also at the expense of some other very important work. The work of education was sufficient for any body of men, and the industrial classes claimed that if an authority was to be constituted for the purpose they should have a voice in the constitution. This Government seemed to have delegation on the brain. Anything that wanted doing was to be handed over to somebody else. But if there was one thing more that another that hon. Members opposite were given to boast about it was that they refused to be delegates, but were willing to be sent there as representatives of the people. If they believed in that principle, why not give London an education authority to which the people might send their representatives and not have someone co-opted here and there? The people of London were perfectly satisfied that the School Board for London was going on very safe lines. The outside public were beginning to look with suspicion upon this new-fangled notion of delegating work to other people. The people looked upon this system of delegation with suspicion, because they knew that if they wanted to get "equal opportunity" for all the children this was not the way to get it. People were frequently told that they should be content with the positions in life to which the Lord had called them, but he did not believe in that. His belief was that any position belonged to the workman and his family that God had given them capacity to fill. He would not secure fair opportunities through an authority over which he had no control. The hon. Member opposite had spoken about the borough councillors knowing every part of their own locality. Surely it was not unreasonable to suppose that if they adopted the Amendment of the Member for North Camberwell the constituency would select someone who knew the needs of that particular district. There were many people on the Borough Councils who were actually teachers. Were they going to turn them off? Were such councillors to take part in fixing the wage of the teachers? Hon. Members knew that they would not tolerate such a state of things. There would be a delightful mix-up as to who was to come in to make up this new authority. Woolwich would not get even a third of a representative in spite of the fact that it polled the largest number of votes of any constituency in the Metropolis. They were arguing in favour of a continuity of authority, but Woolwich was only going to have a quarter of a representative. How were Deptford, Greenwich, Lewisham and Woolwich going to select their representative? Would they have to go round the corner and toss for it? How were they going to settle it? They wanted a directly elected authority. He wished parents to realise that the greatness of this country lay mainly with the workpeople, who must get the best education possible. To secure this they must get a grip of the authority who were going to do the work, and so create the sense of responsibility. He appealed to the Government to give them the best possible education for London by providing an authority which would win the confidence of the vast majority of the people of London. This could only be done by establishing an authority directly created by the people themselves.

MR. MIDDLEMORE (Birmingham, N.)

said it was time for those sitting on the Ministerial side of the House who were dissatisfied with the proposals of the Government respecting the creation of the new education authority definitely to declare their opinions. He had abstained from voting against the Second Reading of the Bill, like other supporters of the Government, in the hope that a radical modification would be made in the proposal with respect to the new education authority when it was reached in Committee. The original proposal had been withdrawn. He had had no very great objection to it, because it was so grotesque that it could not possibly have been administered. Under the new proposal of the Government they were asked to double the work of the County Council, and they were asked to sanction the appointment of forty-two of its members to attend to the new educational duties of the County Council. In his opinion, the County Council, with all the duties that at present fell to their lot, could not discharge this impossible task. If that were so they were creating an authority which would not be able to control its own Committee, and it would not be able to exercise any control over the Borough Councils at all. The Government proposed to give to this so-called authority a bare majority on its executive committee. There were to be twelve representatives of the Borough Councils, and they were going to confer upon them the most vital of all the educational duties, namely, the appointment and dismissal of teachers and the selection of sites. Did they call that an authority? They would be but a phantom authority; or, rather, they would be simply the paymasters. They would have no more authority than the Paymaster General of the Forces had of the real control of the Army.




said it was not rubbish. It was what he honestly believed; and what he had the courage to say. (Opposition Cheers and Cries of "Withdraw.") The right hon. Gentleman was very fond of interrupting. He was nothing if not technical. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to grope his way along the technicalities and husks of life like a snail without his horns. The right hon. Gentleman invariably spoke as if he were one of the deities—as if he were omniscient; but he was only a poor ignorant child of time to whom it was enough to do to follow his own nose. The description he had given of the relations between the County Council and the Education Committee was substantiated by experience. The great provincial municipalities were able to exercise but little control over the committees which spent their money. Take the gas committee. Upon a gas committee it was necessary to attend its meetings with the most unbroken vigilance, and if a Member was absent from a single meeting he often found considerable difficulty in picking up what he had lost. But the safeguard of the municipality was that they appointed the whole of the committee; and, having appointed it, they trusted it. If that were true of the new education authority he should have very little objection to it. The Government had begun entirely at the wrong end. They started with the management committee, went on to the Borough Councils, and then on to the County Council. The Government ought to have begun, in his opinion, at the other end, and made the County Council the real and genuine authority, the fount of authority. Let that authority depute and depute, delegate and delegate, until at last they got down to the management committee. There would then be solidarity and conformity; and the best opinion of the country was in favour of that, as well as the common sense of every business man. He did not know how they could fix responsibility on these various authorities. The County Council would not be the authority—it would be nothing better than the paymaster; the Education Committee would not be responsible—they were not in touch with the boroughs; and certainly the boroughs would not be responsible for London as a whole. He thought the authority was badly constructed, that it began at the wrong end, and that it would be wasteful, heterogeneous, and ineffective.

MR. YOXALL (Nottinghamshire, W.)

said he thought the Committee would now be able to understand why the Government was reluctant to postpone the discussion of Clause 1, for directly they got to close quarters with Clause 2 it became patent to the Committee that this was an impossible Bill. Upon its first introduction it was condemned, on the Second Reading it was thrown overboard by its own friends, and since then the hon. Baronet and the President of the Local Government Board had been engaged with the London Unionist Members in botching and tinkering it day by day; and at last they had produced a set of proposals which satisfied nobody, and which were repudiated and condemned by all people outside who knew anything of the education question, as well as by sections of the Government's own friends—by those who were in favour of the London County Council being the authority as well as by those who favoured the Borough Councils being the authority. He ventured most respectfully to commiserate the hon. Baronet and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board who sat blushing beside him, on the searching fire of criticism to which they had been subjected by the hon. Member for Wandsworth and on their exposure to the double-shotted guns of the hon. Member for North Birmingham, two of their own friends—one of whom spoke from long experience of London municipal life, in which he was thoroughly versed, and the other of whom possessed equal experience in the municipal life of a great provincial city which had been held up as a model municipality—he meant the city of Birmingham. All seemed to be agreed that this was an impossible Bill, which would not work. Had the Government approached the question with a desire to introduce a satisfactory educational measure they would never have brought in a Bill of that nature. Had they set aside their political predilections and objections to existing authorities all that botching and tinkering might have been avoided, and they would have had a Bill setting up a specially elected authority.

He was in favour of the municipal principle in dealing with education; but when he was asked to apply it to the Metropolis, with its 20,000 teachers and 1,000,000 scholars, with the revenue of a principality or a small kingdom—when he was asked to entrust that enormous task to forty-two members of the London County Council, already overburdened with work, and to add to them twelve members from the Borough Councils selected by a process which carried absurdity to the point of perfect bathos and ridicule, he felt it to be impossible in the case of London—and he prophesied that sooner or later the Government would be compelled to fall back on the ad hoc principle. In his opinion a specially elected authority for that purpose, and for no other purpose, was the only possible authority to do the work. Why had not the Government adopted that idea, which afforded the only practical solution of the difficulty? Simply because they were opposed to the idea of a School Board, or of a specially elected authority. They were opposed to the London County Council as the sole supreme and undivided authority; they did not like either the London County Council or the School Board. But this was not a matter to be played on by political prejudices or ancient hatreds, by a dislike of their own child in the case of the London County Council, or of the School Board which was the child of Liberal parents. He would remind the House that in 1870 the Liberal Government tried to introduce for London the principle of devolving education upon the then existing vestries, but as the debates went on it became obvious that the only way to deal with London education was by an authority specially elected for the purpose. And that conclusion was arrived at, not after a debate which had been rushed or stifled, but after leisurely, careful and full discussions. He believed that if the Government would give equal opportunity for full debate on the present occasion the Committee would be irresistibly forced to a like conclusion. He had listened with great interest to the able speech of the hon. and learned Member for Wandsworth, who had told them that rather than have the preposterous proposal of borough councillors elected by thirds and halves he would prefer the ad hoc proposal. He believed many of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues coincided with that view. It was clear that this Bill was a huge mistake, and although it had been botched and tinkered, revised and re-revised, it would never satisfy the House, and although it might be carried by force it must eventually result in failure.

SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)

said that the question whether education should be entrusted to a specially elected authority, or to the ordinary municipal authority which represented the people, was discussed at great length last year. On several occasions he gave his reasons for preferring the municipal authority to the specially elected body—not because he had any strong prejudices against School Boards or directly elected authorities, but because he thought that they would never have proper local self-government until there was one body alone able to rate the people, and be responsible to the people for the local finances and general expenditure. His reasons at that time were not educational, but local government reasons. He had intended to sit silent through the debate, but the peculiar circumstances of London would, however, perhaps justify him in explaining how the matter struck him. Those who were endeavouring to municipalise the management of education were that night at a great disadvantage; because on the one hand they had the usual proposal for a specially elected body, and on the other hand they had not a clear proposal for a definite and absolute municipal control. If he voted, as he intended, against this Amendment, he must not be understood as voting in favour of any sham supreme municipal body. He was going to vote for a real municipal body in London as elsewhere; and when the Committee came to the further clauses of the Bill, he could promise the House that he would do everything in his power to make the control of the County Council over the education of London absolutely real, and secure that the Council should have all the powers and the opportunities of carrying out the great work placed upon it in the same degree as the municipalities of other places. Against such a municipalisation of education as he had described, there was only one special argument. It was the difficulty, or, as some thought, the impossibility of the existing County Council being adequate for that work. But he thought that the best judge of that question was the County Council itself; and if it were to come to the opinion that its present numbers were insufficient for the task which Parliament was placing upon it, he thought that a good deal of attention would have to be paid to it. But the cure was very simple. The Prime Minister himself pointed it out—to increase the numbers of the County Council so as to make it adequate to do the work. He had intimated clearly that if it were shown that the London County Council was insufficiently strong to perform the duty which Parliament placed on it, he would have no difficulty whatever in bringing in a Bill — or making provision for such an increase of its numbers as would make it adequate for the task. He held, therefore, that those who were supporting the Government in resisting that Motion were perfectly consistent; they were merely carrying on a stage further the municipalisation of education which they embodied in the legislation of last year. The arguments brought forward by the hon. Member for Camberwell were sound, no doubt, but they could easily be got over by the simple expedient of increasing the numbers of the London County Council so as to make it adequate for the work.

MR. MCKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)

noted with regret the absence of the Prime Minister in view of the importance of the subject and the powerful arguments on both sides of the House which had been adduced in favour of the principle for which they were contending. He sympathised with the work which the Prime Minister had to do, and particularly his special labour now in discussing the Corn Tax with the Colonial Secretary, but if the right hon. Gentleman had been present he thought that he would have been able to give the Committee some assurance that the Amendment of his hon. friend, if not accepted now, would lead hereafter to some Amendment being proposed to adapt it to a real municipalisation. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that there was no argument in favour of the ad hoc principle that could not be used with equal strength in favour of the County Council, provided that that body was made large and powerful enough to carry out its added duties. As London now stood, if they did not have an ad hoc authority, but if they had the Bill as it stood, the House would be stultifying itself, having regard to the principle laid down in the Act of 1902. That principle was that they should have one single authority for the control of education. That was exactly what this Bill did not give them. It was an affront to their common sense to talk of the County Council as a single authority under the Bill. It would merely delegate to the Borough Councils certain powers which it did not exercise itself. It would have no more authority than the Borough Councils; it would have a different authority, and such authority as the Borough Councils would enjoy would not be a delegated authority, it would be an authority entirely independent of the County Council. The hon. Member for Limehouse was the only Member who had spoken against the Amendment, and he had but two objections to urge. In the first place, he desired that one authority should have control of every grade of education, and it was exactly what would happen if the Amendment were carried. The second was that the municipality should take the child from the elementary school right up to the highest school. That also was provided for by the Amendment, as an ad hoc authority would be a single authority for all grades of education, and the child would remain under that authority until his education was completed. After the speeches made from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, he thought they were entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education for some better reasons for his opposition to the Amendment—something different from those advanced last year on a Bill which did not deal with London. It was not sufficient to give them a mere perfunctory answer as the hon. Baronet had done; they might easily retort on him that there was no principle put forward by his Government which might not be altered, withdrawn, or reserved if public pressure was brought to bear upon it. He believed that on Saturday next public opinion on this Bill would be amply demonstrated in Hyde Park, and that the Government would soon be brought to realise that public opinion was against them on this Bill.

Mr. CRIPPS (Lancashire, Stretford)

held that the two questions of the ad hoc authority and the position of the County Council must be kept absolutely distinct. With regard to the ad hoc authority, the arguments were just the same in the case of London as in the case of other large areas; they rested on the concentration of local duties, both as a matter of responsibility and as a matter of rating. For any economical administration of local duties the responsibilities must be so concentrated that those who elected the local authority might know what the responsibilities were and have an interest in them. The only suggested difference between London and the other great municipalities was that the London County Council was over-burdened with work. He did not believe it was overburdened in the sense of being unable to undertake these educational duties. No doubt it had a large number of functions, which it performed in an admirable fashion. Politically he did not agree with the County Council, but he thought that everybody in London was indebted to that body for the manner in which it carried out its local duties and responsibilities. But as to the constitution of the new authority he was entirely out of accordance with the proposals of the Government. As a question either of rating or of local government it was impossible to justify the proposals of the Bill, even as amended. There could be no justification for not imposing the same trust and responsibility, and giving the same facilities in London as in other parts of the country. It was no good making the County Council the authority unless it were made the real authority, with power and responsibility for carrying out its duties, so that the ratepayers might know where the responsibility really rested. It was impossible for the local authority to have that responsibility unless it had the control of the Education Committee. In other parts of the country the education committees consisted of a majority of county councillors. That had been put right in the amended proposals of the Government. But in addition to that, other members of these Committees had a delegated authority from the County Councils, and he desired to know why in London there should be an Education Committee composed of persons who were not county councillors, and who had not a delegated authority from the County Council? No one wanted to say a word against the dignity and efficiency of the borough councillors; but they did not attack their dignity and efficiency by not giving them duties which were not properly theirs; and he said, without fear of contradiction, that if the County Council was to be the local authority for London it ought to have full power of delegating to the Education Committee in the same way that the County Councils in the rest of the country had full power. Unless this were done, both as regards rating and education, they might expect failure from this Act.

As a London ratepayer he dissented from the idea that his money was to be spent except under the jurisdiction and power of the County Council. No other authority had any right to dispose of the county rate in London, and it was a matter of bad principle to give the real authority for spending rates not to the authority responsible for raising them, but to a body which was not responsible to the ratepayers for them. As to local government, why should they have a local authority, and yet not give it power to appoint the committee by which the duties were to be carried out? What reason was there for introducing in the case of London—admittedly a most difficult problem—a principle which had not been introduced in any other case, and which was directly antagonistic to the true principles of local government? From the educational point of view—and in a Bill of this kind their chief thought should be of education—they in London, the centre of the Empire, ought to know where the true responsibility rested in the matter. But if this Bill were passed as it stood, where would the responsibility for carrying out the duties imposed on the County Council really lie? Were they trying to fix that responsibility when they elected a County Council, as they ought to? They would not do so unless they made the responsibility of the county councillors a reality, not only by giving them nominal powers, but by making them supreme on the Education Committee by which those powers were carried out. On the question of management, again, he protested most strongly against independent bodies being treated as managers who were not directly responsible to the ratepayers at all. He would not speak so strongly were it not that he felt very deeply on this question; and he would ask why should every principle of rating and local government and real responsibility in education be upset in our great Imperial metropolis? This was not a London question only; it was a great Imperial question. Matters of this kind were not to be settled by patching up compromises between various interests; it was far too big a matter altogether. And, though he would certainly oppose anything like an ad hoc authority, he did earnestly hope that before they came to Clause 2 the Government would make up their minds that London was not to be dealt with in this opportunist manner, but that principle was to be adhered to on these great questions, and that they could not assent to an Education Bill for London on any other basis.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

said this had been a very remarkable debate. The Government Bill since half-past seven had been riddled by the fire of their supporters—by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, the hon. Member for Birmingham, the late Vice-President of the Council, and, lastly by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was usually one of the most faithful advocates of the Ministry, but who had now declared with unwonted warmth that the proposals of the Bill as regarded the County Council could not be justified either in their original or their amended form. Yet the Government had given no reply whatever. How was it they had drifted into this position? Last year the principle of municipalisation and of throwing all power on to one authority was defended on grounds confessedly inapplicable to London. But this year all the Secretary to the Board of Education had to say was that they must do this for London because they did it last year for other places, on grounds which did not apply to London. There was no similarity between the case of London and that of cities like Manchester or Liverpool, which had no more than one-seventh of the population of the Metropolis. Surely the difference of facts made it impossible to argue that this question was settled last year, and made it necessary for the Government to deal with it as a new question in the interests of London, considered as an entirely separate kind of place. He did not deny the advantages of having one authority; and to secure complete unity of administration one might be willing to sacrifice a great deal. But the present Bill would not secure unity of administration; on the contrary, it would introduce the most complicated, confused, chaotic, and unworkable system which had ever, he thought, been proposed to a legislative assembly. Sites were to be selected by one body, and another body was to pay for them and build the schools. One body was to pay the teachers and another body was to appoint them. Then the provided and non-provided schools were to be on totally different systems and principles.

With regard to the practical problem before the Committee, viz., to constitute an authority capable of doing the work, he said that if the Government would propose an increase in the number of the County Council so as to enable it to deal with its new educational work, that arrangement would largely meet the objections felt by most Members on that side of the House. If one member, or two members, were added to each County Council division, such members to be elected with a view to educational needs, the County Council would be given a strength and power to deal with this mass of work which it did not, and could not at present possess. If, however, the Government did not care to do that, let them constitute an ad hoc body. He had no strong preference for such a body as opposed to a body which united all functions, subject to one consideration which he would mention later. The one thing to secure was a body with the time, knowledge, and competence for the work, and the Bill would be an unsatisfactory measure, which the opinion of London would condemn, if it threw upon the authority work it was unable to discharge. There was one point which an increase in the membership of the County Council would not meet, and that was the necessity, referred to by the hon. Member for Woolwich, of giving the people a grip of the schools. If at a County Council election the policy of education was to be mixed up with all the other questions of policy which now came before the electors, how was the question of education to be considered by the people, and praise or blame, as the case might be, allotted? That impulse for educational progress which ought to be given by the people at an election would be lost, and that, to his mind, and not any mere democratic theory was the argument which recommended a body specially elected to deal with education. He believed that would be the best of all possible solutions; but if they were not to have that, let them have the County Council. The Bill could not work as it stood. Let the Committee either retain the body which had done good work already, or let them strengthen the County Council. The Committee were not merely rendering an honourable funeral to the School Board; they were discussing a question which would occupy London for some time to come. The Bill could not be a permanent solution of the problem; the needs of the case would force any Government to provide an authority capable of giving London a proper system of education. He therefore felt anxious that they should make it clear to the Government that the Bill must be taken back, and, much as it had been tinkered with already, still further altered before it could pass through the discussion in Committee.


said that, having regard to the fact that this was perhaps the most important Amendment that would be moved in the course of the proceedings in Committee, it was not unreasonable that the Government should have abstained from taking part in the debate until the usual hour for winding up such discussions. He therefore felt that the right hon. Gentleman's complaint on that score was unfounded. The right hon. Gentleman had congratulated himself and his Party on the fact that from the Government side of the House there had come speeches which were very qualified in their support of the Government proposals. The right hon. Gentleman, although he confessed very few who had listened to him realized the fact, was supposed to be advocating the proposal of the hon. Member for North Camberwell; but anybody who had listened to the debate would be driven to the conclusion that, though many people were found to criticise the proposals of the Government, very few were found to support the proposal of the hon. Member for North Camberwell. Something had been heard about the pourparlers which were supposed to have taken place between the different sections on the Government side. It was not only on the Government side that there had been pourparlers. If they were to embark in what he regarded as somewhat fruitless discussion, it would be interesting to know why the London County Council had suddenly arrived at the conclusion the Committee was told they had arrived at, that this work was too heavy for them to undertake. Many members of the London County Council, both Moderate and Progressives had come to him singly, or in twos or threes, and assured him that there was no foundation for the statement that the Council could not fully discharge these duties. It was argued that, owing to the constitution of the Council, a great many more members had to be put on Committees than were required. Members of the Council had said to him, "Add to our duties and we will reduce our committees, and we shall hear this burden with the utmost ease."

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

Who said that?


said that that statement was frequently made to him. [HON. MEMBERS: Name.] He did not think he was called upon to mention names; but he was not in any way misleading the Committee. He was dealing, as the hon. Member for North Camberwell would realise, with negotiations which ran over a very considerable period of time. He had seen many members of the County Council, and he did not think he could say who the members were who said to him "Reduce our Committees and we will be able to do this work." All he could say was, up to a very recent period no member of the Council had said to him "We cannot take the work of education upon us." The one fear of every London county councillor was that the Government were going to set up what was called a Water Board, and the prevailing opinion was that that would be very bad for London government. But was it not idle to discuss the question? During the discussions on the Water Bill, the Government were attacked for setting up an authority other than the County Council. Why should the County Council spend hundreds and thousands of pounds in promoting Bills in this House to have the sole control of London water if they were overworked? If the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. Member for Camberwell said that the London County Council were so overworked that they could not possibly manage London education without neglecting some portion of the work, then they must be forced to the conclusion that the London County Council had wasted the ratepayers' money when they brought into that House Bill after Bill asking to have the entire control of London water, to say nothing of their requests to control the police, Thames steamboats, and so forth. He thought he was not misrepresenting the argument of the hon. Member for North Camberwell when he said that he had stated on many occasions, and again that night, that the London County Council was so overburdened with work that it was impossible for them to undertake the work of education.


Why not increase their numbers?


said that the London County Council had never asked Parliament for an increase of numbers, although they had asked for the complete control of the water supply and other matters. It was said that the water supply was an easy matter, and that the London County Council could manage it, and also manage the police. But when it was proposed to ask, not the Council as a whole, but a Committee, to deal with the administrative and detailed work of education, then it was said that they were so overworked that they could not undertake that duty. At any rate, the hon. Member for North Camberwell was consistent. He had never departed from his view that there ought to be an ad hoc authority. The right hon. Gentleman and others stated that the only answer of his hon. friend the Secretary of the Board of Education in reply to arguments which had been brought forward, was the Act of last year. But his hon. friend not only said that it would be inconsistent with the Act of last year, he also stated—and he himself did not wonder that his hon. friend did so, having regard to the laborious part he took in the discussion of last year's Bill—that the question of an ad hoc authority had been discussed ad nauseam last year, and that he did not propose to revive the arguments against it. His hon. friend went further, and said that the main argument of the hon. Member for North Camberwell viz., the overburdening of the County Council, had been disproved by the County Council themselves, who had never advanced that argument.


said that the Council stated that they could not undertake this work.


said that was another matter altogether. The attitude of the Loudon County Council was very much that of hon. Gentlemen opposite—that was to say, they declared that the work was too burdensome, not because they had too much to do, for they kept on asking for more work, but because they preferred, for reasons that were obvious, that there should be an ad hoc authority. If the London County Council asked to be allowed to control the whole of London's water, how could they represent that they were overburdened with work when this educational proposal was brought forward, as to which there would be a distribution of the labour between the central and the local authorities? It was a dilemma from which hon. Gentlemen opposite could not escape. The hon. Member for Camberwell had been consistent; he had always advocated the creation of an ad hoc authority.


So do the London County Council.


The London County Council advocated the creation of an ad hoc authority on the ground that they had so much work to do that they could not support this addition to it. [An Hon. Member: Not this work.] Now they were coming to the truth of the matter. The London County Council and hon. Gentlemen opposite regarded the Council as overburdened now; but they regarded the County Council as a body capable of doing a great deal more work when they themselves were anxious that other work should be handed over to the Council. It was impossible for hon. Gentlemen to controvert that argument. The facts were quite simple. Hon. Gentlemen advocated an addition to the labours of the County Council in connection with the water question. They would, he was sure, be prepared to-morrow, almost without discussion, to transfer to the control of the Council the London police and the Thames steamboats. All this the Council could do, but even with the distribution of labour between the central authority and the local authorities they could not undertake the work of education. Hon. Gentlemen were entitled to the view which the hon. Member for North Camberwell had always consistently held that there should be an ad hoc authority for education in London. That was a perfectly reasonable proposal; but manifestly they could not support it by the contention that the County Council was overworked, or if they supported it by that contention they could not next day support a further proposal for an enormous addition to the labours of the County Council. He was bound to say that he listened with profound regret to the attack which had been made by the hon. Member for North Birmingham on his hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. He thought that that attack had been heard with regret in all parts of the House. His hon. friend had not been very long in the position he now occupied. He came to it at a moment of very great difficulty, and had not the advantage of being in office when the Bill of last year was being prepared. But he was confident that every one who had watched him in the discharge of his responsible and laborious duties would agree that he had brought great energy and distinguished ability to their performance, and that he had done his work to the enormous advantage of the House and the country.


He was referring to you.


No, no.


May I, as a matter of personal explanation, say that I very fully admit all the good things the right hon. Gentleman has said of the Parliamentary Secretary? I spoke undoubtedly in a moment of irritation, when an extremely unpleasant word fell from his lips and caught my ear.


As a matter of personal explanation, may I say that I heard the hon. Member describe the provisions of the Bill in terms which did not commend themselves to me, and, I am afraid, speaking, as I thought, in an undertone to my right hon. friend I said what I am sorry to think reached his ear? I accept his explanation, and I hope the matter is now ended.


said he recognised to the full the satisfactory withdrawal of his hon. friend the Member for North Birmingham, and he joined with his hon. friend in desiring to carry the incident no further. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen had referred to the speeches made by his hon. friend the Member for Wandsworth, and his hon. and learned friend the Member for Stretford. But what was there to be found in those two speeches in support of the Amendment the Committee were now considering? His hon. and learned friend the Member for Stretford advanced some arguments against the proposals of the Government. The Committee would come to those proposals in time, and then he and his hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education would be prepared with their defence of those proposals. The arguments of his hon. and learned friend were not, however, in favour of an ad hoc authority. His hon. friend the Member for Wandsworth, who had received a resolution from his constituents, was also not prepared to agree to an ad hoc authority. In those circumstances, he appealed to the Committee whether they might not fairly decide upon this question of an ad hoc authority now, and then approach and consider the question with reference to which most of the speeches to-night had been delivered, namely, whether the constitution of the Bill was satisfactory. Whether the authority was satisfactory and whether it could be improved was another matter altogether. He submitted that the great bulk of the speeches delivered to-night showed that an ad hoc authority would be as impossible as it would be inconsistent with previous legislation.

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

said that the hon. Baronet, followed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, disputed to some extent whether the County Council had disowned any desire to become an education authority. The last paragraph of the resolution passed by the London County Council was as follows— This Council is strongly opposed to the scheme proposed by the Bill, and would prefer either the maintenance of the present system or the creation of one directly elected education authority devoting itself exclusively to educational purposes, and which shall have real and complete control over all grades of education. That showed the disposition of the County Council in regard to this matter. Although there might be something in the argument that if the number of councillors was increased they might be able to undertake the work, it had been already ruled that no such proposition could be made under this Bill, and that it would have to be accomplished in an entirely new Bill. The hon. Baronet said that this would be the last time the ad hoc principle would be discussed in this House. Having for thirty years been a member of a large School Board elected on that principle, he naturally parted with it with some reluctance; and he was bound to say that as far as the discussion went, he had heard no argument to induce him to believe that a better authority could be put in its place. It might be said that the London School Board would naturally seek to retain its powers. But that argument could not be used with reference to the Resolution of the London County Council, which was perfectly disinterested, and which should have more attention given to it than it appeared to receive from Members of the Government. He felt that the Committee had been slighted by the absence of the Prime Minister during the evening. He should like to ask where the Prime Minister got his mandate to destroy the ad hoc principle. Several hon. Members opposite admitted that the principle was popular, and that this measure was going against the wishes of the people. He wished that the Prime Minister had heard the speech the hon. Member for Norwood, who of spoke with great feeling of the work of the School Board of London, and who dreaded the disaster which he believed would follow its abolition. Then there was the powerful appeal of the hon. Member for North Camberwell; but they were delivered in the absence of the Prime Minister, who, of course, was responsible for this Bill. He thought there should be some plain speaking when a revolution like this was attempted to be accomplished against the people's will. He would quote the words of a well-known historian, Mr. J. R. Green, with reference to a conjunction of circumstances which exactly corresponded to that in which they were placed. Mr. Green said that a Minister who was elected at a moment of panic, who refused to appeal to the country, and who acted in defiance of its will, would be acting technically legally, but that such a Minister would be none the less a criminal. That was exactly the position in which they were placed at present. When they had an attempt to tamper with representative institutions in the way this Bill proposed to tamper with them, there ought to be some plain speaking. The question had been asked—why has not the Government attempted to bring forward a measure of this kind for Scotland? The answer was very plain. There was not a dominant Church in that country to dictate policy to the Government. He ventured to think that the Government in attempting to carry this Bill were going not only against the will of the people, but in the teeth of a great many of their own supporters. He hoped, therefore, after the representations which had been made from both sides of the House that the Government would reconsider their scheme, and that London would be saved the degradation of having one of its most useful representative institutions destroyed by this measure.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

said he was unable to see any contradiction in the attitude of the County Council in not feeling fit to deal with the great question of education along with its other work. He thought the President of the Local Government Board must have been impressed by the severe, merciless, and, in some degree, unanswerable arguments which had been brought against the scheme of the Government by some gentlemen on his own side of the House. He gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the question now before the House was left open for consideration on subsequent portions of the Bill. This was a very remarkable Bill from all points of view. He thought it rather remarkable that hon. Gentlemen opposite who had been speaking of the megalomania of the County Council should put upon it this large addition to its burdens. He expressed his surprise at the conduct of the Government in taking away from one authority power it wished to retain, and insisting on imposing it on another authority which did not want to undertake the new duties. That did not seem very rational conduct on the part of the Government. His hon. friend the Member for Camberwell proposed a body ad hoc. He agreed with those who thought that the management of the education of London was big enough to take all the time, powers and energies of a body elected for that purpose. The question they were now discussing was the creation of a new body entirely different from the School Board. It was different in respect that it did not give to minorities the protection of their rights which was accorded to them by the cumulative vote. He represented a minority which from the religious point of view was to a large extent unpopular. That minority under the School Board system had hitherto been protected by the cumulative vote. He regretted the departure from that safeguard, and he deplored the antagonism which had been created between the School Board system and the denominational system by what he called the zealots on both sides of the question. The Roman Catholics, who in this country were mainly Irish Catholics, had no fear whatever of popular control provided that the religious character of their schools should not be interfered with. His hon. friend proposed that every Parliamentary constituency should have a representative on the new Board, but how would the Catholics fare under the proposal? He ventured to say that there would not be a single Catholic representative from any London constituency, and Catholics would be deprived of all the protection they had on the School Board, where they had two members whom they were able to elect by the cumulative vote. He could not vote for the proposal of his hon. friend. It was not one to maintain the School Board but to set up an entirely separate body. He regarded the School Board as gone, and now they had to find a substitute, and the real question was—was the County Council to be a real educational authority or not? In any effort the Government might make to meet the objections raised by making the County Council really effective they would have the support of the Irish Members. It might well be that an addition should be made to the Council, and if that were necessary the Government should introduce a one-clause Bill increasing the number of members and making the Council equal to the larger responsibility thrown upon it.


complained that the Government had given no satisfactory reply to the arguments which had been stated in support of the Amendment from both sides of the House. There was something particularly mean in the speech of the President of the Local Government Board, who argued that, the County Council being eager to take up such work as the administration of the water supply and the provision of steamers on the river, it was ridiculous to say that the Council could not tackle the great work of education. That was a very shabby argument to use. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had been serious in pressing it. Did he know that the cost of education in London was as great as all the work the County Council had to perform? They had heard a great deal from the right hon. Gentleman about the co-operation that might be expected between the County Council and the Borough Councils in discharging the work under the scheme in the Bill. They had experience in London on this point. There was constant difficulty and conflict arising between the County Council and the Borough Councils with regard to the municipal duties they had now to discharge. His hon. friend the Member for the Scotland Division hardly did justice to the Amendment. It contained the suggestion of the co-option of Members, and he believed his hon. friend the Member for Camberwell had, in making the suggestion, had in view the meeting of the difficulty with regard to the Roman Catholics which had been referred to. The President of the Local Government Board had admitted that the last word had not been spoken, but he said, "Dispose of this Amendment; we might have something else up our sleeve." That was the difficulty the House had had at every stage. They were not treated fairly; they had hardly been treated honestly by the Government. It was admitted by speakers on the other side of the House that there was some substance in the Amendment, and, if that was so, this was the occasion when they should hear the first proposal of the Government. The Prime Minister ought to be here, but if the right hon. Gentleman did not care to attend he ought to leave some adequate person to represent him. There should be some kind of statement made on behalf of the Government as to the course they proposed to take. He moved that they report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Lough.)


appealed to the hon. Member not to persist in that Motion. The Secretary to the Board of Education and himself had replied, and it was wholly unreasonable to ask for a further reply.

Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud) Harmsworth, R. Leicester Robson, William Snowdon
Asher, Alexander Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale Roe, Sir Thomas
Ashton, Thomas Gair Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Rose, Charles Day
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy. Helme, Norval Watson Runciman, Walter
Barran, Rowland Hirst Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. Russell, T. W.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Horniman, Frederick John Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Black, Alexander William Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. Schwann, Charles E.
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Brigg, John Joicey, Sir James Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh) Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Kearley, Hudson E. Soares, Ernest J.
Bryce, Right Hon. James Kitson, Sir James Stevenson, Francis S.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Labouchere, Henry Tennant, Harold John
Burns, John Lambert, George Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings
Caldwell, James Layland-Barratt, Francis Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Causton, Richard Knight Leng, Sir John Tomkinson, James
Channing, Francis Allston Levy, Maurice Toulmin, George
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Lough, Thomas Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Tritton, Charles Ernest
Cremer, William Randal M'Kenna, Reginald Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Crombie, John William Mansfield, Horace Rendall Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)
Crooks, William Markham, Arthur Basil Weir, James Galloway
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton White, George (Norfolk)
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Norman, Henry Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Duncan, J. Hastings Nussey, Thomas Willans Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Edwards, Frank Partington, Oswald Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Emmott, Alfred Paulton, James Mellor Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Yoxall, James Henry
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Price, Robert John
Goddard, Daniel Ford Priestley, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Grant, Corrie Rea, Russell Mr. Herbert Gladstone
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Rigg, Richard and Mr. William M'Arthur.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Hardie, J. Keir) Merthyr Tydvil Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) Banbury, Sir Frederick George Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire
Anson, Sir William Reynell Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Bignold, Arthur Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bigwood, James Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Bill, Charles Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc
Austin, Sir John Blundell, Colonel Henry Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Boland, John Charrington, Spencer
Bailey, James (Walworth) Bond, Edward Clive, Captain Percy A.
Bain, Colonel James Robert Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Balcarres, Lord Bousfield, William Robert Coghill, Douglas Harry
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Bowles Lt.-Col. H. F. (Midd'x Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds Burdett-Coutts, W. Compton, Lord Alwyne
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 105; Noes, 201. (Division List No. 88.)

Cripps, Charles Alfred Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Redmond, William (Clare)
Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Reid, James (Greenock)
Crossley, Sir Savile Johnstone, Heywood Richards, Henry Charles
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Joyce, Michael Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)
Cullinan, J. Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)
Cust, Henry John C. Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop) Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson
Dalkeith, Earl of Keswick, William Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Knowles, Lees Robertson, H. (Hackney)
Denny, Colonel Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) Round, Rt. Hon. James
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R. Royds, Clement Molyneux
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Leamy, Edmund Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C. Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Duffy, William J. Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S. Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Sharpe, William Edward T.
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Simeon, Sir Barrington
Faber, George Denison (York) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Fardell, Sir T. George Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lundon, W. Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Maconochie, A. W. Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst MacVeagh, Jeremiah Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W. Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Fisher, William Hayes Martin, Richard Biddulph Stone, Sir Benjamin
FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier
Flavin, Michael Joseph Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Flower, Ernest More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Unix
Forster, Henry William Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Fyler, John Arthur Morrison, James Archibald Thornton, Percy M.
Galloway, William Johnson Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Tollemache, Henry James
Garfit, William Mount, William Arthur Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C. Valentia, Viscount
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn Murphy, John Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Gordon, Maj Evans (Tr. H'ml'ts Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Webb, Colonel William George
Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc. Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon Myers, William Henry Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Newdegate, Francis A. N. Whitmore, Charles A'gernon
Goulding, Edward Alfred Nicholson, William Graham Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury) Nicol, Donald Ninian Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Greville, Hon. Ronald O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Hall, Edward Marshall O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Wilson John (Glasgow)
Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd Pease, H. Pike (Darlington) Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Harris, Frederick Leverton Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Percy, Earl Wylie, Alexander
Hayden, John Patrick Pierpoint, Robert Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Hickman, Sir Alfred Pretyman, Ernest George Sir Alexander Acland-
Hoare, Sir Samuel Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Som'rs't E. Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Hoult, Joseph Rattigan, Sir William Henry

And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.