HC Deb 25 May 1903 vol 122 cc1712-47

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

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

Clause 3:—

Amendment proposed. In page 1, line 11, at the beginning, to insert the words 'Unless the local education authority otherwise determines.'"—(Mr. Mansfield.)

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

MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

said the speech of the hon. Baronet, the Secretary to the Board of Education was a frankly anti-educational speech in favour of a frankly educational programme, and a too charitable interpretation had been placed upon that speech by the hon. Member for Poplar. He regretted that too charitable interpretations were too frequently placed upon statements such as that just now made by the Secretary to the Board of Education, by the Front Opposition Bench. The speakers on the Front Bench of the Opposition did not in this matter represent the opinion of the back benches nor the vast volume of opinion outside the House, which demanded more sweeping Amendments and a much more drastic procedure towards this extraordinary Bill than had been suggested in mild, congratulatory tones from the Front Bench of what was the great Opposition Party. As a member of the rank and file of that Opposition he thought they should approach this question in a very different spirit. It seemed to him that the speech of the hon. Baronet had aggravated the situation. They all contended that Clause 3 was a bad clause and made the Bill worse than it otherwise would be, and the intimation of the hon. Baronet that he was prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment deepened the objection to the proposal. To accept that proposal meant that the Government was prepared to greatly extend the powers of delegation contained in the Act of last year. It would be practicable for the Board of Education to act as a despotic authority in dealing with this question of defining the duties of management, and in determining the manner on the failure to agree on the part of the County Council and the Borough Councils. An Amendment of this kind would infinitely increase the evils of this clause. In this education debate the Committee were becoming the victim of phrases. Phrase after phrase had been used in a most contradictory manner to enforce the arguments of the Government. "Municipalisation," "Co-ordination," "Central Authority," had all been ridden to death and now they were to have "decentralisation" used in the same way. These phrases were being used as a sort of Moloch, to whom they were sacrificing the millions of children in London. Last year the Opposit on was denounced for resisting centralisation and advocating decentralization. A similar denunciation was now made. They were now denounced for favouring centralisation, and were asked to adopt a different principle The Government asked for centralisation last year and decentralisation this year. It was because of centralisation in London that the School Board had done more than anybody else to organise the unorganised masses of London and give them a conception of educational duties such as they could not have attained if split up in small separate bodies. The situation was absolutely different from what it was in the Bill of last year, and to compare the separate municipal bodies which had certain duties to perform in the separate areas of London with the units of educational life in such towns as Manchester, Bradford and Leeds, was absolutely illogical. The success of the London School Board had been due to the close attention which it had given to detail, which would be absolutely destroyed under this Bill. They could not contemplate with equanimity the handing over to the County Council as a mere shadowy reproduction of the Board of Education, of the control of education of this great area. They should have a real controlling power, with out which the Bill would do more harm than good to education in London The clause now under consideration undoubtedly gave very considerable powers to the Borough Councils to create large expenditure in respect of education. It was absolutely impossible for the clause to be worked in the sense of the hon. Member for Chelsea unless the Borough Councils submitted estimates for considerable outlay in order to carry out adequately the purposes they wished to take upon themselves with the help of the Board of Education. Such a co-ordinating of the power of rating in London could only result in an enormous increase in the burden of the rates.

MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)

said it was pretty obvious from the speeches made that the Committee was to have a Second Reading debate upon this clause, and members on the Unionist side of the House would be misunderstood if they allowed the Motion to go through without replying to the arguments of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. Every one would no doubt like to see some Amendment or other in this clause. It was very improbable that the Government could succeed in framing a clause with which everyone would agree; and he would like to hear a more complete statement as to the way in which it was proposed to divide the work between the central body, the intermediate bodies of borough managers, and the subordinate bodies of managers of groups of schools who had to perform those functions which they now performed. He appealed therefore to the Secretary to the Board of Education to put them in possession of a complete statement of the way in which it was proposed to divide these duties Everybody was agreed that there must be some sort of devolution. Devolution was wanted to get the details of the work done in every district. Centralisation was important for three reasons—first of all, with reference to uniformity of expenditure and educational policy. It was also important with reference to the co-ordination of primary, secondary, and technical education; and thirdly, with reference to the free circulation of head teachers throughout London. It was, however, absolutely consistent with these purposes to have the details of educational work in each borough done by a Borough Committee. Those Borough Committees, subject to the reasons he had given, should do the local work in the boroughs. He hoped they would have a little more light thrown upon the relations between the different authorities. They would have to have three grades of authorities. The primary duties would be in connection with a group of one, two, or three schools managed by a body of managers in the present style. Something had been said about the Borough Councils being the managers, but that was not intended to interfere with what were known as managers now who took such a keen interest in the schools and all the details of educational work, and upon whose efforts a great deal of the success of education depended. He did not think it was intended to alter those primary duties under the Bill. Above the primary unit came the secondary unit intended to be the group of schools within the borough. That was a matter of the very highest importance. He supposed that the managers of the group of schools would have the appointment of the assistant teachers subject to the approval of the Borough Committee. Of course the appointment of head teachers should be made by the Borough Committees subject to the approval of the County Council.

If they were to have decentralisation, as they must, having regard to the size of London, then between the ultimate and primary groups of schools they ought to utilise the services of Borough Committees. He had heard one hon. Member after another snub the Borough Councils, and this he deprecated. Borough Councillors had been described as small shopkeepers without any knowledge of educational matters, but he should be very sorry if the small shopkeepers were not represented. The way to keep down the standard and character of local representatives was to deprive them of important functions. If they formed the educational plan upon that basis they would never get the most capable men to come forward to discharge the functions required. It would be open to the County Council to put a certain number of members of the London School Board on the central authority, and there was room for several of those men of experience on the Borough Committees. When they once started their Borough Committees in that way they would form an excellent training ground for educational administrators who would combine business experience with educational work. He did not quite know what was meant by an educational expert, but he should like to see a body composed of men with business capacity. Those sort of men would be the product of the scheme of this Bill. From the point of view of devolution and securing a regular flow of persons of experience in educational matters the proposal of the Government was the right policy.

MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)

thought the Borough Councils should be done away with in this clause as they had been in Clause 2. The Opposition did not object to Borough Councils or their Committees having managerial powers over schools within their area, but they objected to such powers being statutory under this Bill. He had listened with great regret to the speech of the Secretary to the Board of Education. In the provinces within the area of an administrative county, although the powers possessed by the County Council were dual—the powers for primary education and education other than primary—still those powers rested in the hands of the same set of people under the Act of last year, and the co-ordinating principle was adopted as the quickest and the most satisfactory method of getting over the difficulty set up by the Cockerton judgment. The higher grade Board schools in Sheffield were under the same management as the other Board schools, and although the finances did not come from the same source, still they were spent upon the schools within the area. The difficulties of the Cockerton judgment and the dislocation it set up in education were confessedly and professedly removed last year for the whole area of the provinces, but now the hon. Baronet was laying down the principle that, because of the Cockerton judgment they must put the management of the secondary and evening schools under the London County Council and the Board schools in the hands of the Borough Committees. Apparently there still remained some Cockerton microbes at the Board of Education office and the hon. Baronet was receiving attention from them. Not only would the management of the Board primary schools not be in the hands of the London County Council or of the Committee it might appoint, but the denominational primary schools within the area of the Borough Councils were to be under a totally different management to the Board schools. In drawing up this Bill the last thing that was considered was educational fitness and progress. The framing of the Bill seemed to him to have been a set of most unprincipled compromises between the Borough Council champions and the County Council champions on that side, and between the Borough Councils and the Established Church. The Bishops had said to the Government, "We will not have the Borough Council Committees to manage our voluntary schools." The result was that in a place like Marylebone, where there were more denominational schools than Board schools, the Borough Council would not manage the denominational schools. They would be allowed to manage the Board elementary schools but not the higher Board schools. That was the sort of co-ordination which London was to have meted out to it. The result would be that in the metropolitan area, where there would always be a rich harvest of brains, they would not have that co-ordination, that system, that easy passage for the clever lad from school to school, that common knowledge of the wants of the schools and of the scholars, which they would have in the provinces under the Act of 1902. They were to have in London instead a chaotic arrangement, no better, and perhaps worse, than the present arrangement, because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had been bitten with the microbe of the Cockerton judgment.

There was also the most important question of the curriculum to be set up in the various parts of London. He believed hon. Members were under the impression that the Board of Education would take care that, alhough all over London there might be twenty-nine different sets of managers for primary schools, the curriculum should be practically the same. He wished to point out that the Board of Education had not power to take that care. What the Board of Education did at the present moment was to put down in the code a maximum curriculum, and leave the managers of a school, or group of schools, to arrange the minimum curriculum. The Board of Education could prevent managers from getting, on false pretences, the grant which was common to all schools by instructing the the inspectors to say—"Your school is not in a slum district; it is fairly well and regularly attended, you have good premises, and a good staff, and therefore you will only get the normal grant of the Board of Education if you present to us a fairly full curriculum." In regard to other schools, the inspector could say—"Your school premises are poor, the staff inferior, and the location is such as to make it practically impossible to get a high level of physical and mental ability. We will be satisfied, in your case, with a moderate curriculum, but do it thoroughly, and do it well." But at the present moment the Board of Education could not say to managers that they should or should not do any particular degree of work.

Referring to the cost which would be incurred under this Bill, the hon. Member said he would not deal with the expense to the London County Council in connection with the management of denominational schools all over the area, though that was a new expense which would, no doubt, cause an elevation of the rate. A multiplication of expenses would arise from having twenty-nine centres for the management of elementary education. There would be twenty-nine different sets of officials, inspectors, book-keepers, accountants, high rentals, and records to keep. There would be a multiplicity of unnecessary letters and correspondence. Clerks without number would be required, and that would increase the expense. We were not too willing to spend money on education proper. Why waste money on unnecessary machinery, and which was not called for by anybody but the framers of the Bill? The hon. Member pointed out that the proposed system would operate adversely alike for teachers and the interests of education in regard to the promotion of teachers. What was wanted was that there should be free play and opportunity for the circulation of all grades of teachers from one district to another. It was an unfortunate thing that a teacher should be located in one area during the whole of his or her professional life. He understood that under the parent Act and the Bill now before the Committee, it would be impossible for the Borough Councils to manage any of the higher elementary schools. They were going to have a system of management of primary schools which would set up division and disorder, prevent efficiency, and introduce undue variety. It would bring about not an improvement in the present position, but a declension from the present standard of efficiency all over London. They were going by statute to prevent the authority for higher education from being in fact the authority for elementary education as well, and they were going to do all this in the sacred name of co ordination. He submitted that since the Borough Councils had been cut out of Clause 2, the statutory powers given to the Borough Councils ought to be cut out of Clause 3. The retention of these powers in Clause 3 could not be explained on educational grounds. It could only be explained on Party political grounds, but even then it seemed to him to be an unwise thing to do. The power to manage ought only to devolve on the Borough Councils by resolution of the central authority.

MR. CRIPPS (Lancashire, Stretford)

, said the hon. Member opposite had not quite accurately interpreted the Bill of 1902 with regard to minor authorities. Undoubtedly there were six managers—four of them put on under statutory power by the central local authority, and two by the minor local authority. There was no objection in principle to adopting the same idea in the case of London. With regard to education in London, which was one of the largest Imperial questions with which they could deal, they ought to have a thoroughly sound managing body, and in order to have that, in the first place they must have some relation between the central body and the managing body. As the Bill stood at present there was no connection whatever between them, and if there were no representatives of the Education Committee on the managing body it was impossible to conceive how the scheme could work in a satisfactory and effective manner. They ought to come to some determination which might give due weight to the position of the Borough Councils, and at the same time get a managing body which would be in touch with the central education authority and guarantee the proper management of the schools. There must be some representatives directly appointed by the central authority on the managing body. When they had accepted the central authority, they must not only fasten responsibility upon it, but give it due means of carrying out that authority in the actual management of the schools. He thought it was a great mistake on this educational question to raise anything like antagonism between different local authorities in London. When they spoke of the dignity of certain local authorities, they were going wrong in dealing with any question of this sort. He asked the hon. Baronet whether he could not see his way to have such a connection between the central authority and the managing body as would get rid of any possible friction. He repudiated all idea of anyone having the slightest feeling against the Borough Councils. They had to do with education and education only, and he urged the Government not to deal with the question as between the County Council and the Borough Councils.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

said he wished to advert for a moment to some words which fell from the Secretary to the Board of Education earlier in the evening. The hon. Baronet said the Government had an open mind on the details. So far as he could make out, everything was detail which could be thrown overboard and everything was principle which could not be sacrificed at the moment. This was an Amendment which did not settle anything, but it was treated by the Secretary to the Board of Education as one on which they could have the opportunity of a Second Reading discussion. It was not reasonable that they should refrain from endeavouring to give the Government their views as to the way in which the clause should be dealt with. The Secretary to the Board of Education indicated a disposition to accept a different scheme for the different divisions of London. That seemed to him to be a most extraordinary suggestion, and he desired to take the first opportunity of entering his protest against any method which would introduce wholly unnecessary complexity and confusion into the educational system. He could not see that anything would be gained by setting to work different schemes in Marylebone and Paddington. When the hon. Baronet came to the practical question of the constitution of the managerial body, he said it was very desirable to have decentralisation. He agreed that decentralisation was a blessed word, but what did it mean? If it meant that the London County Council and its Committee would not be able themselves to undertake and grapple with the vast mass of work thrown upon them, then he entirely agreed. If it meant also that the School Board might have, perhaps, tried to do too much, and that they might, with advantage, have thrown more functions upon local managers, then he also agreed. What were the conditions of successful decentralisation? The powers should be delegated in such a way as to retain unity of supreme control. If they were to require, or to suggest to the central authority that its administrative powers were to be delegated to a subordinate authority, they must see that there was a subordinate authority fit to discharge those powers. The Secretary to the Board of Education said that the Borough Councils were the obvious bodies for the purpose, but neither he, nor any other Member who had spoken in the debate, had attempted to grapple with the question whether the Borough Councils were fitted by knowledge, experience, or composition to undertake the management of the schools. They were not created for this work, they had no experience of this work; even the hon. Member for Hackney said he wished to give them this work to induce a better class of persons to enter the Borough Councils and raise them to a sense of their responsibilities. Surely that was not a practical spirit in which to approach this question.

MR. BOUSFIELD

said what he suggested was that they should co-opt members of the existing London School Board to start with.

MR. BRYCE

said that the criticisms of the hon. Member for Hackney and Stretford were suggestions of alternative plans. He should be the last person in the world to disparage the Borough Councils. His experience of the House showed him that it was most dangerous to make anything like an attack on a public body. He hoped it would not be regarded as a disparagement of the Borough Councils when he said that he should like to know something more about them. He would ask hon. Members how much they knew of the Borough Councils. He was an average normal London ratepayer. He had lived in Marylebone for forty years, and he had always endeavoured to do his duty in the way of electing good men to the Borough Councils; but he really did not know of whom the Borough Council of Marylebone consisted. Hon. Members who were Members for London constituencies perhaps did know, because they came in contact with the members of the Borough Councils. He looked at this question from the point of view of the average ratepayer, who had no time to read the Marylebone Observer, or the St. Pancras Herald or other local newspapers, and who knew little or nothing of the Borough Councils. He dared say that this would change in a few years; that these Councils would become more important bodies than they now were; but at present they knew so little of them that they could not say whether they were fit for the educational duties it was now proposed to throw upon them. Therefore, carrying an open mind on the subject, he wanted more light on the capacity of the Borough Councils for this work than had yet been received. It should be remembered that the managers hitherto have been small bodies of persons who had the time to go in and out of the schools and know everything about them; and a good deal of the best managerial work had been done by ladies. In all parts of the House it was agreed that they should like to see the London County Council and its Education Committee delegate part of the educational work to the local bodies; but it was essential that the control should remain with the central authority. But how could the control of the central authority be effective over bodies on which the central authority had no representatives? There should be a link between the controlling and the managerial authorities, some persons from the central authority, or appointed by it, who would be their agents, represent their views, and keep the managers in touch with the central authority. That would give a certain amount of unity, and prevent that friction which must arise if there was a body of managers entirely independent of the central authority.

The truth was that in this clause, as in Clause 2, the further they went from the general principles of the Act of 1902 the worse the Bill became. If they were going to carry out the principles of the Act of last year they must carry them out completely, and not introduce elements of friction. The main point was that the local authority should be responsible to the central authority, and the managers should derive their title and power from that authority. They should not have managers who were practically independent, and could go direct to the Board of Education, or refuse to carry out the instructions of the Education Committee. He hoped the Government would take the plan of Clause 7 in the Act of 1902, and give a majority on the managerial body to the central body. A further question was as to what powers were to be given to the managers, but that could not be discussed until they knew who the managers were to be. That was a point on which stress had been laid by his hon. friend the Member for Poplar, whose speech did not seem to be quite understood by those who followed him. That hon. Gentleman was quite as opposed to giving statutory powers to the managers as anybody who had spoken in the debate. He submitted that the Government in dealing with Clause 3 should observe the same openness of mind as they had done in dealing with Clause 2; and that they should allow the Bill to take the form in which that unity and concentration, upon which the First Lord of the Treasury so often dilated, should be realised. Above all they should lay down the cardinal principle that co-ordination and unity could only be secured by giving responsibility and control to the Central Education Committee.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has given great comfort and consolation to my hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education by the speech just delivered. My hon. friend has been the target for many shafts in the course of these debates, and it must be a comfort to him to know that as soon as this Bill is passed it will be regarded as a model for all other Bills. The reason why I hold out that happy prospect to my hon. friend is that I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that no higher standard of Parliamentary excellence is possible than Clause 7 of the Act of last year, and he reproached the Government with departing from the spirit of that clause, and said that our one chance of salvation was to retain not only the spirit but the letter of that clause. Yet I remember that Clause 7 was fought by the right hon. Gentleman with the same ardour as he is fighting this clause, and no doubt this clause will be praised a year hence with the same ardour as is displayed in dispraise of it now.

MR. BRYCE

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is too accomplished a logician not to know what is meant by the argumentum ad hominem.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I was using it.

MR. BRYCE

And I was using it to show to the right hon. Gentleman that, at any rate, the arrangement of 1902—against which I have never ceased to protest and never shall cease, and which we must keep in mind was a great deal better than that under this Bill—should be carried out. I am entitled to appeal to the Government and their supporters to carry out the principles which they have framed in the Bill of last year and compelled the House to adopt. I may also remind the hon. Gentleman that my remarks on Clause 7 only dealt with the part which refers to the managers of provided schools, and not the part which we fought with so much tenacity.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The right hon. Gentleman has taken three times as long to explain his reasons as I have to attack them. I do not wish to carry on the controversy; as he justly says, the argumentum ad hominem need not be used to excess. Another point of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was the theory that he started, or rather supported, that you cannot make a good system of London education unless you have links between the London County Council and the managers of the schools — whether Borough Councils or otherwise. That was precisely the argument by which we desired to induce the House to accept the representation of the Borough Councils on the London County Council Education Committee. That was the view we took: That if people have got to work together why not link them? That argument, however, found no favour with hon. Gentlemen opposite. On the contrary, they derided it, and said that there was nothing to be gained by having any representation of these subordinate authorities on the Education Committee. The right hon. Gentleman in an earlier part of his speech employed an argument which, from a Member of his great historical knowledge, his great authority in all questions of constitutional law and social evolution, really surprised me. Said the right hon. Gentleman to hon. Members on this side of the House—"Have you any ground for believing that the Borough Councils have got special qualifications for representation on the Education Committee? Was that the intention with which they were brought into existence; was that their historic origin?" All these questions must be answered in the negative. Are they to be answered in the positive in regard to the London County Council? Was that body brought into existence for education? [An HON. MEMBER: The School Board was.] Was it brought into existence to deal with the housing of the working classes? [HON. MEMBERS: Yes.] I beg pardon. Every gentleman who has had the smallest the most elementary, knowledge of the history of local government in this country knows that these great bodies were brought into existence, not merely with the view of carrying out the duties entrusted to them at the moment of their being brought into being, but also or other duties which, as being the organ of the community, they may be called upon to undertake. Might not the question asked by the right hon. Gentleman be asked of each of the powers conferred on municipalities since the Municipal Corporations Act of 1834? Local Government is reduced to a farce and an absurdity if, every time the growth of our institutions develops a new function, local and not Imperial, a new ad hoc authority is to be created. It is to be regretted that any one having the authority of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to historic and constitutional matters should have lent the weight of his great name to a fallacy so transparent.

As to the fundamental point, I must dissent from my hon. and learned friend the Member for Stretford, who seems to think that logic requires us to entrust the education-of the children of the 5,000,000 inhabitants of London to the central authority of that great area alone, and to the absolute exclusion of those great bodies — great now, and greater, I hope, in the future—who have charge of the interests of communities compared with which the ordinary municipality sinks into insignificance. It would be a paradox if, having these boroughs to our hand, and having passed the provisions by which they were brought into existence and their whole system was co-ordinated, we were to ignore them at the very time that we were municipalising our education.

MR. CRIPPS

I think my right hon. friend was not in the House when I spoke.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Indeed I was.

MR. CRIPPS

My view was that they ought to be in the majority on the managing body and to have also some representation on the central body.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not see that my hon. friend gets a more logical or a more workable Bill by that scheme. If you imagine that there is to be a perpetual controversy between the County Council and the Borough Councils, I do not see how you will avoid it by putting a minority of the County Council on a body where the Borough Councils have a majority. If his idea is to link the system up, then why was he so opposed to putting a minority of Borough Councillors on a body where the County Council would have had a majority? I cannot conceive that the scheme as we have it, is likely to interfere with the supremacy of the County Council or with the activity of the boroughs; and I do confess that the weakness of some of the arguments used—such as that these Borough Councils were not created to deal with education—makes me think that there may be some motive behind the arguments of hon. Gentlemen other than that which appears. When the right hon. Gentleman asks us in this spirit whether the Borough Councils were created for educational purposes, I must repeat the question which I have put to him before—i.e., Was the County Council created to deal with technical education? When a Conservative Government asked the County Council to undertake that duty, we did not hear any protests from hon. Gentlemen opposite to the effect that the County Council had not been brought into being for the purpose and knew nothing of the work. Yet I have no reason to believe that they were specially expert in the matter. The whole principle of local government in this country is that you choose bodies to do certain work, and expect them to do it, although they may have had no previous training for it. I believe, in fact, that they do it much better for that reason. I no more believe that the Borough Councils are incompetent to deal with education because they are not school teachers, than I believe them incapable of dealing with sewage because they are nto engineers, or housing because they are not architects. That is not the theory of local government in England, and the sooner we accept the fact the sooner we shall do justice to the capacities of our countrymen to carry on the work entrusted to them. I hope that this House, in its new-born passion for education, will not insist that because we make the central authority supreme we are not to give any statutory powers to the subordinate authorities. I am sure that would be a mistake. I cannot conceal from myself the suspicion that if we had adopted the other scheme we should have found hon. Gentlemen opposite just as strenuous against it. I hope we shall now be allowed to get to the details, and to work out some scheme which shall neither detract from the educational control of the County Council, nor dispossess these great local institutions of the powers which, in the majority of cases, they desire to have, which I am sure they are qualified to exercise, and of which if we deprive them they will have reason to complain.

SIR EDWARD GREY (Northumberland, Berwick)

The Prime Minister has really raised a large question going beyond the limits of the Bill. He has dwelt with great force on the fact that we are now engaged in a great development of local self-government in which we must devolve on existing local authorities powers which were not in contemplation originally when they were first called into existence. I agree with the Prime Minister in that. We are engaged in a great measure of devolution; but precisely because it is a great measure of devolution, because we have to give powers in respect of education to the County Council, which has had hitherto small experience in the matter, we ought to proceed very carefully, and be sure that we are giving to the County Council the best possible chance of dealing satisfactorily with an untried situation. The Government, is really engaged in a great measure of devolution, a larger development of local self government than London has yet had; and they propose to do it, not by giving one undivided responsibility to the County Council, which is the central authority, but by scattering the powers and responsibilities among the different local authorities. That will be the ruin of this great experiment. I quite agree that in giving the County Council these great powers of education there will have to be decentralisation; but the Government are making the mistake of endeavouring to teach the County Council how to decentralise in a matter in which they have had no more experience than the County Council. It will have to decentralise, but it will have to learn how to decentralise.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That is our plan.

SIR EDWARD GREY

Your plan is that the County Council should decentralise itself. The Secretary to the Board of Education said that there were two matters of detail in this clause to be dealt with. One is the mode of handing over the powers to the managers, and the amount of power handed over. I agree; but are those details? Are you going by a statute of limitations to circumscribe the power of the County Council, or are you going to leave it to the County Council to decide, and to evolve by its own experience and by methods of decentralisation, what particular amount of decentralisation it is necessary to work out in the duty you lay upon it? I agree with the hon. Member for Stretford that I should like to see the Borough Councils, which are the minor local authorities, have ab initio an interest, and be brought into this system of working education as a minor local authority. But I disagree with the hon. Member that it would not interfere with the working of this Bill to give these Borough Councils a majority. They should have a minority on the management, but care should be taken not to freeze the interest of the major local authority, on whom the real responsibility rests, and to interfere with the power of carrying out its duties. You have to interest the minor authority and to preserve the control of the major local authority. The First Lord of the Treasury deprecated the argumentum ad hominem; but last year, when we were discussing the question of the management of the provided schools, an Amendment was moved that the minor local authority should have four persons on the management, and the major local authority should have two. The First Lord of the Treasury pointed out how serious it would be to have a conflict, not between an individual, or a body of individuals, and the County Council, but between two duly constituted local authorities; and he said that if we have a conflict of that kind it will do more than anything else to paralyse the central education authority in the locality. But the Government are not merely giving the minor local authority a majority on the management, but are going to give it the whole, to those very minor local authorities who are suffering under a sense of disappointment at being excluded from representation on the central Committee, and you are establishing at once a certainty of rivalry between these two authorities which is bound to paralyse the working of the Bill. I would appeal to the Government that they should, at any rate, consider whether they cannot meet the hon. Member for Stretford to the extent of bringing the two authorities together on the board of management; and I would urge upon them most strongly that they should look back to the line they themselves took last year on the question of provided schools, and consider whether it is not absolutely necessary that the central authority, on which responsibility is placed, should have a majority on the management of the schools. That is a matter of the greatest importance.

Take the case of a private individual, who is to be given an estate and is not to be allowed to choose his own agent or any of the personnel to be employed on the estate. No one would take the management of a private estate on these terms, and how can you expect the County-Council to undertake the duties of education in similar circumstances? Stated that way the thing is a farce and an absurdity. How did it get into the Bill? I believe it was because the Borough Councils were to be so largely represented on the local authority; and, being so largely represented, it is natural they should have a great deal to say in the management. But they got on the management in the same way as on the Committee, not because the Government were thinking of education, but because the Borough Councils, being in existence, and being powerful, something had to be done somehow to bring them into the Bill. The Government, looking at the matter from the point of view of education only, would have done better to have stuck to their Bill of last year. That after all was a clean Bill so far as provided schools were concerned. We have but one thing to consider in the Bill. Admitting the question to be decided now, that the County Council is to be the education authority, we have the question as to how to put the County Council in the best possible position to carry out the duty we are insisting upon putting on it. No one can for a moment suppose that to separate the County Council from the management of the schools, and from the appointment and dismissal of teachers, is giving it a fair chance in carrying out this great duty, which must be an arduous duty, and which, I believe, if you retain the clause, will turn out to be an impossible duty.

SIR JOHN GORST

said the Committee had got into the very same position as that in which it found itself last Tuesday. This Amendment raised the whole question of the management of the schools, and at the invitation of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Board of Education the Committee had embarked on the whole discussion, but the decision on this Amendment would not decide the question at all. They would have to have a further Amendment in order to decide it. He would like to say a few words at this stage because the next Amendment to be moved was in his name, and it exactly carried out the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and because he wanted to put the present position of the question from a practical point of view before the Committee. It had never been his lot to bring in an Education Bill the principal object of which was to destroy the School Boards. It was quite true that a large proportion of the Education Bills with which he had been officially connected would have had the effect of absorbing School Boards; but they always alleged—and as far as he was concerned alleged with perfect candour and honesty—that they would be most careful not to destroy the work and organisation of School Boards, and he did not believe that the Bill of last Session did destroy either the work already accomplished by, or the organisation of, the great School Boards in the country. It was quite true that a different body took up the work; but it entered into the offices of the School Board and carried on its machinery in the same way as a newly-elected School Board. But if the proposals in the Bill—which, however, he understood the hon. Baronet had admitted he was willing to consider in a candid and open-minded spirit—were carried out they would destroy absolutely the organisation of the London School Board. He had often been complained of in the House because he had not been an extravagant laudator of the London School Board, and therefore the Committee would allow him to say that, with all its shortcomings, the actual machine for carrying out the work of the elementary schools of London which they had established, was one of the most magnificent pieces of constructive work which had been accomplished in our time.

All the Board schools in London were provided for and managed in an extremely efficient manner—no doubt with a little over-centralisation, but still, on the whole, magnificently managed from that great establishment on the Thames Embankment. If the London County Council were left alone they would, no doubt, appoint an Education Committee which would go into the offices on the Embankment exactly as if it were a new School Board and carry on the work of the Board with the same officers and on the same system. He was in favour of an adaptation of that system, but at the same time he would like to see a great deal more decentralisation. He would like to see the Borough Councils interested in the work of education. The more they diffused the interest in education, the more local people they brought in, the better it was for the education of the country. But it must be done by degrees by a body which had made itself acquainted with the present routine. If they began by splitting up the great establishment on the Embankment into twenty-nine different sections the task of organisation would be so gigantic that he did not believe anybody could perform it. He did not believe that even the Secretary to the Board of Education could do it. Although the present system might be over-centralised, after all, centralisation was economical, and no doubt the schools could be more cheaply managed by a central body than by twenty-nine different bodies.

He would like to point out some of the difficulties which would attend the handing over of the management of elementary education to the Borough Councils. In the first place the Bill contained an entirely new departure in making a distinction between control and management. Hitherto there had been no such distinction. Clause 15 of the Act of 1870 gave School Boards power to delegate the control and management to local managers. The Act of last session in dealing with provided schools did not separate control and management. A distinction was made in this clause, however, but it had never been explained to the Committee, and there was nothing about it in the Bill. As far as he could make out, the difference was that the business of the County Council was to be confined to legislation, and the work of administration was to be done by the Borough Councils. What was the good of making general rules for the observance of teachers and managers if they could not be enforced? And how was observance to be enforced if the County Council was relieved of all administrative functions? He would give an example that was not unlikely to occur. It would be necessary that promising boys and girls in an elementary school should at a certain age be transferred to a secondary school. If the County Council made rules on this subject, how were they to get their orders obeyed? The teachers of the elementary school would not be disposed to part with promising pupils; the Borough Council, which had the management of elementary schools but not of secondary schools, would not wish to lose its most promising pupils; and this might prevent the rules of the County Council being carried out. If the County Council learned that some of its general legislation was not being observed, what could it do? The teacher was the servant of the Borough Council; the Borough Council could dismiss him, the County Council could not. Being human, the teacher would probably obey the body which could punish his disobedience. A good deal had been said about the appointment of teachers. When the schools of London were treated as a whole, the central authority was able to obtain teachers for schools in undesirable districts, because it could hold out the prospect that if they did their duty there they would be promoted to some better quarter. That could not be done by the Borough Councils. The Borough Council of Limehouse would have no inducement to offer to a young man or young woman to work in their schools, because they would have no power to promote them to anything but a Limehouse school. From this point of view, it was most desirable that there should be a general service of teachers for the whole of London. The Borough Councils would spend the money but would not raise it; and the County Council would raise the money but would not spend it. He failed to understand how an anomaly of that kind could either work to the benefit of education or tend to economy and efficiency of finance.

Another point which had been referred to was the extraordinarily anomalous position as between voluntary schools and provided schools. It was specifically laid down in the Act of 1902 that the managers of voluntary schools were to obey every order with regard to secular instruction which they got from the County Council. Therefore the County Council would be, so far as secular instruction went, a very much greater authority in the voluntary schools than it would be in its own provided schools. If any teacher in a voluntary school should set himself up against the County Council in regard to secular instruction, the Council could summarily dismiss him; but in a Board school a teacher might do a similar thing, and, sheltering himself under his immediate superiors, the Borough Council, might set the County Council at defiance. Let the Committee think of the number of schools in some of the London boroughs. In Westminster there were seven Board schools in which the Westminster Council would be supreme, but there were thirty-nine voluntary schools in which the Borough Council would have no voice, and where the County Council would have practically entire control in secular education. In the City there would be a similar position with three Board schools and fourteen voluntary schools, and in Marylebone seven Board schools and twenty-seven voluntary schools. He had said enough to show that the scheme required very careful consideration before it could be adopted. His own opinion was that the London County Council was a far better authority to draw up a plan of delegation to the local authority than the House of Commons. But if the Committee were determined to undertake the work, they should accept an Amendment which he would move later. Why would not the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Board of Education propose an Amendment by which the London County Council should be required to draw up a scheme by which considerable powers, with reference to elementary education, should be delegated to local Committees on which the Borough Councils should be represented. That would give the London County Council a means of doing what the Committee was attempting to do now; and which he felt sure it would fail to accomplish. An Amendment such as he suggested would indicate to the County Council that they should take into consideration the desirability of enlisting the services of the Borough Councils. He really believed that if some Amendment of that kind were proposed by the Government, it would meet with the general approval of the House; that they then might finish the Bill before Whitsuntide; and that a really good scheme would be devised for the organisation of the elementary schools of London.

DR. MACNAMAEA

said he confessed he would much rather have had the Borough Councils on the central authority either to the number of thirty-one or twelve than that those powers should devolve on them. He thought it would have been better for the actual working of education in London if the Borough Councils remained on the central authority than have those powers. There was so much misrepresentation as to what the School Board did in the way of management that he was very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing out that the School Board had a very fine system of local management indeed. They had 250 groups, each group managing from one to five schools, and they had 2,000 local managers, of whom 699 were women. Anyone who said that the School Board did not devolve enough power on those managers was making a serious mistake. The regulations of the managers extended over 300 pages of closely printed matter; and he defied anyone who wished to get a really effective system for London to safely devolve anything more than was devolved at present. He himself went to the School Board ten years ago, believing that it was too centralised. When the Borough Councils were established he did his best to consider whether they could be utilised. But now he thought that nothing in the way of devolution could be added to the code of regulations for managers. With regard to the appointment of teachers, it was suggested that the School Board kept the matter in its own hands. As a matter of fact, the managers had the sole appointment of assistant teachers. They examined the applications, saw a number of the applicants, and the person they sent up was invariably appointed by the Board. As to head teachers, the Board saw the applications, selected three of the best applicants, sent them down to the managers, and the managers made the final appointment. Would any hon. Member say that the Board could do more than that, if they wished a wise system of selection. If the Borough Councils were to be the managers, the valuable experience of the great bulk of those 2,000 managers would be lost. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulty in certain boroughs with regard to the number of schools. In Camberwell the Borough Council would have to manage 104 departments; but the bulk of the members of the Borough Council were working people. He did not blame them, of course; but they were men who could not afford to give a large amount of time to this work. The Borough Council of Hampstead, which consisted of persons of greater leisure, would only have to manage twelve departments. Again, what was to become of the special schools—the schools for the blind, the deaf, and the mentally afflicted? There was not a special school in each borough, and the question would arise as to which of the Borough Councils would manage the special school that served three or four boroughs.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said that special provision would be proposed for those schools.

DR. MACNAMARA

said he imagined there would have to be some modification; but the only modification that would be satisfactory would be that the County Council should have direct control of those schools. Apart from shutting up all Board school teachers in twenty-nine water-tight compartments, this scheme would be atrociously extravagant. If hon. Members who thought the ad hoc authority was extravagant, went in for this scheme on grounds of economy, they were in for a rude awakening indeed. What he wanted was that the County Council should have supreme power and should be supreme in the management of its own affairs. It was proposed that in the event of any difficulty arising between the Borough Councils and the County Council the Board of Education should act as arbitrator. He ventured to suggest that a dispute of this class should be settled under Queensberry rules. It would be much more likely to be an appropriate settlement.

There was rather a serious matter in connection with the curriculum in the provided schools. The Borough Councils, in respect of the Board schools, were to have a large measure of power in the settlement of the curriculum. As regarded secular instruction, that did not matter much; but with regard to religious instruction, the Borough Councils were to have complete control over instruction in the Board schools. He could mention one Borough Council which would exclude religious teaching altogether if given that power. Was that desirable? He could mention another where the scheme of what was called the "Moral Instruction League" would be certain to be introduced. He did not himself think that desirable; but he desired to point out to the Committee that they were embarking on a very dangerous course with regard to religious instruction if they handed the control over to the Borough Councils. He listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for the Strand Division the other night when he described the broad-minded, non - sectarian, non - bigoted manner in which the Technical Instruction Committee of the County Council had dealt with King's College. That was true, but only £200,000 was involved. But here they would have an expenditure of £4,000,000 mixed up with religious controversies and covering the whole field of elementary education. He would ask the hon. Member for the Strand Division to wake up with regard to the manner in which the County Council would deal with the voluntary schools, especially when the people of London began to clamour against rate-aid without public control. He would read the last utterance of the County Council on the subject.

THE CHAIRMAN

This clause has nothing to do with non-provided schools.

DR. MACNAMARA

said that the managers of voluntary schools were excluded from this clause, and Amendments were on the Paper to extend the scope of the clause in order to include them.

THE CHAIRMAN

If there are such Amendments, let the hon. Gentleman reserve himself until they are reached.

DR. MACNAMARA

said he would only add that if hon. Members opposite thought that the County Council would generously deal with the voluntary schools they were in for a rude awakening. The last part of the clause proposed that the Borough Councils should have the right to settle the sites of Board schools. He could not let that pass without a strong protest. He thought the Borough Councils ought to be consulted as to the sites; but he also thought the central authority should have a veto over their decision. Otherwise, what would happen? At present the London School Board bought sites by private treaty; but if those sites were, in every case, a matter of public resolution they would cost considerably more. Another reason why the Borough Councils should not be allowed to have full discretion as to the sites to be chosen, was that they had certain local functions to perform. Let the Committee consider what happened at Stepney. The Blakesley Street site was proposed, but the Stepney Borough Council wanted the Johnson Street site. He, as Chairman of the Accommodation Committee of the School Board, went down to see the sites, but there was no comparison between them. The Blakesley Street site was an open site and approachable by good roads; whereas the Johnson Street site was dirty, and was right up to a railway line where 300 or 400 trains passed per day. It was an insanitary area which the Borough Council had to clear; and if it had been selected as the site, the money would have had to be provided out of the general rate; otherwise it would have to be cleared at the expense of the Stepney Borough rate. That was what would occur in innumerable cases. The proposal of the clause would lead to great extravagance, he would not say jobbery; and if the Borough Councils had an absolute veto, for a number of reasons they would not always choose the best sites. For those reasons he would urge on the Committee that this matter should be put into the supreme control of the County Council.

COLONEL LOCK WOOD (Essex, Epping)

said that what he and others desired was a connecting link between the Committee of management and the central authority, and if the Government were not prepared to give the central authority a majority on the Committee of management, they should at all events allow them one or two members thereon.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid)

said the question before the Committee was whether the local education authority was to have supreme control even in the question of management. The Government proposed to give independent powers of management to the Borough Councils, and on that question of principle the Committee had a perfectly clear issue. The Committee had been compelled to discuss questions of principle in an extraordinary way. In the second clause they were forced to discuss an important matter on words which were meaningless in themselves, and the Amendment now under consideration was in itself to a certain extent colourless. Surely the Government ought now to tell the Committee what their plan was. Were the Committee to understand that the Government proposed to give supreme control in matters of management to the local education authority? Were they prepared to do away with the independent powers of management proposed to be given to the Borough Councils, and to say the central authority should have a voice in the matter? The Government were not treating the Committee in a businesslike manner by keeping their plan up their sleeve, and hon. Members had a right to ask that the hon. Baronet should adumbrate his modified proposals before this important Amendment was disposed of.

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

appealed to the Committee to come to a decision on this Amendment. The Government had been asked to say what their plan was. His hon. friend in charge of the Bill much earlier in the debate had stated that there were two Amendments on the Paper in the name of his hon. friend the Member for Chelsea which carried out the Amendment of the clause that the Government thought desirable. The Amendment under consideration would leave devolution entirely optional to the education authority. His hon. friend proposed in his Amendment that there should be devolution, but that that devolution should be by scheme. The whole question at issue, therefore, was whether the devolution should be optional and entirely open, or whether it should be made compulsory and settled by scheme. The subject, he thought, could be discussed with greater advantage on the Amendments which raised the precise issue, rather than on an Amendment that raised merely the general question.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he had understood the hon. Baronet to say that the question of the statutory position of the Borough Councils was a matter of detail which it would be open for the Committee to consider afterwards. He now understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it was merely a question of what powers should be devolved, and that the statutory position of the Borough Councils remained intact. To have two authorities with conflicting statutory powers would be absolutely fatal to elementary education in London, and he should oppose it as strongly as possible.

MR. WALTER LONG

(interposing) referred the hon. Member to the Amendments on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Chelsea, and read the clause as it would stand if those Amendments were embodied.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

understood that the Borough Councils would remain statutory managers, with power to appoint and dismiss teachers, and that then other powers might be left to them as arranged with the County Council. That really made matters worse, and instead of diminishing, would tend to increase the friction between the two authorities.

MR. WHITMORE

hoped the Committee would not take for granted all the hon. Member for Poplar had said, but would wait until he had an opportunity of moving his Amendment, when he hoped to be able to commend it to the general sense of the Committee. He had framed the Amendment with a sincere wish to meet the general views of the Committee with regard to the management clauses of the Bill, and not in any way from a desire to give power to the Borough Councils as against the County Council.

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somerset shire, E.)

rose, but—

MR. WALTER LONG

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 183; Noes, 99. (Division List No. 100.)
AYES.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute
Anson, Sir William Reynell Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Artwright, John Stanhope Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Forster, Henry William Myers, William Henry
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Fyler, John Arthur Nicol, Donald Ninian
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Galloway, William Johnson O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Bailey, James (Waldworth) Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond O'Shee, James John
Bain, Colonel James Robert Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r) Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Gordon, Maj Evans (Tr. H'ml'ts Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Goulding, Edward Alfred Pretyman, Ernest George
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj. Graham, Henry Robert Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury) Purvis, Robert
Bignold, Arthur Grenfell, William Henry Rankin, Sir James
Bigwood, James Grenville, Hon. Ronald Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Bill, Charles Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Midd'x Remnant, James Farquharson
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Bond, Edward Hare, Thomas Leigh Renwick, George
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Harris, Frederick Leverton Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge
Bousfield, William Robert Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)
Brassey, Albert Healy, Timothy Michael Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. Sir John Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.) Helder, Augustus Robertson, H. (Hackney)
Brymer, William Ernest Henderson, Sir Alexander Round, Rt. Hon. James
Bull, William James Hoare, Sir Samuel Royds, Clement Molyneux
Burdett-Coutts, W. Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Butcher, John George Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Johnstone, Heywood Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc Keswick, William Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)
Charrington, Spencer Kimber, Henry Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Churchill, Winston Spencer King, Sir Henry Seymour Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Clare, Octavius Leigh Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Spear, John Ward
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)
Collings, Right Hon. Jesse Lawson, Jn. Grant (Yorks. N. R. Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham) Stock, James Henry
Compton, Lord Alwyne Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Thorburn, Sir Walter
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.) Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Thornton, Percy M.
Cranborne, Viscount Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Tollemache, Henry James
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.
Cust, Henry John C. Macdona, John Cumming Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Dalkeith, Earl of MacIver, David (Liverpool) Tuke, Sir John Batty
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Maconnchie, A. W. Valantia, Viscount
Denny, Colonel M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Martin, Richard Biddulph Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n
Dickson, Charles Scott Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wig'n Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C. Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. Milvain, Thomas Wilson John (Glasgow)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Molesworth, Sir Lewis Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.) Morton, Arthur H. Aymler Sir Alexander Acland-
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed. Mount, William Arthur Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud) Black, Alexander William Bryce, Right Hon. James
Ashton, Thomas Gair Bolton, Thomas Dolling Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn
Atherley-Jones, L. Brigg, John Burns, John
Buxton, Sydney Charles Humphreys, Owen, Arthur C. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Caldwell, James Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. Robson, William Snowdon
Cameron, Robert Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley Roe, Sir Thomas
Causton, Richard Knight Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Rose, Charles Day
Channing, Francis Allston Kearley, Hudson E. Russell, T. W.
Cremer, William Randal Kitson, Sir James Schwann, Charles E.
Cripps, Charles Alfred Labouchere, Henry Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Crooks, William Lambert, George Shipman, Dr. John G.
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Layland-Barratt, Francis Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Elibank, Master of Leigh, Sir Joseph Stevenson, Francis S.
Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan) Leng, Sir John Tennant, Harold John
Fenwick, Charles Levy, Maurice Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Lewis, John Herbert Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)
Foster, Sir Michl. (Lond. Univ Lough, Thomas Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Fuller, J. M. F. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Crae, George Toulmin, George
Grant, Corrie M'Kenna, Reginald Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Mansfield, Horace Rendall Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Moss, Samuel Weir, James Galloway
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Norman, Henry White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Harmsworth, R. Leicester Norton, Capt. Cecil William Whitley J. H. (Halifax)
Harwood, George Nussey, Thomas Willans Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Hay, Hon. Claude George Partington, Oswald Williams, O. (Merioneth)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd)
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley
Helme, Norval Watson Price, Robert John TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. Priestley, Arthur Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Hobhouse, C. F. H. (Bristl, E. Rea, Russell Mr. William M'Arthur.
Holland, Sir William Henry Rickett, J. Compton
Horniman, Frederick John Rigg, Richard

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee again divided:—Ayes, 99; Noes, 174. (Division List No. 101.)

NOES.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Forster, Henry William Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Fyler, John Arthur Myers, William Henry
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Galloway, William Johnson Nicol, Donald Ninian
Bailey, James (Walworth) Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Gordon, Maj Evans-(Tr. Hmlts Pretyman, Ernest George
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Goulding, Edward Alfred Purvis, Robert
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Graham, Henry Robert Rankin, Sir James
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury) Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Bignold, Arthur Grenfell, William Henry Remnant, James Farquharson
Bigwood, James Greville, Hon. Ronald Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Bill, Charles Hamilton Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Midd'x Renwick, George
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge
Boland, John Hare, Thomas Leigh Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Harris, Frederick Leverton Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson
Bousfield, William Robert Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Brassey, Albert Healy, Timothy Michael Round, Rt. Hon. James
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.) Royds, Clement Molyneux
Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.) Helder, Augustus Rutherford, John (Lancashire
Brymer, William Ernest Henderson, Sir Alexander Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Bull, William James Hoare, Sir Samuel Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Butcher, John George Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Cecil Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Johnstone, Heywood Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh Spear, John Ward
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc Keswick, William Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Charrington, Spencer Kimber, Henry Stock, James Henry
Churchill, Winston Spencer King, Sir Henry Seymour Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Clare, Octavius Leigh Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. Oxf'd Univ.
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R. Thorburn, Sir Walter
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham) Thornton, Percy M.
Compton, Lord Alwyne Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Tollemache, Henry James
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.
Cranborne, Viscount Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Crossley, Sir Savile Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Bristol, S. Tuke, Sir John Batty
Cullinan J. Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Valentia, Viscount
Dalkeith, Earl of Macdona, John Cumming Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.
Dalrymple, Sir Charles MacIver, David (Liverpool) Welby, Lt-Col A. C. E. (Taunton
Denny, Colonel Maconochie, A. W. Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)
Dickinson, Robert Edmond M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Dickson, Charles Scott Martin, Richard Biddulph Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C. Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n Wilson John (Glasgow)
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfrieshire Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Milvain, Thomas Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Molesworth, Sir Lewis Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Sir Alexander Acland-
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W. Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed. Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r Mount, William Arthur

And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House. Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.