Commons Sitting of 26 May 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—
  Somerset and District Electric Power Bill [Lords]; Scunthorpe Urban District Water Bill [Lords]; Dudley, Stourbridge, and District Tramways Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, viz.:—
  Hove, Worthing, and District Tramways Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Faversham Gas Bill [Lords]; Life Association of Scotland Bill [Lords]; North's Navigation Collieries Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Highland and Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Companies Bill. As amended, considered. Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell). Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
  Lima Railways Bill [Lords] [Not amended] considered. To be read the third time.
  Southampton Harbour Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Naval Works Provisional Order Bill. Reported, without Amendment (Provisional Order confirmed); Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. Reported, without Amendment (Provisional Orders confirmed); Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill. Reported, without Amendment (Provisional Orders confirmed); Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill. Reported, without Amendment (Provisional Orders confirmed); Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  Wigan Corporation Tramways Bill; Grindleford, Baslow, and Bakewell Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Knott End Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Bill [Lords]. Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Milford Docks Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Pelican and British Empire Life Office Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.
  Harrow and Stanmore Gas Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  South Wales Mineral Railway Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill [Lords]; Wellington (Salop) Gas Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  South Shields, Sunderland, and District Tramways Bill. Reported (Preamble not proved); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP No. 5).
  Sir LEWIS M'IVERreported from the Committee on Group No. 5 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned until Tuesday, 9th June, at half-past Eleven of the clock. Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; North Middlesex Gas Bill, without Amendment.
  London Hydraulic Power Bill, with an Amendment.
  Bridgwater Gas Bill; Sutton District Water Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the appointment of an additional Church Estates Commissioner." (Ecclesiastical Commissioners Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the adjustment, in accordance with changes of boundary effected under the London Government Act, 1899, of the areas within which local authorities and companies are authorised to supply electricity." (Electric Lighting (London) Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Education under the Elementary Education Acts. 1870 to 1900 to enable the School Boards for East Ham, Lower Michaelstone, Manchester, and Willesden to put in force the Land Clauses Acts." (Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (East Ham, etc.) Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Llandudno, Galway, and Scrabster." (Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the construction of a new tramway in the urban district of Ravensthorpe and the electrical equipment and reconstruction of tramways in the boroughs of Dewsbury and Batley and the urban districts of Gomersal, Birkenshaw, Soothill Upper, and Birstal; and for other purposes." (Dewsbury, Batley, and Birstal Tramways Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Chard to purchase the undertaking of the Chard Gas Company, and to supply gas and electricity within their borough and the neighbourhood thereof; and for other purposes." (Chard Corporation Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Companies Managing Committee to work the South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways by electrical power; and for other purposes." (South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Hastings Tramways Company to construct extension tramways in the county borough of Hastings; and for other purposes." (Hastings Tramways (Extensions) Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Bournemouth to maintain and use the tramways authorised by the Bournemouth Corporation Tramways Order, 1900, and to make provision for the transfer of the undertaking of the Poole and District Electric Traction Company, Limited, and for other purposes." (Bournemouth Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the powers of the Jewish Colonisation Association; and for other purposes." (Jewish Colonisation Association Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the South Lancashire Tramways Company to construct additional tramways and other works, and to extend the time for taking lands and for the construction and completion of certain authorised tramways and widenings; and for other purposes." (South Lancashire Tramways Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Pontypridd Urban District Council to make a new street and other street works, to lay down a tramway, and to confer further powers upon the council with regard to their gas and electricity undertakings, and with regard to the good government and improvement of the district." (Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time limited for the completion of and purchase of lands for the works authorised by the Christchurch and Bournemouth Tramways Act, 1900; and for other purposes." (Poole and District Electric Traction Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to incorporate a Company and authorise them to acquire the undertaking of the Commissioners for the Harbour of Maryport, and to construct a dock, railways, and works at and near Maryport; and for other purposes." (Maryport Harbour Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Corporation of Torquay to construct additional waterworks; and for other purposes." (Torquay Corporation Water Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to incorporate the Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Company, and to empower that company to make and maintain tramways and other works; and for other purposes." (Preston and Horwich Tramways Bill [Lords], now "Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [Lords]").
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers upon the London and North Western Railway Company in relation to their own undertaking, and upon that Company and the Midland Railway Company in relation to their respective joint undertakings, and upon the Shropshire Union Railways and

  1783
  Canal Company in relation to their undertaking; and for other purposes." (London and North Western Railway Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company; and for other purposes." (London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for empowering the Cardiff Railway Company to construct a new railway and works, and to abandon the construction of portions of railways already authorised; for extending the time for the completion of certain railways and works; and for other purposes." (Cardiff Railway Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further and better provision with regard to the electric light undertaking of the council, and for the improvement, health, local government, and finance of the district; and for other purposes." (Aston Manor Improvement Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend King's College, London, Act, 1882." (King's College, London, Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the sale and disposal of St. Philip's Chapel (Regent Street); and for other purposes." (St. Philip's Chapel (Regent Street) Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Port Talbot Railway and Docks Company to raise further moneys for the purposes of their undertaking." (Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for empowering the British Gas Light Company (Limited) to expend further capital at Norwich." (British Gas Light Company (Norwich) Bill [Lords]).
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Company." (Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Bill [Lords]).
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for authorising the Tynemouth and District Electric Traction Company, Limited, to use mechanical power upon their tramways; and for other purposes."
  1784
  (Tynemouth and District Tramways Bill [Lords]).
  Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (East Ham, etc.) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. (Bill 212.)
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. (Bill 213.)
  Dewsbury, Batley, and Birstal Tramways Bill [Lords]; Chard Corporation Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords]; South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Bill [Lords]; Hastings Tramways (Extensions) Bill [Lords]; Bourne-mouth Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords]; Jewish Colonisation Association Bill [Lords]; South Lancashire Tramways Bill [Lords]; Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Poole and District Electric Traction Bill [Lords]; Maryport Harbour Bill [Lords]; Torquay Corporation Water Bill [Lords]; Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [Lords]; London and North-Western Railway Bill [Lords]; London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  Cardiff Railway Bill [Lords]; Aston Manor Improvement Bill [Lords; King's College, London, Bill [Lords]; St. Philip's Chapel (Regent Street) Bill [Lords]; Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill [Lords]; British Gas Light Company (Norwich) Bill [Lords]; Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Bill [Lords]; Tynemouth and District Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Partick; and Renfrew; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COUNCILS (BILLS IN PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Petition from Renfrew, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Eccles; and Hanley; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL.
  Petitions against: from Helston; and Morley; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Kilmarnock; and Morley; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL, AND LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL.
  Petitions against: from Manchester; Oldham; and Bristol; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Linlithgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Headington, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Petitions against (praying to be heard by Counsel): from County Council of Essex; and Waterside Manufacturers within the Port of London; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Edinburgh; Haltwhistle; Styal; Holyhead; Willesden; Falmouth; Kilbride; Auchinheath; Paignton; Enderby; St. Cuthberts; Dove Holes; Horbury; Walton; Derby; Thrapston; Tyldesley; Brightside; Swalwell; Blantyre; Lazonby; and Lincoln; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Dover, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF ADULTERATED BUTTER BILL.
  Petition from Dover, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SHEEP SCAB BILL.
  Petition from Fife, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Aberdeen, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NATIONAL DEBT ACT, 1883 (TERMINABLE ANNUITIES).
  Paper (presented 12th May) to be printed. (No. 178.)
  NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING.
  Copy presented, of Annual Statement of Navigation and Shipping of the United Kingdom for the year 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOOD SUPPLIES (IMPORTED).
  Return presented, relative thereto (ordered 4th March; Mr. D. A. Thomas); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 179.)
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (EDUCATION COMMITTEES),
  Copy presented, of Statement of Schemes for the formation of Education Committees, approved during the month of April, 1903, by the Board of Education, under Section 17 of the Education Act, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1889.
  Copy presented, of Minute of the Board of Education, dated 9th May, 1903, sanctioning the subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of The Technical Instruction Act, 1889, for the County of Glamorgan (Thirteenth Minute) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  COLLEGE CHARTER ACT, 1871 (OWEN'S COLLEGE, MANCHESTER, AND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LIVERPOOL).
  Copies presented, of Applications received from Owen's College, Manchester, and University College, Liverpool, for the Establishment of Universities in those cities, which were referred by His Majesty in Council for the Consideration and Report of a Committee of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy

  1787
  Council; together with Copies of the Drafts of the Charters applied for [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
  Address for "Return, showing the number of Experiments performed on Living Animals during the year 1902, under Licences granted under the Act 39 & 40 Vic, cap. 77, distinguishing painless from painful Experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 174, of Session 1902."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Inquiry into Duties and Functions of Board of Trade.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state what further steps have been taken in reference to the Departmental Committee of Inquiry to be instituted with a view of rearranging the duties and functions of the Board of Trade and other offices.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The matter is being proceeded with, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been in communication with various gentlemen with reference to their serving on the Committee.

  Veterinary Examination of Stallions for Congested Districts Board.
  MR. NICOL: To ask the Lord Advocate whether the stallions that were bought or subsidised by the Congested Districts Board for the Highlands were examined by a veterinary surgeon; or was any certificate signed by a veterinary surgeon given when the stallions were selected and sent to the congested districts.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) All the stallions bought privately by the Congested Districts Board have been examined by a veterinary surgeon. There are greater difficulties in the cases when animals have been bought at a public sale and under the usual public sale conditions, but in the case of those and in the case of animals in respect of which a premium is given by the Board every
  1788
  reasonable precaution is taken to ensure the soundness of those sent to the various districts.

  London Streets—Permission to Excavate.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state what steps he is taking to place the power to tear up the streets of London under some system or control.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) This is not a matter in which I can take any steps, pending the Report of the Royal Commission which is considering the whole question of street traffic in London.

  Motor-Car Drivers and the Police.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the police inspector who was on duty at the crossing from Parliament Street to Palace Yard at 4.15 p.m. on Monday the 18th instant has yet reported the failure of the driver of a motor-car to obey the constable's signal to stop like other traffic; and whether he will say what steps he proposes to take to protect the public against the disregard of the orders of the police by motor-car drivers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The result of most careful inquiry is that the inspector on duty at the crossing from Parliament Street to Palace Yard on 4.15 on Monday the 18th instant reports that he remembers having some conversation on that day with a Member of Parliament, but has no recollection of any motor-car disregarding a constable's signal to stop like other traffic. The police have instructions to take proceedings against drivers of motorcars equally with those of other vehicles who drive to the common danger.

  Troops Delayed in Aden—Dublin Fusiliers.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for India, if he can say how long the additional troops will be detained at Aden; whether the frontier question is now settled; and whether, seeing that the battalion of Dublin Fusiliers now on the

  1789
  frontier has had nineteen years' continuous foreign service, steps can be taken to bring it home.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The delimitation of the Aden frontier, though progress has been made, is not yet settled, and I cannot say when it will be possible to withdraw the additional troops. In any case the passage through the Red Sea in the hot weather would be a risky undertaking for British troops.

  Plague in India.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that plague has recurred with increasing virulence in India annually since 1896, so that during parts of March and April last the deaths from this cause averaged between 4,000 and 5,000 daily, what steps the Government intends to take to check the ravages of the disease in India, and the increasing risk of its dissemination to other countries.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The Government of India and the several local governments are using every means in their power, due regard being had to the customs and prejudices of the people, to check the spread of the epidemic and to bring medical aid to the sufferers. Efforts have been and are being successfully made to induce the people to submit to inoculation, and a large staff of doctors has been sent out to India for this purpose. The people also are being encouraged to give early information of outbreaks, to evacuate infected dwellings, to isolate the sick, and to submit to disinfection, in accordance with the recommendations of the Plague Commission. To prevent the dissemination of plague to foreign countries stringent precautions are taken at the ports, and the provisions of the Venice Convention are strictly observed. The latest returns show a satisfactory decrease in mortality.

  Children in Workhouses.
  MR. HARWOOD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state how many children are at present housed in the work-
  1790
  houses of England and Wales, omitting those of the Metropolis; and how many of these are under three years of age.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) There were, on 1st January last, 18,873 children under sixteen years of age in the workhouses and infirmaries of unions outside London. I am unable to state the number of these children under three years of age.

  Corn Duty—Rebates.
  MR. BATTY LANGLEY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the shilling per quarter paid by millers under the Corn Tax, he will arrange that rebate shall be allowed upon all wheat the millers may have in stock, English and Foreign, on 30th June. (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) Rebate will be allowed on stocks of imported duty-paid wheat within the limits of the recent concession. Where stocks of imported duty-paid wheat are mixed with home-grown wheat, rebate will be allowed on the amount of the former present in the mixture. Duty has not been levied on home-grown wheat, and consequently no duty falls to be repaid in respect thereof.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his proposed rebate in respect of corn purchased by Irish millers for forward delivery up to 30th June will, as in the case of British merchants and millers, be allowed to the Irish merchant as well. (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) Corn purchased by millers for forward delivery up to 30th proximo, upon which the proper Customs duty has been paid, will be eligible for rebate within the terms of the recent concession. No distinction is made between British and Irish merchants or millers in this or any other matter connected with the proposed grant or rebate.

  Post Office Stationery Contract.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether any remonstrance has been addressed to the contractors by the postal

  1791
  authorities on the subject of the quality of the stationery, particularly the envelopes, supplied by them to the Post Office; and will he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Post cards, letter cards, embossed envelopes, etc., are obtained by the Post Office from the Inland Revenue Department, which Department made the contract with the firm supplying them. Whenever complaint is made to the Post Office as to the quality of any of the articles in question the matter is referred to the Inland Revenue Department, whence representations are addressed as may be considered necessary to the contractors. Such representations have recently been made to the contractors in regard to some embossed envelopes and cards supplied by them, and the hon. Member may rest assured that the subject will be kept under observation.

  Delivery of Letters.
  MR. FREEMAN THOMAS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether Rule 56, in the Provincial Town Postmen's Rule Book, is meant as an instruction to postmen that letters for delivery may not be put under the door or laid inside the window of the house to which they are addressed, in case no person should happen to be in the house at the time of delivery.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The intention of Rule 56 in the current issue of Provincial Town Postmen's Rule Book is, as stated in the hon. Member's Question, to prohibit the placing of letters for delivery under doors or through a window, when there is nobody there to receive them, even when previously requested by the owner to do so.

  Erection of National Schools in Ireland.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the increased cost of labour and materials, he will hasten the adoption of the proposal to increase building estimates under plan 6a for the erection of National Schools in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Arthur Elliot.) I am not prepared to deal with this question apart from the more general questions
  1792
  raised in the Report of the Committee on Building Grants, the decision on which will, as I stated on the 21st instant, † be deferred until the inquiry into the present educational system in Ireland is completed.

  Lighting of the Red Sea.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any information has been received in regard to the lighting of the new lighthouses at the southern end of the Red Sea; and if he can state what is the cause of the delay.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) I have nothing to add to the answer returned to the Question asked by the hon. Member for Whitehaven on the 11th instant, ‡ in which the cause of delay was explained.

  Congo Free State and Bahr-el-Ghazal.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the proposal to give to the Congo Free State a part of the Bahr-el-Ghazal as compensation for the transfer to this country of the Lado enclave, and of the fact that the Bahr-el-Ghazal abounds in coal and iron and that its inhabitants are a comparatively civilised and industrial people and are expert workers in iron, he will state whether any, and, if so, what steps will be taken to ascertain their views before carrying out the proposal; whether he can lay Papers upon the Table showing the area and boundaries, the names of the tribes inhabiting the part proposed to be transferred and its estimated population; and whether this House will be given an opportunity of discussing the question before any decision is come to.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The proposal to which the hon. Member refers is still under consideration, and I am not at present in a position to give information on the points raised in his Question.

  Rotten Row.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the hon. Member for West Derby, as representing the First
  † See page 1352.
  ‡ See page 288.

  1793
  Commissioner of Works, whether it is intended to put more sand on Rotten Row, which at present is only covered with a thin coating of fine dust.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) Instructions were given on Saturday last for additional sand to be put on where it is thin.

  London Education Bill—Endowed Schools.
  SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the provisions of the London Education Bill as to appointment of managers and control by the local authority, would apply to the case of an endowed school which under its scheme of management has to be maintained as a public elementary school if the governors of such school elect not to accept a parliamentary grant.
  (Answered by Sir William, Anson.) The reply to the Question depends upon whether the trust deed requires the school to be conducted as a public elementary school or not. Particular cases will be dealt with by the Board when the proper time arrives.

  Irish Land Bill—Repurchase.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Attorney-General for Ireland whether, under Clause 3 of the Irish Land Bill, it will be possible for the owner of an estate to repurchase his demesne, if at the time the estate was sold he was out of occupation, by reason of having let it for a period of, say, one or two years.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) Under the provisions of the Bill, the advance can only be made to an owner for the purchase of land which is in his occupation at the date of the sale to the Land Commission.

  Irish Congested Districts Board—Expenditure in Kiltimagh and Carna.
  MR. HARRIS: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that one of the members of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland has been able
  1794
  to secure the application of funds of the Board to the parish of Kiltimagh, County Mayo, in which he is locally interested, whilst in the poorer parish of Carna, County Galway, in which he is not so interested, the Board has spent little or nothing, he will state what has been the gross expenditure by the Board to the present date in each of these parishes.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The assertion of fact in this Question is presumably based on an erroneous statement to which, I am aware, some publicity has recently been given. I am much obliged to my hon. friend for the opportunity he has afforded me of pointing out that the statement, and more especially the inference sought to be drawn from it, are without foundation. The gross expenditure by the Congested Districts Board on schemes in the parish of Kiltimagh was £15,578 to the 31st March last, whilst in the parish of Carna the Board's expenditure to the same date amounted to £40,895.

  Extra Police at Listry, County Kerry.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of policemen stationed in the parish of Listry, County Kerry; the number employed protecting Mr. Edward Morragh Bernard, in the same parish; the cost of the same, respectively, and where chargeable to; and if, having regard to the crimelessness of this district, these policemen will now be removed. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Seven, of whom two, when not employed in protecting Mr. Bernard, are engaged on other police duties. The cost of the two men is about £162 a year, and is borne on the Constabulary Vote.

  Irish Local Government Board Auditors and Public Contracts.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Local Government Act of last session, binding public bodies to accept the lowest tender, provides for enforcement by the Local Government Board auditor, he will direct that the Local Government Board does not interfere in this branch of the auditor's business in future.

  1795
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It is not the practice of the Local Government Board to interfere with auditors in the discharge of their duties, except in the exercise of the Board's statutory duty of inquiring into and deciding upon appeals against surcharges.

  Longford District Council—Auditor's Surcharge.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a surcharge amounting to £14 on three Members of Longford District Council for a payment made in respect of extra work done by the Council's engineer; and whether, seeing that no opportunity was given to the persons surcharged to be heard before the auditor, and that an appeal in respect of the surcharge has been refused by the Local Government Board for Ireland, he will direct that before proceedings are taken to enforce the payment of the surcharge the engineer's process against the Council will be allowed to be first decided by the County Court judge.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Due notice was given by the auditor in the prescribed manner of his intention to audit the accounts of this Council. All persons interested were at liberty to attend the audit. The auditor surcharged two sums of £10 10s. and £2 17s. in respect to payments made to the Council's engineer. On appeal the Local Government Board declared the surcharges to have been lawfully made. The decision of the Board is final, and it has no authority to interfere with the auditor in the steps he may take for the recovery of these sums.

  New Works in the Boyle Rural District.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the estimated cost for the new works in Boyle No. 1 Rural District for the three years ending 1st April, 1902; how much of this estimated cost was actually paid for works executed; whether the charge was a district or a county charge, and whether, seeing that the amount so expended exceeded the amount spent by the Grand Jury of County Roscommon
  1796
  in the district for the three years prior to the coming into operation of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, he will state how much of the increase is due to the adoption of the principle of main roads by Roscommon County Council.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The estimated cost of new works in this district in the period stated was £1,712 13s. The amount expended was £382 15s., and was raised off the district. No increase in the cost of new works resulted from the adoption of the main road scheme by the County Council.

  Average Cost of Soldiers.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the average cost of a soldier belonging to the artillery, cavalry, engineers, and infantry, in England, colonial stations, South Africa, and India, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The approximate annual cost of a trained private at home at the present time is—artillery (horse), £61 3s. 4d.; artillery (field), £57 11s. 10d.; artillery (garrison), £54 19s. 10d; cavalry (of line), £59 7s.: engineers, £70 16s. 11d.; infantry, £52 10s. 3d. After 1st April, 1904, when the new service pay comes into operation, in the case of soldiers of two years service and upwards, who will serve for seven or eight years with the colours, the above figures will be increased by about £7 a head. The cost of a soldier at colonial stations is mainly affected by the price of the ration, which varies considerably at different stations but practically in every case it is higher than the home rate. It is not possible, therefore, to give a general rate for the cost of soldiers at colonial stations. In South Africa, at the present time, prices rule very high, and a special scale of ration is in force, causing an increase to the cost of troops in South Africa, as compared with at home, by about £16 per head for food alone. But over and above the excess cost of food, there are numerous other charges that arise from the maintenance of troops in South

  1797
  Africa—e.g. land and sea transport, special allowance to officers to cover the increased cost of living, and the maintenance of various establishments such as mounted infantry, transport, and remounts, in order to secure efficiency and mobility. These factors make the maintenance of troops in South Africa much more expensive than at home. The pay and allowance of British troops in India are about the same as in this country, but for precise figures regarding the cost of soldiers in India, a Question should be addressed to the India Office.

  Balances due to Deceased Soldiers—Case of Private J. Murray.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange that the balance standing to the credit of the late Private James Murray, formerly a bandsman in the 6th Battalion Rifle Brigade, who died in South Africa some years ago, shall be paid to the deceased soldier's mother, who is living in Longford.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The information contained in the Question is insufficient to enable the man to be traced. If the hon. Member can forward any further details of the period of his service, and also communicate the addresses of his relatives, further search will be made.

  Irish Postal Servants and the 24th Middlesex Volunteers.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of removing the disabilities whereby telegraphists in the Irish post offices are precluded from joining the Royal Engineers Telegraph Reserve Company of the 24th Middlesex Volunteers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) As there are no Volunteers in Ireland there are no means for training telegraphists employed in the Irish post offices.

  Hong Kong Public Health Laws.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Bill to amend the laws relating to public health and buildings which was recently under
  1798
  consideration in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong has yet been sanctioned.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The Bill referred to has been passed and brought into operation. The ordinance was recently received in this office, but has not yet been sanctioned, as its provisions, which are numerous and complicated, require careful examination.

  Preferential Rates for Empire Products.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has made any official proposals for colonial tariffs giving preferential rates to British as against foreign goods and manufactures; whether any negotiations have recently; passed between the British and Colonial Governments with regard to mutual tariff concessions, in view of existing commercial treaties with foreign States securing for this country the Most-Favoured Nation treatment; and, if so, will he lay the correspondence on the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) No, Sir.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Mounted Infantry in South Africa.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, how many mounted infantry battalions there are in South Africa; and by what means their strength is maintained.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): There are at present six mounted infantry battalions in South Africa; they are made up of companies from the infantry battalions in South Africa.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question?
    MR. BRODRICK: I have said the men are drafted from the infantry battalions in South Africa.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Is the strength of the mounted battalions maintained by drafts from England?
    MR. BRODRICK: The drafts come from the battalions in the ordinary course.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Are any mounted infantry recruits sent out from this country?
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir.

    146th Battery Royal Field Artillery.
    MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GOREhad on the Paper the following question:—To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the officers and non-commissioned officers of the 146th Battery Royal Field Artillery, now stationed at Trowbridge, are mounted on horses originally intended for gun draught purposes; and if so, will he state when suitable chargers and troop horses will be provided for this battery.
    On being called upon to put it by Mr. Speaker the hon. Member said—The wording of this Question has been so altered at the Table that I propose to postpone it.

    Naval Gunnery.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty will the Admiralty consider the advisability of publishing annually a list of ships in His Majesty's fleet in their order of merit in gunnery efficiency either on the system of points per gun adopted on the China station, or on some other system; of altering the system of prize-money for heavy and light gun-firing so as to avoid the present method of allocating to each ship a total sum for prizes based solely on the complement and not on the gunnery efficiency of that ship; and of granting to the best heavy-gun marksmen badges for good shooting similar to those now granted to the best rifle marksmen.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): It is proposed at an early date to publish a list of ships in their order of merit as regards efficiency in gunnery.
    1800
    This information will be given annually. There is no intention of making any alteration in the system of granting prize money for heavy and light gun-firing at present in force. The King, however, has approved of the bestowal of a medal upon the men who are returned as the best shots with each class of gun in each ship respectively, subject to their performance being up to a fixed standard of merit. A bonus will be given in connection with the medal. It is not proposed to grant marksmen's badges.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the Admiralty not consider the advisability of granting a badge instead of a medal as in the case of the rifle volunteers?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: A bonus will accompany the medal in the year it is granted.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the medal be a permanent gift?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir.

    Chinese Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that 2,000 or 3,000 Chinese labourers are being hired in America with a view to their transportation to South Africa to work in the Transvaal mines; and, if so, whether he can state what action the Transvaal Government will take in the matter.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have seen a report to this effect in the newspapers, but I have no reason for supposing that it has any foundation.

    Plague at Hong Kong.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that 117 cases of plague, resulting in ninety-nine deaths, are reported to have occurred at Hong Kong in one week during the present month; and will he state when he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House the reports of the medical and sanitary experts, Professor Simpson and

    1801
    Mr. Robert Chad wick, who visited Hong Kong last year in connection with the plague.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the facts quoted by the hon. Member, which were reported to me by the Governor in a telegram which was communicated to the Press. I do not propose to lay the Reports referred to on the Table but I have caused copies to be placed in the Library.

    South African Compensation Claims.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the number of claims for compensation which have been lodged up to the 31st December last by the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies respectively; and the amount which they represent for each colony.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The information asked for is not available, and as it would be a long and expensive matter to collect it I am unable to give a return on the subject.
    MR. WEIR: Will it be available six months hence?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Possibly. But I am afraid the matter will not be completed even within six months.
    MR. WEIR: I will put the Question down for next year.

    Free Trade in the Congo Free State.
    MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government, in communicating with the other signatories to the Act of Berlin, will endeavour to arrive at an agreement as to the effect of the clause stipulating for complete freedom of trade (Article 1), as well as of the clause prohibiting monopoly or favour in matters of trade (Article 5) in relation to the system of trade now prevailing in the Congo Free State, including the positions occupied by the Concessionaire Companies and by the State in respect of the domaine privée.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): The communications with the signatories to the Act of Berlin will certainly cover the stipulation contained in Article 1, to which my hon. friend refers, as well as those in Article 5 and will apply to the domaine privée as well as to the area occupied by the Concessionaries.

    Female Labour at Coal Pits.
    MR. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the names of the coal collieries in Great Britain where female labour is employed at or about the pits.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I can only refer the hon. Member to Table 4 of Part I. of the Annual General Report on Mines and Quarries, which shows the total number of women employed aboveground at mines in each of the inspectors' districts. There are no women employed underground. Also in the list of mines which is published annually the number of persons employed at each colliery is given; but men and women are not distinguished in this Return, and, as at present advised, I do not see my way to making out the figures separately for each colliery.

    Inquiry into Wages of Postal Servants.
    MR. CORRIE GRANT: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Chesterfield Division of Derbyshire, I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the members of the staff affected by the proposed Committee of Inquiry into the question of wages will be asked to give evidence on their behalf; and, if so, will he give instructions that the representatives of the men may have access to the official documents necessary to complete their case.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): It will be for the Committee to decide on its own procedure and on the method to be adopted in order to inform itself on the questions contained in the

    1803
    reference. As regards the second part of the hon. Member's Question I cannot undertake to give the staff access to official documents other than those which are already open to them in Parliamentary Papers and the published instructions of the Department.

    Liverpool Emigrant Lodging Houses.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that although Nos. 19 and 28, Great George Square, Liverpool, are common emigrant lodging houses, neither house is on the register; and will he ascertain the reason for this omission.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): I have made inquiry as to this matter, and am informed that the houses referred to are not common emigrant lodging houses and are therefore not registered as common lodging-houses. No. 19 is the residence of Mr. A. R. Paynter, Emigration Agent for the American Line. At the rear of the house there is a hall in which the majority of his emigrants have their dinner. The house, however, is reserved exclusively for 2nd class passengers. No. 28 is the residence of Mr. I. Heilbron, Emigration Agent for the Canadian Line. None but 2nd class passengers are received into this house.

    George Square, Liverpool—Infectious Diseases.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of cases of infectious diseases removed from houses in Great George Square, Liverpool, during each year for the last three years, distinguishing smallpox, cholera, and typhus from other infectious diseases.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: During the period referred to there have been no cases of cholera or typhus in houses in Great George Square and only one case of smallpox. That case occurred this year. The number of cases of other infectious diseases which have occurred are as follows—twelve in 1900, seven in 1901, nine in 1902, and three in 1903.

    Liverpool Smallpox Hospital—Escape of Patients.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that five patients recently escaped from their beds in the Liverpool Smallpox Hospital to the adjoining grounds, and that one of the patients subsequently found his way to a farmhouse where he saw the farmer and other inmates who were subsequently vaccinated at the suggestion of the hospital authorities; and will he consider the expediency of ordering some inquiry with a view to patients in this hospital being more carefully guarded.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: I am informed by the Town Clerk of Liverpool that he has caused inquiries to be made as to the statement that five patients had escaped from the hospital referred to. He finds that there is no foundation for this statement. I understand that the patient referred to in the answer that was given to the hon. Member last Thursday week, † found his way to the farm mentioned in the Question; but as was then stated the incident was not attended with any ill effects either to the man or anyone else, and I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.
    MR. WEIR: I can only say that the information supplied to the hon. Gentleman is inaccurate.

    Education Finance.
    MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, whether, in view of the fact that within the areas of some education authorities, which will be obliged to ask for loans towards their first year's working expenses, there are voluntary school associations and voluntary school managers with credit balances in hand which have been derived from Government grants, the Board of Education will make an order that these balances shall be handed over to the local authorities for the purposes for which the education rate will be levied.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
    † See page 689.

    Holland County Council—Education Scheme.
    MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, in view of the fact that the only objections to the scheme of the Holland County Council for the constitution of the Education Authority came from the Urban Councils of Spalding and Sutton Bridge, who did so in response to a letter from the Board of Education, and that these districts are handing over their Board schools to the authority to the value of £12,000, he will explain why the Councils representing these districts have not been given any representation on the authority, and why the scheme was sanctioned by the Education Department.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The letter from the Board of Education referred to by the hon. Member appears to be a notice published by the County Council on behalf of the Board stating that any protests against the scheme for the formation of the Education Committee should be addressed to the Board within a fixed period of time. This notice is referred to in the petition against the scheme presented by the urban districts of Spalding and Sutton Bridge. After careful consideration of the petition the Board came to the conclusion that the requirements of the Act were fully complied with; and that therefore this was a question which might fairly be left to the discretion of the Council, who decided, after considering the petition (which was sent to the County Council by the Board of Education for their consideration), that it was not necessary to give the direct representation prayed for.
    MR. MANSFIELD: Is the hon. Baronet aware that the Education Department asked the Spalding Urban Council if they approved the scheme, that the Spalding Council met and discussed the
    1806
    question and asked for representation on the Education Authority; that the Board of Education replied they would decline to sanction the scheme until an explanation was given, but that on the same day that this reply was received by the Spalding Council, the County Council announced that their scheme had received the sanction of the Board: and further the Spalding Urban Council has received no explanation of this matter from the Board.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The Spalding Council received through the County Council the notice which I have mentioned. On receiving a protest from the Spalding Council, dated 30th April, the Board of Education, on 2nd May, despatched a formal reply in the following terms: "Adverting to your letter dated 30th April, I am directed to state that, before approving the scheme proposed by the Lincoln (Holland) County Council for the establishment of an Education Committee, the Board of Education will communicate with the Council with regard to the representations made in your letter." And the protest was on the same day despatched to the County Council. On the 4th May, the Board of Education received an acknowledgment of the receipt of this with a request for the early confirmation of the scheme. The scheme was approved on 7th May.

    Vaccination in Scotland—Human Lymph.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the use of human lymph by public vaccinators in England was discontinued on the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Vaccination, will he consider the advisability of introducing legislation prohibiting the use of human lymph by parochial vaccinators in Scotland.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed by the Local Government Board that the question of the supply of lymph in Scotland is under their consideration, but the Secretary for Scotland cannot at present come under any obligation as to legislation on the subject.

    Irish Land Dispute—Case of Rev. Mr. Elliott.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to

    1807
    the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state who supplied the information, and on what date, to the Land Commission that the Reverend Mr. Elliott had constituted one of his sub-tenants caretaker of her portion of the holding, and that the other two sub-tenants had surrendered their interests to Mr. Elliott; did the Land Commission, or their inspector, make any inquiry to ascertain if the conditions under which they held their portions had been correctly represented; and, if not, will they now do so, and cancel the sale should the representations prove to have been incorrect.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The information on which the Land Commission acted in respect to the circumstances under which the Rev. Mr. Elliott became tenant of the holding was furnished by that gentleman to the Inspector of the Land Commission. The offer to purchase was made by the Land Judge to Mr. Elliot, as the tenant in occupation of the holding. The Land Commission state that nothing can be gained by making the further inquiries suggested, and that the sale under the circumstances cannot be cancelled.
    In reply to another Question, Mr. Wyndham promised to make further inquiry into this case.

    Antarctic Research—Relief of the "Discovery."
    COLONEL ROYDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to representations from the Royal Geographical Society to the effect that in order to ensure the safety of the officers and men of the Antarctic ship "Discovery" it will be necessary to send the relief ship "Morning" to the Antarctic regions next December; and whether, seeing that thirty out of the thirty-seven officers and men of the "Discovery" are on the active list of the Royal Navy, he will state whether a grant from the Exchequer has been asked for; and, if so, what is the amount and what are the intentions of the Government.
    The following Question also appeared on the Paper on the same subject:
    SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that until last year the British Government had contributed to every Polar relief expedition, he will state what steps he proposes to take to secure the safety of the officers and men of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, and others, now on board the "Discovery."
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Government are prepared to contribute to the relief of the officers and men on board the "Discovery," which is now ice-bound; in the Antarctic Seas. The course taken by the two learned societies responsible for the expedition in respect to the contribution of money and men made by the Government is greatly to be regretted. I have always leaned towards the principle of extending the very limited aid which the British Government have been accustomed to give towards the furtherance of purely scientific research. But such action can only be justified so long as the Government are able to feel absolute confidence that the scientific bodies approaching them have placed before them all the information in their possession as to the estimated cost of their proposed action and the limits within which they intend to confine it. That confidence has been rudely shaken by the present case.

    The Editing of Questions.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I wish to ask a Question on a point of order—
    MR. SPEAKER: Recently arising?
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Yes, Sir, I think so. In regard to Questions—
    MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member had better speak to me personally. It is, as I understand, not a question of order immediately arising.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: With all respect, Sir, I have spoken to you. I told you I had a complaint to make with reference to a Question I handed in at the Table and which is not on the Paper. Am I not entitled to put the Question, down?
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will come to me I shall be very glad to give him my view whether or not the Question should appear on the Paper. This is not a question of order in the sense that it can be raised during the business of the House.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: For the convenience of hon. Members generally, I desire to ask whether in the event of a Question put in not being on the Paper an hon. Member has any remedy other than that of consulting you in the matter.
    MR. SPEAKER: No, I think not, under the procedure of the House. If the House is not content with that amount of control over the Questions it is open to it to make other rules.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: What particular rule or order is there dealing with the treatment of irregular Questions?
    MR. SPEAKER: I do not say there is any printed rule or order, but there has been a certain practice observed for many years.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I speak to you later, Sir.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEE).
    Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection, That they had dis-
    charged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure: Mr. Channing (added in respect of the Prevention of Corruption Bill [Lords]); and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Toulmin; Report to lie upon the Table.

  NEW BILLS.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
    "To amend the Local Government Act, 1888," presented by Mr. Spear; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, June 16, and to be printed. (Bill 214.)
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT (LONDON) BILL.
    "To amend the Local Government Act, 1888," presented by Mr. Herbert Robertson; supported by Mr. Bousfield and Mr. Allhusen; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, June 9, and to be printed. (Bill 215.)

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the London Educational Bill, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—(Mr. A. J. Bulfour.)
The House divided—Ayes, 189; Noes, 81. (Division List, No. 102.)

AYES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Brassey, Albert

Cullinan, J.

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dalkeith, Earl of

Allsopp, Hon. George

Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)

Denny, Colonel

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Haml'ts

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Dickson, Charles Scott

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Doughty, George

Arrol, Sir William

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Chapman, Edward

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Bain, Col. James Robert

Charrington, Spencer

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Baird, John George Alexander

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)

Baldwin, Alfred

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Fardell, Sir T. George

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir S. (Man'r

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Bignold, Arthur

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Fisher, William Hayes

Bond, Edward

Cranborne, Lord

Fison, Frederick William

Bousfield, William Robert

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

Bowles, Col. H. F. (Middlesex)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Flower, Ernest

Forster, Henry William

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Fyler, John Arthur

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Galloway, William Johnson

Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Garfit, William

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Macdona, John Cumming

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Gordon, HnJ. E. (Elgin and N'rn

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Gordon, Maj. Evans (Tr H'mlets

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinbur'h, W.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Manners, Lord Cecil

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Graham, Henry Robert

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Meysev-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

Grenfell, William Henry

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Spear, John Ward

Hain, Edward

Mount, William Arthur

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. LordG. (Midd'x

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Stock, James Henry

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Healy, Timothy Michael

Myers, William Henry

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somerset, E

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Hogg, Lindsay

O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

Thornton, Percy M.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

O'Malley, William

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Tufnell, Lient.-Col. Edward

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Valentia, Viscount

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

Johnstone, Heywood

Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Williams, Rt. Hn. J. Powell (Birm

Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Kerr, John

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wodehonse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

Keswick, William

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Purvis, Robert

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lawson, John G. (Yorks. N. R.

Rankin, Sir James

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareh'm

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Sir Alexander Acland-

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Redmond, William (Clare)

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

NOES.

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Asher, Alexander

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Rigg, Richard

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Helme, Norval Watson

Roberta, John H. (Denbighs.

Black, Alexander William

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn, Regis

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E.

Rose, Charles Day

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Runciman, Walter

Brigg, John

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Russell, T. W.

Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Burns, John

Labouchere, Henry

Tennant, Harold John

Burt, Thomas

Lambert, George

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

Caldwell, James

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Toulmin, George

Channing, Francis Allston

Leng, Sir John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Levy, Maurice

Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

Crombie, John William

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Weir, James Galloway

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Crae, George

White, George (Norfolk)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

M'Kenna, Reginald

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Edwards, Frank

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Williams, O. (Merioneth)

Ellis, John Edward

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Yoxall, James Henry

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

Partington, Oswald

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Paulton, James Mellor

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Foster, Sir Michl. (Land. Univ

Price, Robert John

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Priestley, Arthur

Mr. William M'Arthur.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Rea, Russell

Grant, Corrie

Reckitt, Harold James

LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), in the Chair.]
Clause 3.
THE CHAIRMAN: The object of the first Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University is already provided for in the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the first paragraph of Schedule 2, sub-paragraph a, he will see that there the Metropolitan Borough Councils are defined as the minor local authority, and, therefore, if this clause were cut out, the Metropolitan Borough Councils would have the power of adding two members to the board of managers for provided schools, and one to the board for non-provided schools.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEmoved to leave out Sub-section 1 in order to insert "All public elementary schools provided by the local education authority shall have a body of managers consisting of a number of managers not exceeding eight appointed by the local education authority, together with a number not exceeding four appointed by the Council of the Metropolitan Borough within which the schools are situate. In the appointment of managers regard shall be had to the desirability of including a due proportion of women." He explained that his object in moving this was a purely educational one, his desire being to avoid any unnecessary disturbance of the present system of school management in London, and also any unnecessary risk of friction between two large local authorities. By general consent, he thought, the present work of school management was done exceedingly well. It might have been rather too centralised, but that could easily be rectified in the future. It was done by a very capable and devoted body of educated men and women coming from all parts of London, and working out of their own districts in order to assist the poorer districts, where there was not the same material. These educated men and women took a personal interest in the schools and exercised a great, an invaluable, influence both on
1814
the teachers and the pupils. Such a body of workers, numbering not less than 1,700, deserved some consideration at the hands of the Government when they were recasting the whole educational system of London. It was almost impossible to conceive that under the Bill as it now stood any largo proportion of these local managers were likely to retain their places. Under the scheme of last year which, broadly speaking, he desired to introduce into this Bill, there was every reason to believe that a substantial body of these managers would retain their places in the management of the schools, and he would like to know what educational reasons there were for departing from that scheme. The Government need not be surprised that some of their warmest supporters were among the severest critics of this particular provision. The Government proposal was to take the Borough Councils and to make them school managers. He did not wish to say a word to detract from the merit of the Borough Councils in respect of the duties they so ably performed; but some of their best friends had expressed grave doubts as to whether they would be good educational authorities and whether they could find the time to manage the number of schools in their districts. In the poorer districts, where there were a large number of schools—they were very unequally distributed—in Stepney, for example, there were no fewer than thirty-six schools with about 600 teachers. He could not believe that the borough councillors of Stepney would have time to attend to the duties involved in the management of these schools. They had to be visited during the day time, during the hours in which the councillors were occupied with their own business. Then, again, the fact that there were no women on the Borough Councils rendered them to a large extent unsuitable bodies for the management of these elementary schools. Women, there was no doubt, were practically indispensable in this respect, and some provision must be made for securing the services of a considerable number of them.
The Committee had had some hint that the Government were thinking of a change in their proposals—that they were thinking of adopting a plan of school management, not by the Borough

1815
Councils, but by committees appointed by those Councils. That, he thought, would be a change in the right direction. At the same time it was necessary to point out that, if the schools were to be managed by committees appointed by the Borough Councils, then the Borough Councils would become, in this regard, practically superfluous. They would be the fifth wheel of the coach, an unnecessary part of an already somewhat elaborate machine; and if they were to have local committees with borough councillors on them, it was far better to go back to the plan of last year, and to allow the Borough Councils to appoint a certain proportion of the members, and the local education authority the others. There would be a great advantage in that, as it would enable the schools to be properly visited. If they were to have a working scheme with these two bodies, the Borough Councils must be subordinate. They must be subject to the directions of the County Council, and those directions must be obeyed. If they were to have constant disputes between the two bodies, and if they were to be referred to the Secretary to the Board of Education, the work of the hon. Baronet would be more than he could undertake. He did not think it would be a very comfortable position. As a friend of the Borough Councils, he thought it would be far better that these directions should go, not to the Borough Council, but to the Committee of Management who might be expected to carry them out without friction and without claiming any rival authority.
Then of course there would be divided responsibility. If the appointment of the teacher was left to the Borough Council, as was proposed by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chelsea, the local education authority would always be able to say that the education was so bad because the teacher was appointed not by them but by the local managing body. On the other hand, the Borough Council would escape all responsibility for the efficiency of education, because they would say they were bound to carry out the directions of the local education authority, and so the poor ratepayer would not know where the
1816
real fault lay. There were one or two educational objections also, which he must mention. What was proposed would, in regard to the teaching staff, be extremely injurious certainly to the education of the poor. If they split up the educational staff into thirty sections the poorer districts would undoubtedly suffer. There would be great difficulty in connection with a special visiting staff free to circulate over the entire area. It was desirable that there should be members of the teaching staff who could assist wherever in London an emergency arose. There would also be considerable difficulty with regard to the organisation of the teaching of certain subjects—domestic subjects for example. It did not by any means follow that the group of schools desiring these subjects would lie within the area of any particular borough. The same thing might be said with regard to higher elementary education. He conceived that under the plan of the hon. Member for Chelsea there would be a special agreement come to between the local education authority and each Borough Council as to the exact powers to be delegated. That might lead to extraordinary differences, and almost to administrative chaos. The truth was that the more they considered this question, the more it was evident that the interests of education in London ought to be treated as a whole. A great deal might be said as to the necessity of cutting up London for this purpose if London had been cut up before, but there had been for thirty-three years a centralised system, and although it had some disadvantages the advantages were overwhelming, and in introducing this great change they did not wish to make the educational work worse than it was. If the Borough Councils were adopted as managers of the schools there would be, to a large extent, chaos, friction, and divided responsibility. He strongly urged the Government to go back to the lines of the Bill of last year and give the Borough Councils the right to appoint a reasonable proportion of managers, but not to insist on their being managers themselves—a task for which he did not believe they would be found fit, and which would undoubtedly

1817
bring them into very difficult and unsuitable connections with the central education authority. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 11, to leave out Sub-section (1) and insert the words 'All public elementary schools provided by the local education authority shall have a body of managers consisting of a number of managers, not exceeding eight, appointed by the local education authority, together with a number not exceeding four appointed by the Council of the Metropolitan Borough within which the schools are situate. In the appointment of managers regard shall be had to the desirability of including a due proportion of women.'"—(Mr. Henry Hobhouse)
Question proposed, "That Sub-section (1) stand part of the clause."
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,)said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Somerset went back entirely on the proposal made by the Government, and he went back on the Act of last year. The Government had stated throughout that their desire was to effect some measure of decentralisation to relieve the central authority of such work as it could conveniently hand over to subordinate authorities, and to excite local interest more keenly than it had been excited hitherto in the management of the schools. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal would really create bodies of managers rather more numerous, but not different in character from the managers under the Act of 1902, or, the managers of the existing School Board. Those managers were the mere creatures of the local authority. The local authority could give or withhold any power from them.
DR. MACNAMARA(Camberwell, N.): Hear, hear!
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: And as they knew in the case of the School Board managers their powers were reduced to something like those of a visiting committee of one of His Majesty's prisons.
DR. MACNAMARA: No. no!
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The Government wished the managers of the schools
1818
to have some higher interest in the schools. They wished them, as he thought everyone must wish, to feel that they had some power, some authority, and some means of carrying out the objects which, he hoped they would have in view—the advancement of the children, not only during their school time but immediately after leaving school. He thought there had been a good deal of exaggeration as to the nature of this proposal of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Somerset spoke of the work of secondary education, but he had forgotten how very large a proportion of the work of the London County Council, when it took over the duty which this Bill proposed to throw upon it, would be the formulation of a great educational policy of secondary and higher elementary education and the co-ordination of the different forms and lines of education. The local education authority would have quite enough to do in formulating its policy in these large matters, and they would be glad to be relieved of such details of administration as repairs of schools and school furniture, the choice of books and the choice and promotion of teachers. They were dealing now with one department of the work of the local authority—the department of elementary education—and they were dealing with that part of elementary education which concerned the provided schools; and, therefore, they were touching but a small fragment of the work of the local authority, and yet they were touching a fragment of that work which was concerned with a variety of details, which had occupied too much of the time of the present members of the London School Board. What did the Government propose to do? They proposed that the powers of management should be delegated to the Borough Councils, and the amount of delegation was to be settled by scheme. His right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board had stated that the Government were prepared to accept the Amendments of the hon. Member for Chelsea on this subject. The scheme would be settled, he hoped, by amicable agreement between the two Councils, and where there was any difference the Board of Education would be called in to decide between the parties what would be most convenient in the

1819
interest of the education of London. Therefore, there would be no doubt or question as to what was delegated and what not.
How were the Borough Councils to carry out the functions delegated to them? The Government were prepared to make it compulsory that the Borough Councils should work through Committees appointed by schemes which should provide for the presence on the Committees not only of members of the Borough Councils but of those of whom the right hon. Gentleman spoke so warmly—but not too warmly—persons of experience in education and in the management of the schools. The Government were prepared to provide that there should also be women present in proper proportion—he meant due proportion having regard to the number of girls' schools and boys' schools in the district—and lastly, that the local education authority should be represented if it so desired. He thought, therefore, that they took every precaution that there should be no confusion or doubt as to what was delegated or not, and the Borough Councils should have every assistance provided for them in carrying out the duties proposed to be laid upon them. On the other hand the London County Council would have all the powers of the School Board under the Act of last year. It would have complete financial control, and it would be able to say what should be taught and what should be spent. An hon. Member had taxed him with saying that the curriculum might be relaxed at the instance of the Borough Councils. In his speech on that matter he thought he made his meaning clear. There were parts of London, where the children attending the schools were underfed and overworked out of school hours, and who, consequently, were not able to get over so much ground or so fast as the better fed children in the neighbouring schools where the same curriculum was imposed. What he said was that the boards of managers would be in a better position to suggest a relaxation of the curriculum in such cases, which would not interfere with the general educational system of London. It had never been suggested that the Borough Councils should be entitled to make an educational system for themselves. What powers
1820
did the education authority delegate to the Borough Councils? They would, perhaps, be small at first, but he hoped that in time the County Council, immersed in great educational problems, would be willing to delegate larger and larger powers to these great municipalities, and that in that way mutual confidence between them would increase, and we might eventually find in our midst an authority solving or attempting to solve the educational questions which were now pressing upon us; while the Borough Councils would then have grown into a capacity for higher work than purely elementary education. He ventured to say that these were not dangerous proposals.
The hon. Member for Islington opposite had doubted the fitness of the Borough Councils to discharge this work. But he would have thought that such a borough as Islington, with a population of more than 300,000 and a rateable value of nearly £2,000,000, was capable of looking after the managerial part of elementary education, and hardly deserved the scorn which the hon. Member had poured upon him and upon it. In the course of his remarks the hon. Member said that he talked nonsense. He was very sorry, and he would apologise to the House—first for talking nonsense, and secondly for setting an example which unhappily had proved so contagious. To underrate these great boroughs and to say that they were incapable of performing the small duty which, in the first instance, the Government proposed to entrust to them was really to offer something like an impertinence to them. He was prepared to risk the friction which it was asserted would arise. His hon. and learned friend the Member for Stretford had said that he thought this policy was non-educational. Well, in a modest way, he set up to be an educationist himself, and he could assure his hon. friend that he had really thought out this matter carefully and thoroughly. He was fully aware that there were certain administrative risks, but he believed that great practical benefits were likely to result. Did his hon. friend suppose that he was careless in the matter, and that he would not welcome any short cut through this weary process of legislation which would

1821
enable him to approach the real business of the office upon which he had entered—business from which he had hitherto been deterred by this constant maze of legislative discussion—so that he might really approach some of the great problems of education and try to do something, at any rate, to settle them? He believed that the only royal road to the education of the people was through our local institutions; and he would not throw away the chance offered in this Bill of enlisting these great municipalities in the cause of the children of London and reminding them that it was the business of every Londoner to care for the future of the people about him.
SIR JOHN GORSTassured the hon. Baronet that there was no Member of the House who was so capable as he of sympathising strongly with the aspirations he had expressed in his last sentences; and he quite agreed that, however preposterous were the conditions Parliament thought fit to insert in legislative measures, the good sense of the people of the country was so great that they somehow or other managed to make them work. He could assure the hon. Baronet that when their contention over this Bill was over, and when it had taken shape as an Act of Parliament, he would be able to address himself to the task which he set before him of doing something substantial for the benefit of the children of the poor in London, a task in which he would find both the County Council and the Borough Councils rising superior to the jealousies which might be excited by this Act, and ready to co-operate with him in the noble task he would endeavour to accomplish. But the House would not be doing its duty if it did not endeavour to create a scheme which would give the least possible occasion for friction, and would leave the hon. Baronet as much as possible of that leisure he desired for greater work. His object in rising was to do his best to help the Committee to elicit from the Government what was the precise scheme of administration which they intended to adopt. For he was obliged to say that having followed with the utmost attention and the utmost of his capacity the speeches of the hon. Baronet yesterday and to-day,
1822
he was wholly unable to understand at the present moment what was the precise administration which the Government contemplated establishing. The schools in London were now administered by a great bureau situated on the Thames Embankment, with a body of trained officials carefully organised. If the Bill became law, would the London County Council be supreme in that office or not?
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Yes, certainly.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that in that case—if they were to remain supreme, if they were to have all the clerks and all the officials, and to exercise all the functions which the School Board was now exercising—the management of the elementary schools by the Borough Councils became wholly unreal and visionaryl The School Board had the whole control of the teachers, issued orders to them, and paid them—the teachers looked to them and them only for their promotion and their prospects—they also had surveyors who visited the schools to see what repairs and additions were needed; and they had an enormous number of stores out of which the school apparatus was issued; and, finally, they had inspectors who went round the schools to see that the orders of the Board were carried out. Which of these functions were to be taken over by the Borough Councils, and how were they to be taken over? If, for instance, the Borough of Islington wanted to take into its own hands the management of its school stores, how was it to do so? If the Borough Councils were to take upon themselves the real management of the Board Schools in the way in which it was now transacted by the London School Board, they must have separate establishments. Let the Committee consider what was meant by that. In the borough of Westminster, with only seven schools, and in the City of London, with only four schools, it might easily be done; but the Committee should remember that some of the London boroughs were bigger than Birmingham, or Manchester, or Liverpool, and had as many schools. There would have to be an establishment something like that of the Liverpool or Manchester

1823
School Board, with paid officials and an organisation like that of any great School Board in the country. Had the Government contemplated that; had they allowed for it? Who was going to pay for it? There was no provision in the Bill which would enable the Borough of Islington to pay the cost of the organisation it would have to set up if it was to manage the Board schools in the borough. There was no getting out of one of two dilemmas. Either the Borough Council of Islington would have to go to the offices on the Thames Embankment and give orders independent of the County Council, or it must have a separate establishment of its own, for which expense would have to be incurred, but for which no provision was made in the Bill, or even thought of. Had the Government also considered that if the Borough Councils were really to be the managers, they would not only have to be provided with clerks, surveyors, and storekeepers, but also with inspectors of some kind or another. They might not be called inspectors, but people would have to be sent into the schools to see that the orders of the Borough Council were carried out. Had it ever occurred to the Government that those unfortunate Metropolitan Board schools must inevitably be subjected to inspection by three different sets of inspectors? First of all, there would be the inspector of the Board of Education, who would see that the schools were conducted in such a way as to warrant the payment of the Parliamentary grant; secondly, there would be the inspector of the local education authority, which paid all the money, and would wish to see whether that money was properly expended; and, thirdly, there would be the inspector of the Borough Council, who would have to see that the orders of the Borough Council were carried out. He could not understand how it could be possible that an elementary school subject to three sets of inspectors and three different kinds of orders could be successfully carried on. He hoped he had put the case to the Government in a temperate and fair manner. He only sought to know how this thing was going to be carried out. He did not for a moment say that the scheme of the Government was a dangerous one. What he would be inclined to say was that it
1824
was a wholly impracticable one. All he was anxious for was that the Committee should ascertain what the scheme of the Government precisely was, and how it was to be carried out.
There was one matter which perhaps was not so much before the hon. Baronet now as it was before himself when he was at the Education Office, and that was the extremely important question as to what was going to be done with the higher grade schools. The hon. Baronet seemed to contemplate that all the higher grade schools would be transferred to the local education authority, and that the elementary schools would become elementary schools and nothing more. He wished to assure the hon. Baronet that any idea of that kind was purely visionary. The higher grade schools, which pervaded the whole country, and which had grown of their own accord into most creditable educational institutions in the course of a generation, could not be abolished. They were in accordance with the wants of the public, and the parents who sent their children to them liked them. Do what they would, no Government could put an end to the higher grade schools. But how were they going to be managed? Were they to be managed by the Borough Councils, or by the local education authority. If the local education authority was to manage them, a very large number of elementary schools would turn themselves into higher grade schools for the purpose of coming under the management of the local education authority. How could that be prevented? He had often explained that a higher grade school was a school in which the lower classes were elementary, and the higher classes secondary or scientific, the same teacher teaching the higher classes and the lower classes. He supposed that according to the scheme of the Government the teacher quâ teacher of the higher classes would obey the London County Council, and quâ teacher of the lower classes would obey the Borough Council. That would create confusion in such a school, which would render it practically impossible to manage it. There was a time when those schools were partly under the Education Department and partly under the Science and Art Department. The Science and Art Inspectors used to inspect the schools and shut their eyes to the existence

1825
of the elementary classes. The inspectors of the Board of Education used to inspect the schools, and shut their eyes to the existence of the higher classes, although they were all officers of the same President of the Council. The confusion caused by this system of inspection was extremely mischievous and inconvenient, but under the system proposed in the clause they would not only have two officers of the same President of the Council, but they would also have two officers of two rival education authorities inspecting the same school—the inspector of the London County Council responsible for the higher part of the school, and the inspector of the Borough Council responsible for the lower part. He confessed he did not understand how it would be possible to organise a scheme of that kind so that the work of the school might be properly carried on. The Committee should remember that there would be the same impulsion on the part of the Borough Councils—as there was on the part of the London School Board to convert the elementary schools as much as they could into higher grade schools—to keep the elementary schools in their own hands. They had been talking for years of the co-ordination of education, and of one local authority which was to have every kind of education under its cognisance. He confessed that the wilful creation of a new anomaly of that kind, which was sure, judging by past experience, to produce most unfortunate educational results, proved to him how sadly the educational interests of the Metropolis were in danger of being overlooked in favour of political considerations.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid the late Vice-President's acknowledgment of the value of the higher grade schools was very refreshing indeed. It almost braced him up for an all night sitting. It was, however, a very tardy acknowledgment. [Sir JOHN GORST dissented.] If it were not, the right hon. Gentleman's action belied his words, though he himself rejoiced gratefully over his acknowledgment. He would gratefully concede the claim of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to be a keen educationist. He had given him personally and the House generally, plenty of
1826
evidence of his desire to do the very best for education in this country; but the longer they were discussing the details of the London education problem the more he deplored the hon. Gentleman's lack of knowledge of the bearing of the question. All the hon. Gentleman's difficulties sprang from that. The hon. Gentleman said he would risk friction; but that risk was born of ignorance which was bliss. The hon. Gentleman said that there were many parts of London where the poor children were seriously handicapped. That was true enough. Then the hon. Gentleman went on to say that the School Board imposed on the poorer parts of London the same rigid curriculum that they imposed on the richer parts. Nothing could be farther from the facts. No school authority dealt with more elasticity with the poorer parts of London than did the London School Board. He wondered if the hon. Gentleman ever heard of "special difficulty schools." The London School Board had a special system under which it adjusted as nicely as it could the curriculum suited to schools in the poorer districts. Therefore he complained of the statement of the hon. Gentleman that the School Board was rigid in the application of its curriculum. Certainly no amount of devolution to the Borough Councils would make the curriculum better adapted to the children in the poorer parts than it was at present. The hon. Gentleman stated that the School Board had managers whose functions were confined to the functions of a visiting committee to one of His Majesty's prisons.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that he stated that the functions were practically similar.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he had ever taken the trouble to look through the powers, duties, and functions of the managers of the London School Board. He held in his hand a volume setting forth the powers and duties of the managers; and although they might devolve to the Borough Councils until they were tired, they could not safely devolve more than the London

1827
School Board devolved to its managers. According to the hon. Baronet the managers had nothing to do with the appointment of head teachers, but he found as a fact that the School Board saw the applicants and reduced them down to seven, and finally to three, and sent down those three to the managers to select from. The managers having made the final selection from the three sent the one back to the School Board, and so far as he was aware there had not been a single case where the School Board had not ratified that appointment. That was what the hon. Member for Somerset was entitled to ask for in his Amendment. In the case of assistant teachers they appointed the assistant teachers and sent them up to the School Board to have their appointments ratified, and the School Board always ratified their nomination. They appointed the pupil teachers and also the school keepers. More than that it would not be safe to devolve on the school managers Therefore it was not correct to say, as had been said, that the School Board centralised these matters. The Amendment asked that authority should be given to the central authority to devolve what it liked to its local education committees. Anything less than that would result in friction, and such a suggestion was in harmony with the Act. The Central Education Committee should have full control over provided schools. The central authority could not be supreme if the managers appointed the teachers. The proposal to give the local authorities the management was based on a fallacy. The area for which representation should be given was not the municipal area but the area of child population, which was a very different thing. The municipality of Camberwell, for instance, would have 104 schools to look after, whilst on the other hand the municipality of Hampstead would have only twelve. If the municipal area was taken it was an area quite foreign to the educational areas of London. If this Amendment were accepted the County Council would be able to arrange its managers in accordance with the child population of a particular locality.
Another reason why the Amendment should be accepted was that the
1828
County Council would then be able to avail itself of the thirty-four years experience of the existing managers, which was very valuable experience indeed. A quarter of those managers were the clergy and ministers of the various denominations, one quarter of them were women and a half were tradespeople, working people, and professional people generally. If the management of the schools was given to the local authorities all that experience would be lost. As a partisan he would like to see the Government continue in their course, because the County Council would then probably say—"You made us supreme on the Committee, but you set up twenty-nine rival and conflicting authorities against us, therefore we will not go on with the Bill. We will not take it up." They would have plenty of reason for saying so, and a great deal of pressure would be brought to bear on them to take that course, and that would mean the breakdown of the Act. But as he was anxious to get something done for education, although it was something like a self-denying ordinance so far as he was concerned, he appealed to the Government to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somerset.
MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid the sentences which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Education must have gone straight to the heart of every hon. Member of the House. The hon. Baronet certainly desired to do his best for the education of the children of London, but after listening to the speeches that he had made, he (Mr. Gray) had been unable to get away from the conclusion that the hon. Baronet was speaking as a theorist and a visionary, and not as a man who was familiar with the working of the schools. He was certain that no man closely in touch with the schools would put forward such an absurd scheme. During the whole of the debate they had heard nothing but the ideal of securing the co-operation of the Borough Councils, without any evidence that the co-operation, if secured, would benefit the children. He knew something of popular education, he had worked in the schools for thirty-two years. He had never heard a single Borough Council

1829
claim that they should be constituted the authority for education, or that they should be set up as the managers of schools under the central authority for London. They were to be brought into this scheme, and they looked upon it as work being thrust upon them which they did not wish to undertake. They had quite enough to attend to as it was. Many of them held their meetings at night because they could not manage it during the day, and yet under the Government scheme they were to have managerial responsibility thrust upon them which they would not be able to exercise. What chance had the women under the scheme of the Government? He could not help thinking the girl and infant part of the schools were being persistently forgotten. They never thought of the girls; whenever they spoke of a higher school it was for boys. Who would have the control of the pupil teachers' centre under this fantastic scheme? Who would be responsible for its conduct, and make the payments by which to keep it going? The pupil teachers would be selected and appointed by the Borough Councils, but paid by the central authority. On Monday, Wednesday, and Friday they would be engaged in the elementary schools; on Tuesday and Thursday in the pupil teachers' centre, or three days a week under the control of the Borough Councils and two days under the control of the central authority. They would be taught the theory of their craft under the control of the central authority, but they would practise it under the direction of an entirely different staff, under totally different control, and in another set of schools. To carry on an establishment under such dual control was absolutely impossible. To all these practical difficulties the Government gave no reply except that it would be for the good of the children of London to secure the co-operation of the borough authorities. With that answer he was not content. He had spent his life doing the best he could for the education of the children of London, in the furtherance of which he would sacrifice party loyalty and everything else, and it was without the slightest hesitation he should vote for this Amendment and oppose to
1830
the end the scheme the Government were bringing forward. The borough, area was not the proper area for school management purposes, even if the child population were evenly distributed. The schools which presented the greatest difficulty amidst the poor population were schools which to-day were dependent under the School Board system on the sympathy and help, and frequently the voluntary contributions of money and goods, of managers brought from the wealthier portions of the Metropolis. How was that to be continued?
AN HON. MEMBER: They will be co-opted.
MR. ERNEST GRAYasked whether it was really thought that the Borough Councils would wander over London seeking people of whom they had never heard to co-opt. The excellence of the existing system was the result of thirty-two years careful study and steady growth, but it was to be wantonly thrown aside in favour of this vision of Borough Council co-operation. He would welcome the form of co operation provided for in the Amendment, which had been secured in the rest of the country, and under which the Borough Councils would be entitled to appoint a certain number of representatives on each of these managerial committees. In that way interest might be gradually excited, but to suppose the Borough Councils would go searching all over London to find managers was absurd. The visionary and theoretical character of the hon. Baronet's statement could not have been more clearly exemplified than in his remark that some of the Borough Councils would desire to purchase their own furniture. Who would pay for this multiplication of offices, officials, and stores? The London ratepayer. He was not prepared to throw money away in organisation; he wanted all they had to reach the children. The London School Board, after many experiments, had come to the conclusion that it was cheapest and best to supply the whole of the apparatus for the schools from one central store and by one organisation, and for reasons of economy and efficiency most of the new authorities in the country were adopting a similar policy.

1831
The whole scheme was thoroughly impracticable; it would break down in practice; it was visionary and needlessly expensive; and it failed to meet the fundamental principles laid down by the Prime Minister on more than one occasion, viz., that all grades of educacation should be co-ordinated under one authority, and that the control of the municipal authority should be effective even to the smallest detail. It was true the County Council was now to have control over its own Committee, but the moment the work passed from the Committee to the managerial bodies that control ceased, and there was no means of bringing a recalcitrant Borough Council to order except by the cumbrous method of obtaining from the Hoard of Education an order by which the central authority could resume its power. The words "decentralisation" and "delegation" were not interchangeable. "Delegation" implied a power on the part of the authority delegating to resume the power delegated whenever it thought fit, while "decentralisation" conveyed the idea of a devolution of duties which could not at any time be taken back. He was in favour of a wide delegation, but he was not in favour of decentralisation in that sense. It seemed to him that the Government were breaking down the principle of municipal control, and certainly they were destroying the prospect of co-ordination of education in London. The great trouble hitherto had been that when a child reached the age of thirteen or fourteen the responsibility of the School Board ceased, and before that of the Technical Committee began there was a hiatus of two or three years, during which hundreds of children, who, if carefully looked after, might serve the State to useful purpose, drifted away, and were to be found lounging at street corners; so that the schools, instead of being the feeders of the technical institutes were the feeders of the public-houses. That possibility was to be perpetuated by this scheme. Although he was convinced that the Government desired to do the best possible for education, he was afraid the machinery they were putting forward would fail in its object, and he begged them, before it was too late, to reconsider the whole scheme, and adopt, either in its present or some modified
1832
form, the Amendment before the Committee.
MR. W. F. D. SMITHwho was indistinctly heard, said he wished to say something from the point of the clause as it would exist when a mended. If the Amendments on the Paper were accepted by the Government the Borough Councils would not act as managers, but a Committee or Committees would be appointed, and they would be formed under a scheme. They ought to remember that these Committees were not appointed purely from the point of view of education, but they would have to act in other ways. There were many points upon which they would be well qualified to act, such as sanitation and repairs to the buildings. Even now the Borough Councils had certain powers in regard to the building of schools. If his hon. friend's Amendment was accepted these matters would be devolved upon the Borough Councils by a scheme which would have to receive the approval of the education authority. He could hardly imagine that the County Council would run its head into the difficulty mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University. He did not think it would be necessary for the Borough Councils to have any inspectors at all, for that would be done by the central authority. Under those circumstances it seemed to him that the danger of giving these managerial powers to Committees appointed in the way he had suggested had been to a very large extent exaggerated. Therefore he could not support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Somerset.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down was the only speaker who, so far, had said a word in favour of this clause. Even the hon. Member was not very sure about it, for he had stated that the clause would not do unless it was improved by very substantial Amendments. The clause was so absurd that it was incapable of Amendment, and it could only be amended in one way, and that was the way Clause 2 had been amended. The hon. Baronet who represented the

1833
Board of Education made an eloquent appeal to be let out of this legislative maze. He had got the remedy in his own hands. It was a maze of his own construction, and let him get out of it. The thing was working all right before he set up this maze. What was the proposal? He challenged the hon. Member to point out any precedent in the history of local government for anything of this character. It was not a question of confidence in the Borough Councils. He had never criticised the Borough Councils at all, for he thought many borough councillors were very capable men, and he knew some of them. He thought they were quite capable of administrating education, or anything else, but that was not the point. This was a question of dual control. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had completely damaged the whole position in his two speeches, and those speeches must have made the Prime Minister regret that he changed his caddy on this educational course. They were giving directions to officials appointed by another authority who were perfectly independent. It was perfectly true that the Borough Councils might, by arrangement, select the teachers, but the real authority ought to be vested in the County Councils. He remembered the Attorney-General saying that the crux of control was the appointment of the teachers. Of course it was, for that was the crux of control in any concern. The complaint last year was that they had no real control over the denominational schools, because the appointment of the teachers was in the hands of the managers. In that case they gave the right of dismissal to the central authority, but in this case neither the appointment nor the dismissal of the teachers was in the hands of the central body. He should like to know from the President of the Local Government Board, who understood something about horses, how he would like to select horses on the same principle which this Bill wanted the County Council to select their teachers. Under this scheme, he would be able to pay for them, and dictate the price, but he would have to leave the selection of them to the President of the Board of Education. In case of any
1834
dispute, the matter would be referred to the Remount Department of the War Office. Really this was a perfectly preposterous clause, and ought to be left out. At present the selection of teachers was nobody's job, and it would not be well done. He knew that the Government were capable of being convinced, not altogether by argument, but they would find some strong arguments in the speeches that supporters of their own had addressed to them. Was it not possible that the Government should reconsider their position upon this matter.
This proposal was extending the very worst principle of last year's Bill. He knew that London on these matters was difficult to move, but he believed that it was moving. The Prime Minister slated yesterday that he had not heard of the demonstration in Hyde Park, but by the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule that day he showed that he had heard of another demonstration at Epsom tomorrow. Those demonstrations were what dictated the policy of the Prime Minister. It was all very well for the Secretary to the Board of Education to say that he had carefully thought this thing out. He did the same in regard to Clause 2, in fact he thought it out three times over in the presence of the House. Let him apply his mind again in the same way to Clause 3, It would prove an instruction in itself and a perfect educational process how to legislate for the benefit of the country. They should not let this be a worse Bill than that of last year, and they should let London have the chance of having a Bill just as bad as that of last year and not worse.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONappealed to the Prime Minister to accept the Amendment which had been moved by the Member for Somerset. He had been considering how it would be possible to work this clause, and he could not see any sensible solution for the management of the schools of London under this clause. They were not considering the clause itself, because it was admitted that it was going to be altered, and it was difficult to see what the effect of the alteration would be. It appeared to him that the hon. Baronet desired that the Borough Councils should

1835
have no authority except that which was given them by the scheme. He did not in the least mind the County Council devolving some of its duties on the Borough Councils in any way it thought fit. He thought that the Borough Councils were perfectly competent to do the whole work of education if it was thought advisable to place that work in their hands. He did not object to the Borough Councils having these powers because he thought them incompetent, but because he could not conceive any place they could possibly occupy with advantage in the scheme of education which they were now laying down for London. With reference to what his hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell had said, namely, that the School Board had delegated as much work as possible to the managers, in substance he was right. If they were not going to dismiss the whole 1,700 or 2,000 teachers he could not see where they were going to bring in the Borough Councils. The proposal of the Government must of necessity very largely increase the cost. The majority of the Borough Councils had never expressed any opinion to the effect that they wished to have these powers, and the only representations he had received from the Borough of Hackney were distinctly against these powers being conferred on the Borough Councils. He would explain why these particular gentlemen came to him representing that the Borough Councils should not have these powers. It was because they were teachers then selves, and they would be turned off the Borough Council. In that way they would be damaging the Borough Councils, and in some of the poor districts of London it was not an easy thing to get good representatives. By this provision in the Bill they were going to declare that they must never select as a candidate for the Borough Council any person who was a teacher in a Board school. The whole body of teachers in London objected to the Borough Councils being brought in at all He most earnestly hoped that the Government would reconsider the whole of this clause, and consent to place London, not for the sake of symmetry, but because it was the only
1836
possible course that could be adopted, on the same footing as the County Councils of other counties. The hon. Member for the Strand had made the best case for the Bill, and he asked the Secretary to the Board of Education to consider what the strength of the present case was. The hon. Member was unable to suggest any educational advantage whatsoever by bringing in the Borough Councils. His sole object being to provide a really good system of education for London he hoped the Government would see their way to accept this Amendment.
CAPTAIN JESSELsaid that the Borough of St. Pancras, containing 250,000 inhabitants, had petitioned strongly in favour of this Bill. The City of Westminster was also strongly in favour of the measure. The City of London, the Borough of Kensington, and the Borough of Islington had also supported the measure. They had been asked what reason could be given in support of the proposals of the Government, or rather in support of the proposals of the Government together with the Amendments put down on the Paper. It had been universally admitted that in the past too much time was spent upon details, and upon small matters which might perfectly well have been left to the managers. This new Committee of the County Council would be engaged in thinking out the great problem of education, and it would not be necessary for that Committee to deal with all the small management details, and it would be able to devote itself more to matters of principle. They would work out what should be the relations between elementary, secondary, and technical education. They would draw up the code and settle the principles upon which education should be conducted. Somebody must carry out this work, and he did not think they could get a better body than the Borough Councils. If anything went wrong they would be held responsible. Their budget would show the amount of money required for repairs and so forth, and in that way they would be able to relieve the central body of matters of detail. He took it that under this proposal there would be

1837
greater economy. At present the sanitary inspection of the schools was done by the sanitary officers of the School Board, but under the proposed management clauses this work could be done by the Borough Councils. The repairs to the buildings could be done by the boroughs in the same way as the other numerous buildings under their control. They had been told that this was false policy from an educational point of view. He imagined that the Borough Councils would be only too pleased to employ again the existing managers. He could not conceive why the present managers should not be just as willing to serve under the Borough Councils as under the School Board. He quite agreed that there should be some connecting link between the Borough Councils and the central authority. He did not believe that if the Borough Councillors were made managers they would neglect the work. His hon. friend had down an Amendment which proposed to place upon the Management Committee some representatives of the central authority. In that way the Committees would be placed in touch with the central authority. One would think from remarks sometimes made that the County Council and the Borough Councils were always at daggers drawn. He did not suppose that a week passed when correspondence did not take place between the County Council and the Borough Councils, and in the main they worked together admirably. Both the County Council and the Borough Councils did their best in carrying out their administrative duties for the benefit of the ratepayers. In the matter of education he believed the Borough Councils would do their best to prevent anything in the nature of extravagance. So far from being extravagant, it seemed to him that by utilising the existing municipal machinery a great gain would be made. He hoped the Government would not give way on this point but would, in spite of the many speeches directed against them, stick to the clause together with the Amendments of his hon. friend the Member for Chelsea. It seemed to him that in this matter they were led away by what had happened before. They had been told that there was a School Board in London, and they could not
1838
get away from the idea that there must be a central body doing everything. It was not the Government who were wrong, but hon. Members who were so enamoured with the old idea. The Government had been true Progressives in this matter, and they were making a real development in local government in London. He hoped the House would not suppose, because many London Members had not spoken on the subject, that they were against the proposal of the Government. He thought the majority of London Members were thoroughly in favour of the proposal.
MR. BRYCEsaid they seemed to be repeating the very process they went through last Tuesday. He would confine himself in what he had to say to the speeches made from the other side of the House. There had been five speeches from hon. Members who were usually supporters of the Government. The first three of these speeches—those by his right hon. friend the Member for East Somerset, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, and the hon. Member for West Ham—were, he thought, among the most valuable speeches they had heard in the course of these education debates. They were eminently practical, and, coming from men who thoroughly understood the working of educational machinery, they put forward a large number of practical difficulties which the Government had to meet. They were followed by the hon. Member for South Hackney and the hon. Member for the Strand. The hon. Member for the Strand said he did not approve of the clause as it stood now, and he gave only the feeblest kind of support to the proposals and methods of the Government. The defence of the clause had been gallantly undertaken by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, but he did not meet the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cambridge University and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Somerset. He said that a majority of the London Members were in favour of the Bill, but that they did not think it necessary to say so. The Committee wanted them to give reasons and arguments which would convince them that the

1839
three hon. Members who had criticised the Bill were wrong, and that this was a practical scheme, and not, as they thought, an unpractical one. The gist and importance of the debate consisted in this, that all the arguments from practical men who understood the difficulties of the case had been directed against the clause, and in reply the Committee had had vague phrases and what he would call visionary aspirations. But nothing more than that. His hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education would pardon him for saying that he did not grapple with the case. The hon. Gentleman said it would be a good thing to interest the Borough Councils, but he did not show that the proposal of the Government would have that result, and least of all did he show that this was machinery which would work. What was the position? There had been a system at work in London for thirty years which, by common consent, had worked well. Let them take that as the point of departure in this discussion. That system had been most effective and nobody complained of it. The only censure that had been bestowed upon the working of the School Board system had been that it had tended to draw a little too much into its own hands, and had not sufficiently delegated functions to people on the spot. He was willing to admit that that might be well founded, but it could easily be cured by a little delegation on the part of the new authority, and those who expressed so much confidence in the County Council would, he thought, believe that the County Council would show good sense, especially as it would be overburdened with work, in delegating to people on the spot.
Let them take another point. There was no complaint by the Borough Councils. They had not asked for this education management. The hon. Member for South Hackney, who made such an impressive speech a few minutes ago, told them that he did not think the Borough Councils wanted it, and only half of them had expressed approval of the Bill. Surely that was a very material fact when they remembered that the tendency in a local authority was to seize and gladly welcome any addition to its powers. The answer of
1840
the Secretary to the Board of Education was an incomplete answer. He had failed to show that the present system was working badly, or that there was any complaint against it. What vitiated the hon. Gentleman's own argument? There were two fallacies running through his argument. One was that delegation from an authority which had itself delegated power which it could resume when it pleased, was the same thing as statutory delegation. The delegation proposed by the Bill was not by the County Council or the County Council Committee. It was a gift of independent authority by Parliament to the subordinate bodies. They called them subordinate, but they were not really subordinate. They were made independent. The title to their powers was not derived from the so-called delegating authority. If the Bill said that the County Council or the County Council Committee should delegate from time to time certain powers to the Borough Councils which they could resume, there would be a great deal to be said for that, but the Borough Councils received a gift of power with which the County Council could not interfere, and any questions of difficulty that arose could only be dealt with by the interposition of the Board of Education. He submitted, therefore, that in calling this delegation there was a fundamental fallacy in supposing that power granted by a principal to an agent, and which the principal could properly supervise, would work well when granted independently to a person not responsible to the principal at all. The second fallacy was that they could draw a sharp line between legislative and executive power. The Government proposed by this Bill to give to the County Council power to issue general directions under which the Borough Councils were to act, but they denied the County Council the power to supervise that action. In other words, they wanted to make the County Council a legislative power, and to make the Borough Council an executive power. The Secretary to the Board of Education proposed that general rules should be laid down by the one, and that administrative action should be done by the other. They could not be sure that the regulations were duly and properly carried out unless they gave the superior authority

1841
the power of supervising and seeing that they were carried out. That was what the Bill did not do. If a Government Department did not carry out the intentions of Parliament they could arraign it here by Question or debate, and, therefore, they could supervise all the powers they granted to the administrative Departments and call the parties to account. If the County Council were given power to step in and supervise the action of the Borough Councils he could understand that the scheme might work, but they were not to have that power. The Borough Councils were to go their own way, and if the County Council complained that they had transgressed they were to have recourse to the Board of Education. That was the reason why the opponents of the proposal expected so much friction. Suppose that the County Council gave an order as to how certain furniture was to be provided, the Borough Council might have its own views and act contrary to that order, and the only remedy was to go to the Board of Education. The Borough Council would appoint the masters and mistresses. The County Council might give directions to masters and mistresses, but suppose the Borough Council told them to take another view of the instruction given. Why! the master or mistress of course would obey the authority which had appointed and could dismiss, and would not obey the County Council, and the only remedy the County Council had was again to resort to the Board of Education. These were practical difficulties, and they were not got over by the use of the general phrases in which the Board of Education took refuge.
Let him enumerate some of the points on which the Government were bound to give a reply. There was the very practical and grave difficulty in regard to higher-grade schools. The same teacher would be at different times of the day an elementary teacher and a secondary teacher. Then there was a similar difficulty regarding the triple inspector-ship. The London County Council, the Borough Councils, and the Board of Education would all have their inspectors, and Heaven have mercy on the unhappy masters and mistresses who had to deal with three separate inspectors! Moreover, the Borough Councils would have no staff, and no power to pay a staff. They
1842
would have no motive for economy because the expenses were to be paid by a rate over the whole of London and not levied only on their own area. Again the teachers were to be appointed by the Borough Councils, but were to be responsible to the London County Council. Then, take the case of the pupil teachers; they were to be trained by the County Council in their own colleges, but places were to be found for them by the Borough Councils, who would know nothing of their record. Next, they would lose the invaluable services which the present managers had hitherto rendered. He wondered if any Member on the Front Treasury Bench—the Secretary to the Board of Education or the President of the Local Government Board—had ever been a school manager. He had not himself been one, but he had had the good fortune to be intimately connected with many school managers; and he wished to convey to the members of the Government how inestimable was the value to the poorer parts of London of the services of these school managers—especially the public-spirited ladies who took such a deep interest in the public schools. They got to know all the teachers, many of the children, entered into the feelings and needs of the teachers, and were the means of com munication between them and the School Board. All that was to be sacrificed, because it was quite clear that the Borough Councils would not have the same motives in appointing their managers as the School Board had. Lastly, in the third Sub-section of this clause, there was a provision which took a very peculiar form. It set forth that—
"The Council of a Metropolitan Borough may, if they think fit, exercise any of their powers under this section, and also any powers which may be delegated to them by the local education authority under that Act, or which they have as minor local authority under that Act, through a Committee or Committees appointed by them consisting either wholly or partly of members of the Council."
Notice the result of that plan. The County Council would not be in direct touch with these managing Committees and there would be a triple hierarchy—the County Council at the top, the Borough Council in the middle, and the Borough Councils' Committee at

1843
the bottom, and if the Education Committee had reason to complain of any action of the Borough Council Managing Committee, it could not address that Committee direct but only the Borough Council. Therefore there would be the maximum of inconvenience. He could not conceive of a scheme more fraught not only with inconvenience but delay, than that of keeping the managers out of direct touch with the County Council Education Committee. These were points and practical difficulties on every one of which a reply was needed from the Government.
The most damaging part of the criticism which the clause had received showed that it completely destroyed any prospect of co-ordination. Last year's Bill was advocated on the ground of co-ordination. It did not carry out that promise; but this Bill was far worse in that respect. Here they had secondary education separated from elementary education by giving the control of the one to the County Council and of the other to the Borough Councils. The elementary teacher was to be responsible to the Borough Councils, and the secondary teacher to the County Council, and therefore if anything was to be done to make elementary lead up to secondary education, and bringing the two into relation with each other, that would be sacrificed by the Bill as it stood. Then the provided and the non-provided schools were put further from each other by this Bill than by the Bill of last year, which gave the County Council some control over both the provided and non-provided schools. By that Bill the same authority, the Borough Council or the county authority, had the full control over the secular instruction in both classes of schools; but by this Bill the control was divided. The county authority was to have control over the non-provided schools, but not the control over the provided schools, and therefore there was less co-ordination and less unity of management than under the scheme of last year. He put it to the Government that, looking to all these points they had a heavy case to answer, and they must give the Committee if this clause, was to be passed a much more complete reply
1844
to the criticisms bestowed upon it than they had vouchsafed. He believed if the First Lord of the Treasury and the Government would weigh the real practical difficulties brought before the Committee that afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University and the hon. Member for West Ham, they would see how strong a case was made out against the present shape of the clause and against the shape of the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Chelsea. They had had a parallel debate on the second clause; let them carry the parallel to this clause, and revert to the scheme of last year. That was very far from perfect, but it was very much better than the scheme of this clause. He submitted that the Government were bound to do one of two things: either to leave the Committee free to go back to the scheme of last year, or to give a carefully considered reply to every one of these practical objections to the clause as it stood—a clause which he believed was entirely incapable of being worked for the benefit of the education of the children of London.
MR. PEELsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper which he understood would be cut out if the present Amendment were accepted. His Amendment was framed on somewhat the same lines, but in framing it he was anxious to go as far as he could in the direction of assisting the Government to give as large a share as possible of the management of education in the boroughs, if not to the Borough Councils as Borough Councils, yet to the members of the Councils. His Amendment provided that three-fourths of such body or bodies should be appointed by the Borough Councils and one-fourth by the local education authority. His idea was that provided these bodies of management were entirely under the authority of the central authority it really did not very much matter, from the point of view of control, whether the proportion that was appointed was a larger one by the Borough Council, and whether the smaller one should be by the central authority. He was anxious, first of all, to give as much to the Borough Councils as he could in the work of education,

1845
and he wanted to establish a link between the central authority and the boards of managers. He had thought that one-fourth would be enough to secure that communication, but he understood that the view of a number of hon. Members on the Government side was that half and half would be a better arrangement. If the Government showed any readiness to meet them on the point, he would not stick obstinately to his own Amendment. He did not think he need say anything at that stage as to the general principle of the Amendment. It had been fully dealt with; and he himself was fully satisfied with the effect of the criticisms. Had he spoken earlier he would have insisted on the advantage which would follow from the acceptance of an Amendment of this kind.
MR. COHENsaid he was not at all out of sympathy with the idea which his hon. friend who had just spoken, had in his mind; but his regard towards it was diminished by the prospect of its being still further diluted when it came to be considered. It appeared to him that the fallacy which underlay the speeches of his hon. friend for North West Ham and the hon. Member for North Camber well was that, while they spoke of their experience of London schools, they had no practical experience of either the London County Council or the Borough Councils. They were trying to create a bogey as to friction between the London County Council and the Borough Councils. He had never had the honour of being a member of a Borough Council; but after twelve years experience in the London County Council—and he could not be accused of being invariably favourable to all the proposals of that august body—he believed that there was no body which could more easily adapt itself to machinery and administrative work than the London County Council. The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said some time ago that no business man would for a moment conceive such an arrangement as that proposed between the London County Council and the Borough Councils, in consequence of what he called dual authority. He would not pit his business experience against that of the hon. Member; but in his opinion one of the first rudiments of successful business
1846
administration was a central body responsible for and busying itself with the control of the work for which it was responsible, but yet anxious to confide as much as it could to bodies in whom it had confidence. He hoped and believed that the opinion of the London County Council and the Borough Council of Islington would be very different to that expressed by the hon. Member for West Islington. [Mr. LOUGH: Not at all.] He would not contradict the statement of his hon. friend that he had great respect for the Borough Council of Islington—his hon. friend was the best authority as to the bodies for whom he had respect or not—but if he himself had respect for a body he would have expressed the very opposite opinion to that expressed by his hon. friend; and if he had contempt for a body he would endeavour to emulate the eloquence of his hon. friend. That, however, was only a detail. His hon. friend said that the Borough Councils had no machinery, and that they would be incapable of managing education. His hon. friend said that because of his experience of the Borough Council of Islington. He agreed that the Borough Councils had no machinery; but he differed from his hon. friend that they were not qualified to manage education. On the contrary, he believed that the Borough Councils would be extremely capable and interested in the management of education within their own districts. With reference to machinery, they would have recourse for that to the vacated premises on the Thames Embankment.
The reason he was in favour of the proposal of the Government, as distinguished from the Amendment of his right hon. friend the Member for East Somerset, was because he thought his right hon. friend had not had sufficient regard to the difference between London and the country. His right hon. friend wanted to adapt the machinery of last year's Act to London; but that would mean comparing two things which differed in their most material characteristics. The Prime Minister had said that London was a unique problem, and required unique machinery. Therefore, there was no inconsistency in being

1847
anxious to decentralise now where last year they sought to centralise. From what he knew of the aptitude of the London County Council and its desire to get through its business in an expeditious and efficient manner, it would be anxious and glad to frame the general lines on which elementary education within its area should be conducted; and he believed that the Borough Councils would have quite as much work as they could effectively discharge; and that with due regard to economy they would try and carry out in their own way, the education of their own area within the limits prescribed by the central authority. The hon. Member for North West Ham referred to the willingness of members of his own community to assist schools in the East End and other parts of London. So far as he was empowered to speak on their behalf, he believed the existing managers, whether members of the Jewish faith or not, would be as anxious to offer their assistance in the future as in the past; and that the Borough Councils would be most anxious to enlist it.
MR. LOUGHsaid his hon. friend who had just spoken had not done justice to the opinion he had expressed on the previous night with regard to the Borough Council of Islington. He described the borough councillors as very patriotic men, and surely that ought to be sufficient. The criticisms he brought against the scheme of the Government were admitted to be true by his hon. friend. He stated that the Borough Councils had no machinery; and his hon. friend admitted that. He admitted that the Borough Councils could construct machinery; but that would mean setting up twenty-nine School Boards all over London. He did not wish to see dissension between the London County Council and the Borough Councils; and he rejoiced in the agreement between those bodies just as much as his hon. friend. But there was a danger that the proposal of the Government would destroy the present good feeling. The hon. Member for St. Pancras stated that the Borough Councils of St. Pancras and Westminster
1848
had passed resolutions in favour of this scheme; but in both districts there was an appeal to the Mayor to call a town meeting to protest against the scheme being thrust on London. But ten boroughs, including Bethnal Green, Battersea, Camberwell, Poplar, Shore-ditch, Fulham, Woolwich, and Hackney, had all protested against the scheme of the Government. That was a notable expression of opinion against the scheme. The London County Council and the. London School Board had also expressed a hostile opinion; the London Liberals, a small band, were unanimously united against it; and, finally, London gathered together at Hyde Park on Saturday and denounced it root and branch. The Secretary to the Board of Education said he had not read all the words of his speech on 28th April. Those explanations of the hon. Gentleman were of the greatest interest because they showed the source of this proposal. The words he omitted were—
"Another advantage of decentralisation would be that greater elasticity would be imparted to the curriculum of elementary schools; the School Board system had been too rigorous; it impressed on all teachers a certain uniformity; while it bore hardly on the poorer parts of London."
The hon. Member for North Camberwell had since shown that there had been no rigorous system which pressed hardly on the poorer districts. He deprecated any such distinction being drawn with regard to the education of the poorest parts of London.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he had no wish to disparage the education of these children, but it should be conducted in such a way that they should derive full benefit, and they should not be asked to learn more subjects than they could carry in their heads at the time.
MR. LOUGHsaid he could not see why there should be more elasticity and different curricula and a different system for the poor districts. According to the hon. Baronet the object of the Government was to transfer the burden of administration of small matters to the Borough Councils, but this was not a small matter. The Government here

1849
were establishing a principle between legislation and administration. The idea of the Government was that the central authority should legislate and that the Borough Councils should carry out the commands of the County Council. That was an impossible system which could not be carried out. The House which made the rules was the best source from which those rules could be enforced. If the Borough Councils had to carry out the regulations which the County Council made there would be greater power in the County Council to modify or alter those regulations than in the Borough Councils to see them enforced. It had been suggested also that the repairs should be paid by the local authorities. The repairs last year amounted to a considerable sum, and it was suggested that the expenditure should be undertaken by twenty-nine authorities instead of one. The appointment of teachers, which had been found to be a very difficult matter to deal with by the School Board, was also to be handed over to the local authorities. Out of 1000 teachers appointed by the London School Board 700 had to be obtained from training colleges. How on earth would the Borough Councils be able to undertake duties which the central authority, the School Board, found so difficult to perform. These changes would not be for the benefit of London. If separate boards of management were set up in each locality they would have the separate districts communicating with the Board of Education. It would be most unreasonable to set up such a system. At present all communications passed through the School Board, and any change to be made should be an improvement on the present system. He thought the Government ought to allow the House to make some progress. Had not the debate now come to a point at which the hon. Baronet could give a definite answer. The hon. Member for South Manchester had made a suggestion. It must be remembered the Committee was supporting an Amendment moved by a most loyal supporter of the Government. He noticed the hon. Member for Chelsea was in consultation with the hon Baronet. The hon. Member for Chelsea was the handy man of the Government on London matters, and whenever he held out a
1850
signal of distress they ought to stop. He told the Government they would have to give way on Clause 2, twenty-four hours before they gave way, and he was making suggestions to the Government now. How long were they going to sit if the Government did not make a little progress. They did not object to the Borough Councils or a little local help being obtained by the central authority, but they did say the control of the central body should not be impaired, and that was why they supported the Amendment.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the hon. Member had reproached him for not addressing the House sooner. He had been very much impressed with the difficulties likely to arise from the adoption of a proposal to define the powers of delegation as between the Borough Councils and the County Council. He was not prepared to admit that all the suggested difficulties were genuine. There had been a good deal of exaggeration and assumption that everybody would make things as difficult as possible, and that neither Borough Councils nor County Council would act fairly and pleasantly by one another, and there had been an almost inconceivable misinterpretation of the proposals underlying the Government scheme. But what impressed his mind was that in the event of difference of opinion between a borough and the County Council upon the delegation of powers, and in the event of a Borough Council having prepared a scheme asking for larger powers than the County Council was inclined to grant, the matter would come before the Board of Education, and the latter would be bound to decide in favour of the County Council as the paramount authority, and in that way a Borough Council would be less willing to join in the work. He was therefore disposed to look favourably upon the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Manchester, which provided that the Borough Council should propose boards of management, the numbers of which the Board of Education should approve, three-fourths to be nominated by the Borough Council.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: Are you going to withdraw this clause, too, then?
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he was stating what his proposal was. It was not a pleasant thing to withdraw a proposal which he had placed before the Committee and supported in good faith and with some confidence that it would work well. But he knew the difficulties that might arise, he knew the divided feeling on his side of the House, he knew the almost unanimous feeling on the other side of the House; though it would probably be as undivided in respect to any scheme the Government might introduce. But he was not deterred by natural disinclination to withdraw what he had placed before the Committee with some confidence, from the endeavour to induce the Committee to accept an Amendment which he thought would make the educational work of London more smooth in the future by delegation of powers to the Borough Councils. If the hon. Member for Somerset would withdraw his Amendment, and his hon. friend the Member for South Manchester would move the Amendment of which he had given notice, he would be prepared to accept it on the part of the Government.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid the Committee were in a remarkable position. Either this Bill had been brought in without any consideration at all, or the Government were in a most extraordinary frame of mind. After a short discussion they had been induced again completely to change their proposals, to throw over the municipal bodies they had themselves created, and to do away with the clause which, when Clause 2 was under discussion, was said by them to safeguard the interests of the Borough Councils. He strongly protested against the decision. His only desire was to promote the interests of education, and he had been too long engaged in educational work for anyone to say he held retrograde views on the subject. One of the main features of the Act of last year was the promotion of municipal interest in education, but the corresponding feature of the present Bill was to be dropped in consequence of the speeches of hon. Members who were not concerned with London at all, but who were interfering in the question of London's education in a manner they would not tolerate in their own districts. What would the Colonial Secretary say if it was proposed to hand
1852
over the education of Birmingham to the Council of the county and not to allow the municipality to have any voice in the management of affairs? The Borough Councils were not perfect, but they had the local knowledge which was essential for the management of the schools, and unless their interest was enlisted the scheme could not be efficiently administered. Islington was as large as many great cities, and yet she was not to be allowed to have any part in the management of the education of the district. It was a monstrous proposition. As one who had been engaged in the work of education for forty years he declared it to be a retrograde step to concentrate the whole of the work in one body. To talk of London as a whole was absurd. It was an enormous aggregation of different parts, and education could be made efficient only by recognising that fact, and allowing the various boroughs to take an important part in its management. The Bill had been so changed that its own parents would not recognise it. Londoners would resent the step the Government were now taking, and, what was more important, the efficiency of London education would be seriously impaired.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONagreed with the hon. Member for North Islington that the Committee were in an extraordinary position. The whole proceedings had been ludicrous, almost grotesque, and under the circumstances the Government would have done well to report Progress in order to consider the matter in the light of the debate which had taken place. This was the third change the clause had undergone. Nothing short of a clear majority of the central authority on the Management Committee would make the Bill workable, or give satisfaction to those who were to have charge of education in London. By their latest alteration the Government admitted that there must be a connecting link between the central authority and the local body, and in that connection he would like to refer to a speech made by the Prime Minister last year. A proposal was made to put the major authority in a minority on the board of managers, and the right hon. Gentleman then said that—
"The County Council was to be the supreme authority in all matters of education, and that

1853
being so it was only reasonable to give them a, majority on the board of managers.… It would be extremely foolish, after the Committee had decided that the County Council was to be the supreme authority in all matters of education, to hand over to the inferior body the appointment of a majority of the managers."
After that expression of opinion, he thought it ought not to be proposed to give the London County Council less than a majority on the local Committee. There was no objection to the Borough Councils being represented on the managing bodies provided the central authority was the only statutory body and had supreme control from top to bottom, and only under such conditions could the necessary decentralisation be properly carried out. The Opposition were not enamoured of the Act of last year. Why they urged it should be followed now was that the present Bill was much worse, and consequently they would prefer the Act of 1902 to the Bill of 1903. The Government had not attempted to meet the damaging criticisms of their own supporters. Instead of one authority there would be several authorities, and friction was certain to arise between the central and the local bodies. The Government proposed to place the two bodies in such a position that friction was absolutely inevitable. Instead of giving complete control to those who had to find the money, they were, under the proposals of the Government, only going to have certain powers. The hon. Baronet had himself said in the course of a previous debate that it was almost impossible to define what was management and what was control. On all those questions of teachers, sites, control of the buildings, higher grade schools, and so on, there would inevitably be friction between the two bodies, and that the Government had admitted by giving the ultimate arbitration to the Board of Education. Why not at once place them in the supreme authority of the County Council instead of raising friction and difficulties between these two bodies? They were in a difficult position with regard to this matter. He hoped it would be repudiated by the hon. Member for South Manchester, and that it would not be accepted by the hon. Member for Somersetshire. So far as they were concerned on that side of the House, they
1854
should give it the most strenuous opposition.
MR. HENEY HOBHOUSEwas not surprised at the hon. Member declaring war against the proposals of the Government, because he was ready to do that against any proposals of the Government. The Secretary to the Board of Education had showed a very reasonable disposition, and considering that the Amendment embodied the principle of putting the schools under managing bodies rather than under Borough Councils, he was quite willing to accept this proposal. He would have preferred his own clause, but they could not have everything, and he was glad the Government had kept an open mind in the discussion.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORexpressed his extreme satisfaction with the Government for accepting the Amendment, and thus putting the Borough Councils in a thoroughly subordinate position to the County Council, and depriving the Borough Councils of that power of interference with the management of schools which had been so deprecated. He understood the hon. Member for South Manchester to say that he was quite willing to change the proportions of the management, and to make this body of managers consist of half and half instead of three-fourths to one-fourth. That he regarded as a great improvement, and he urged the Government to accept the amended Amendment. It would be desirable to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, and they could then proceed with an open mind.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLwould not embark on a general discussion, but he wished to deprecate the observation which had been made with regard to the danger of friction arising in case the proposals of the Government had been accepted. He did not believe that friction would have arisen. On the contrary, he had found, from a long experience in public affairs of various kinds, that when gentlemen met together for a common purpose, any friction which might have arisen during the election contest entirely disappeared. He did not think there would be any danger of friction of such a character

1855
as to endanger the good working of the schools. The question of uniform jurisdiction could not then be discussed, but he believed it was quite necessary to the good working of the educational system that there should be a different curriculum to suit different wants and different localities. He regarded as sound the arguments that had been advanced upon the questions of breaking up the staffs, the difficulty of the transfer of teachers and of domestic instruction. His sole purpose in rising was to express his great satisfaction with the Government for keeping an open mind upon the views which had been put forward. He certainly felt that the Bill had been greatly improved by this concession, and he was quite sure that the action of the Government would be heartily accepted by the country as a whole, because it embodied, in the strongest and most powerful manner, the principle of one central authority for each locality, and that the central authority should act through the whole area by delegation as the circumstances might demand.
DR. MACNAMARAwas of opinion that bit by bit Clause 3 would be withdrawn. There were two matters they had to consider in regard to the question of management. One was its constitution and the other was its function. With regard to its constitution, he understood that the Government were prepared to accept and even go farther than the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Manchester. They would, however, resist the proposals for the proportions to be three-fourths borough councillors and one-fourth county councillors. He hoped the Amendment would be set up early so that it could be discussed. The function of the management was all important. Under the Bill the Borough Councils were to be set up as managers by statute. They objected to that in the beginning and they objected to it now. This Amendment set up the County Council entirely as the general controlling body for London. The function it proposed was absolutely and perfectly sound, for the Amendment carried them a long way along the line they wanted to go. He was entirely
1856
satisfied with the total revolution which had taken place in the functions of managers as compared with the function of the general authority for London.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEquite agreed with what had been suggested, and he thought his hon. friend on that side of the House would also agree with it. They would allow the Amendment to be withdrawn and set up the other Amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
MR. PEELthought there was no need to say anything on the Amendment he desired to move, but something had been said as to the proportions. The reason he gave a very large proportion to the Borough Councils was that he was anxious to meet the desire of the Government to associate if not the Borough Councils themselves, yet the personnel of the Borough Councils with the work of education. He considered that the one-fourth to be appointed by the central authority would be sufficient to secure the link between the central authority and the board of managers. Considering that these boards of managers would be entirely under the orders of the central authority the question of proportion was not to his view a matter of the greatest importance, and certainly so far as he was concerned if the Government were going to stand by three-fourths he should give them his support. He had said he would agree to half and half because he understood that a great number of hon. Members on that side of the House laid great stress on the proportions, and for the sake of agreement he was ready to go to that length. But he was so grateful to the Government for the line they had taken that he was ready to support them, and did not wish to do anything to embarrass them in this beneficial change. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 11, to leave out Sub-section (1), and insert the words, 'All public elementary provided schools within the area of each Metropolitan Borough shall have a body or bodies of managers whose number shall be determined by the Council of each borough

1857
subject to the approval of the Board of Education. Provided that three-fourths of such body or bodies shall be appointed by the Borough Council, and one-fourth by the local education authority. Provided also that due regard shall be had to the inclusion of women on the said bodies of managers.'" (Mr. Peel.)
Question put, "That Sub-section (1) stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 11; Noes, 349. (Division List No. 103.)

AYES.

Bousfield, William Robert

Graham, Henry Robert

Thornton, Percy M.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Kimber, Henry

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

Martin, Richard Biddulph

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Gordon, HnJE(Elginand Nairn

Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

Sir George Bartley and

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Mr. Burdett-Coutts.

NOES.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Flower, Ernest

Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Forster, Henry William

Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J. (Birm

Foster, Sir Michl. (Lond. Univ

Allsopp, Hon. George

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Channing, Francis Allston

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Anstruther, H. T.

Chapman, Edward

Fuller, J. M. F.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Charrington, Spencer

Fyler, John Arthur

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Galloway, William Johnson

Arrol, Sir William

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Gardner, Ernest

Asher, Alexander

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Garfit, William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt Hy.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'ml'ts

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc

Austin, Sir John

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cranborne, Viscount

Grant, Corrie

Baird, John George Alexander

Cremer, William Randal

Gray, Ernest ( West Ham)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Crossley, Sir Savile

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cust, Henry John C.

Groves, James Grimble

Barry, Sir Fras, T. (Windsor)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Gunter, Sir Robert

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Dalziel, James Henry

Hain, Edward

Beckett, Ernest William

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardign

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Bell, Richard

Denny, Colonel

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Mid'x

Bignold, Arthur

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Bill, Charles

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Black, Alexander William

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Harwood, George

Bond, Edward

Doughty, George

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Brassey, Albert

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Brigg, John

Duncan, J. Hastings

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Healy, Timothy Michael

Bryce, Right Hon. James

Edwards, Frank

Heath James (Staffords. N. W.

Brymer, William Ernest

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Heaton, John Henniker

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Ellis, John Edward

Helder, Augustus

Bull, William James

Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

Helme, Norval Watson

Burt, Thomas

Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Butcher, John George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Caldwell, James

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Cameron, Robert

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

Holland, Sir William Henry

Carew, James Laurence

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Horner, Frederick William

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Fisher, William Hayes

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Causton, Richard Knight

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Moulton, John Fletcher

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Mount, William Arthur

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Johnstone, Heywood

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Jones, Dav. Brynmor (Swansea)

Myers, William Henry

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Kerr, John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Kitson, Sir James

O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

Knowles, Lees

O'Malley, William

Stock, James Henry

Labouchere, Henry

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Lambert, George

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Stroyan, John

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R.

Partington, Oswald

Sullivan, Donal

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Paulton, James Mellor

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Unit

Leamy, Edmund

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Tennant, Harold John

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Perks, Robert William

Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)

Leng, Sir John

Pickard, Benjamin

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

Levy, Maurice

Pierpoint, Robert

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Lewis, John Herbert

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Tomlinson, Sir. Wm. Edw. M.

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Pretyman, Ernest George

Toulmin, George

Lloyd-George, David

Price, Robert John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Priestley, Arthur

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Valentia, Viscount

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Purvis, Robert

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Lough, Thomas

Rankin, Sir James

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Lowe, Francis William

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

Rea, Russell

Weir, James Galloway

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Redmond, William (Clare)

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

Macdona, John Cumming

Reid, Sir. R. Threshie (Dumfries

White, George (Norfolk)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Whiteley, S. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

Maconochie, A. W.

Rigg, Richard

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

M'Arthur William (Cornwall)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Williams, O. (Merioneth)

M'Crae, George

Robinson, Brooke

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Robson, William Snowdon

Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

Manners, Lord Cecil

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Wilson John (Glasgow)

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Rose, Charles Day

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.

Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Runciman, Walter

Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Russell, T. W.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Rutherford, John (Lancashire

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Milvain, Thomas

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Yoxall, James Henry

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Mr. Henry Hobhouse and

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Schwann, Charles E.

Mr. Peel.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. ERNEST GRAYmoved to leave out the words "or bodies" in line 2 of the Sub-section. He statedt hat his object in moving the Amendment was
1860
to get an explanation of the words "or bodies." He rather thought that the mover intended that in each Metropolitan borough there should be a body or bodies of managers, but the reading of the Sub-section suggested that in all public elementary provided schools there

1861
might be two bodies of managers for one school. He wished to get the point cleared up, and therefore he formally moved.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"To leave out the words 'or bodies.'"—(Mr. Ernest Gray.)
Question proposed, "That the words or bodies' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he could not help feeling that the words "a body or bodies" might be open to misconstruction. He thought, however, the words should remain.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Ham followed fairly closely the words of Section 6, Subsection 1 of the Act of last year, where the words were "a body of managers." He did not think the words "or bodies" were necessary, and he agreed with the hon. Member that it would be better to omit them.
MR. PEELsaid the reason why he putin the words "a body or bodies of managers" was to allow for the fact that the number of schools in each borough varied. In Stepney, for example, there were thirty schools, and he wished to provide that they would have not one body of managers but several bodies of managers for the schools in that particular borough. He thought the words were necessary.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that he hoped the words would be retained. His hon. friend had read Section 6 of the Act of last year, but did not read Section 12, which provided for the grouping of schools. If the words were dropped out, infinitely greater difficulties would be created.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid he thought the Committee was in a somewhat peculiar position.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: What has become of Coghill?
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid that the Committee had no idea whether "body" or "bodies" were to be in this Bill. They had come to an extraordinary pass. Clause 2, on which they built, had been given away, and now on this clause the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Education did not seem to understand whether the words ought or ought not to be in the clause. As time was going on, he thought it would be well if there was an hour and a half's adjournment, in order to enable the Minister in charge of the Bill to understand the Amendment. Many of them on that side of the House had supported the Bill. It was a Government Bill. They were loyal supporters of the Government. The Government had still got eleven strong supporters; and he really thought that the hon. Gentleman should reconsider his position till after the dinner hour and know where he actually was.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he believed the words were altogether unnecessary.
MR. CALDWELLsaid that the matter really admitted of no dispute. The "Interpretation of Terms Act" said that the singular should include the plural. If it was said that all public elementary schools should have a body or bodies of managers it did not mean that all the schools were to have one body of managers: it meant that each school was to have one body of managers. He was surprised that in a matter of this kind the Government had lost its head.
MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he realised that if there was any vagueness in the wording of the clause it could be cleared up on the Report stage. His intervention was merely to make the clause clear and not to waste time. He asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he had handed in an Amendment to the Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman's Amendment is to the same effect as that handed in by the hon. and learned Member for Mid Glamorgan, only it was in the wrong place.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that in drafting his Amendment, which he was bound to in a hurry, he might have put it in the wrong place. What he wanted to propose was to leave out the words "elementary provided schools" in order to insert the words "non-provided schools."
MR. CORRIE GRANTsubmitted that his Amendment, which was a drafting one, was necessary, viz., to add after the words "body or bodies," "as the local educational authority may determine."
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would have the same effect as that of the hon. and learned Member for Mid Glamorganshire.
MR. BRYCEsaid that the hon. Member for Manchester might tell the Committee what he intended to mean by the words "whose number." The natural meaning of "whoso number" would be the number of managers.
MR. PEELsaid that what he meant by the words was to give as much power as he possibly could to the Borough Councils. He therefore proposed to leave it to them to decide not only the number of the committees of managers in any borough, but also the number that should be in each particular group of managers.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYasked what meaning the Government attached to the Amendment.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid although he thought that the Government had now adopted the right principle, they should endeavour to extend it in order to make the Bill consistent throughout. The principle of the Bill was that the control should be in the local education authority, and it was obvious that it should extend to the determination of the body or bodies of managers or the number of managers. He did not think it necessary
1864
to argue the point. It was quite true that the Borough Councils might know some of the local conditions better than the local education authority, but there was nothing to prevent the Borough Councils making representations to the local education authority; and if a Borough Council had any complaint, it could take it to the Board of Education. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment seeing that it was quite consistent with the principle of the Bill.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"To leave out the words 'council of each borough,' and insert the words 'local education authority after consultation with the council of each borough.'"—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that the Government accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Manchester in preference to that of the hon. Member for Somerset, because it gave a somewhat larger authority in respect of the management of their schools than was given to the ordinary minor local authorities throughout the country. It appeared to him that the Borough Councils, from the knowledge they possessed of the needs of their schools and the numbers available for the purpose of management, might properly determine how many bodies of managers there should be. They had a right to group their schools and also to say how many persons should be on the board of managers. It did not appear to him that the rights of the local authority or its powers were in any way interfered with by the arrangement proposed in respect of the Borough Councils, and he thought it would be proper for the Borough Councils to enjoy those rights. They would conduce to good management of the schools, and he was therefore unwilling to adopt any Amendment which would in any way alter the scheme of his hon. friend.
MR. BRYCEsaid he had heard the statement of the hon. Baronet with regret. They did not wish to look a gift horse too much in the mouth; and they were very sensible of the great improvement the Bill had received by

1865
the last change of opinion on the part of the Government. But he could not help thinking that the local education authority, which would have a much wider experience, would be a better authority to determine the number of bodies of managers than the Borough Councils. It should be remembered that the central authority was not ignorant of London, and that its members would be drawn from the boroughs.
MR. BONDsaid the way he looked at the matter was this—that the number of managers and their powers and duties should be determined by a scheme to be framed by the local education authority, and subject to the approval of the Board of Education. The details could be best considered between these two bodies, and he did not see any great reason for retaining any kind even of nominating power on the part of the Borough Councils. He supposed it had been thought that some shred of authority should be left to the Borough Councils as a kind of consolation for being deprived of the greater part of the powers which it was intended to devolve upon them. The present proposal would be like leaving in the stump of an aching tooth. He felt it was better to sweep the Borough Councils out altogether, not that he doubted the capacity of the Borough Councils to deal with this matter, but because to offer them these illusory functions would only lead to a certain amount of delay, and in the long run, to friction. It was always assumed that local authorities had a particular knowledge of the district they represented, but when one considered the ignorance of people living in London with regard to what was happening at practically their own door, it was not wise to use such an assumption as that as an argument. He thought the Bill would be a much better one if these powers and functions were left in the hands of the local education authority, subject to the approval of the Board of Education. The Board of Education attributed great importance to securing some delegation of functions, and if considerable functions were not delegated to the local managers, the strain
1866
would break down the educational machine altogether. But if functions were to be delegated they would take a great step in insuring effective delegation, if they said it was delegation in which the Board of Education should have a voice. Although he believed the new education authority would be extremely desirous to cast on the local managers as much work as they could delegate to them, he thought there should be some assurance that it would be done under a scheme approved by the Board of Education.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that from a practical point of view, he did not think they could leave the Borough Councils to determine the number of managers. They would need to go back to the Act of last year. What he desired to suggest was that they should be consulted on this matter, and therefore he suggested that the words "council for each borough" should be taken out, and then that the words "after consultation with the Borough Councils" should be added. That would leave the determining with the only persons who could determine this matter, namely, the education authority of the district.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he would adopt the words of the hon. Member, and, with permission, would move the Amendment in that form.
MR. LOUGHpointed out that one of the main reasons put forward by the Government for not accepting this Amendment had no substance in it, because it did not matter whether the Borough Council representation was eight or twelve. The Borough Council would have a three-fourths representation, and they would have just as much power whether they had eight or twelve representatives. The Government had already accepted the Amendment by which the local education authority should fix the number of its own authority, and it would be consistent with that Amendment if it was left to them to fix the number of the Management Committee. The hon. Member in charge of the Bill made one very great mistake when he said the local authorities had a knowledge of the schools in their district; they had no such knowledge at

1867
all. The School Board had that knowledge. The hon. Member's acceptance of the Amendment would not diminish the authority of the Borough Councils, and would be quite consistent with the Bill as it now stood.
COLONEL WILLIAMShoped that the Government would stick to the Amendment. They had heard it said that the County Councils would know all the schools of the districts, but all the county councillors were not resident in London, and were not likely to know the schools so well as those who resided there. The one defect of the London School Board was over-centralisation, and the London School Board did not know all its own schools, so that the argument that the London School Board or the London County Council were aware of all the schools fell to the ground. It seemed to him that the people who sat on the Borough Councils were the people who would know, and ought to know, the schools.
MR. ERNEST GRAYpointed out that cases would probably arise in which it would be desirable to group a number of schools, some of which were in one borough and some in another. The boundaries of groups of schools were determined rather by main roads, along which there was much traffic, than by the provisions of Local Government Acts. In such cases, if the central authority had the right to determine how many groups of managers there should be in a given area, they could consult the Borough Councils concerned, and suggest some arrangement agreeable to both. That was possible under the amended but not under the original form of the proposal. It was not a matter of vital importance, but it was one of great practical convenience, and he commended it to the Government.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 210; Noes, 119. (Division List No. 104.)

AYES.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Gordon Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Allhusen Augustus Henry Eden

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gordon, Maj Evans (Tr. Hmlts

Allsopp, Hon. George

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Graham, Henry Robert

Arrol, Sir William

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Groves, James Grimble

Austin, Sir John

Crossley, Sir Savile

Gunter, Sir Robert

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hain, Edward

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hall, Edward Marshall

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. G. (Midx

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Doughty, George

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Bignold, Arthur

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Bill, Charles

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Boland, John

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Healy, Timothy Michael

Brassey, Albert

Duke, Henry Edward

Heath, James (Staffs, N. W.)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Helder, Augustus

Butcher, John George

Fardell, Sir T. George

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Carew, James Laurence

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Finlay, Sir Robert, Bannatyne

Horner, Frederick William

Cautley, Henry Strother

Fisher, William Hayes

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Fison, Frederick William

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Flower, Ernest

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Forster Henry William

Johnstone, Heywood

Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

Fyler, John Arthur

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Chapman, Edward

Galloway, William Johnson

Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

Charrington, Spencer

Gardner, Ernest

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Garfit, William

Kerr, John

Knowles, Lees

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

O'Malley, William

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Stock, James Henry

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Lowe, Francis William

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Pemberton, John S. G.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Macdona, John Cumming

Pierpoint, Robert

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox'fd Univ.

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Maconochie, A. W.

Purvis, Robert

Thornton, Percy M.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Rankin, Sir James

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Valentia, Viscount

Manners, Lord Cecil

Redmond, William (Clare)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Milvain, Thomas

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

Mount, William Arthur

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

Mowbray, Sir Robert, Gray C.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

Murphy, John

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone. W.)

Sir Alexander Acland-

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Hood and Mr. Austruther.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Asher, Alexander

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fuller, J. M. F.

M'Crae, George

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Grant, Corrie

Norman, Henry

Bell, Richard

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

Black, Alexander William

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Partington, Oswald

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Paulton, James Mellor

Bond, Edward

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

Harwood, George

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Brigg, John

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Pickard, Benjamin

Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Price, Robert John

Bryce, Right Hon. James

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Priestley, Arthur

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Rea, Russell

Burt, Thomas

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rigg, Richard

Caldwell, James

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Cameron, Robert

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Robson, William Snowdon

Causton, Richard Knight

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Rose, Charles Day

Cremer, William Randal

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Runciman, Walter

Dalziel, James Henry

Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

Russell, T. W.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardign

Kearley, Hudson E.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Denny, Colonel

Kitson, Sir James

Schwann, Charles E.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Labouchere, Henry

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lambert, George

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Edwards, Frank

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Ellis, John Edward

Leamy, Edmund

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Tennant, Harold John

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

Leng, Sir John

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.

Foster, Sir Michl, (Lond. Univ

Lough, Thomas

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

1870

1871

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

Woodhouse Sir J. T. Huddersfield

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Yoxall, James Henry

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Williams, O. (Merioneth)

Weir, James Galloway

Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

White, George (Norfolk)

Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

Mr. Samuel Evans and

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcester., N.)

Mr. Trevelyan.

MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he wished to move an Amendment to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Manchester as follows—
"In line 4, leave out the words 'Board of Education' and insert 'local education authority.'"
He submitted that this was a reasonable Amendment which did not affect any great question of principle.
THE CHAIRMAN: This seems to be a similar Amendment to the one which has just been decided. It seems to raise exactly the same point as that upon which the Committee has just pronounced an opinion.
MR. CORRIE GRANTargued that what the Committee had just decided was that the number of the body should be determined by the Council of each Borough, and the last Amendment suggested that it should be determined by the local education authority after consultation with the Council of the Borough. His Amendment, he submitted, dealt with an entirely different matter, for it left the approval of the whole thing to the local education authority, instead of leaving it to the Board of Education.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member's Amendment goes as far as he thinks. The Committee have decided that the decision shall be with the Council of each Borough.
MR. YOXALLsaid the Amendment he wished to move was in line with what had been done already. They had agreed, after much debate and argument, that the local management of the schools must be left very largely under the control of the local education authority for London. The Amendment he proposed to put before the Committee carried out the idea in the proposal submitted by the hon. Member for South Manchester, that three-fourths of the body should be appointed by the Borough Council and one-
1872
fourth by the local education authority. He (Mr. Yoxall) proposed to substitute for the words three-fourths the words one-fourth, and the Amendment would then read, "Provided that one-fourth of such body or bodies shall be appointed by the Borough Council and three-fourths by the local education authority." This Amendment was placed on the Paper only the day before, and it had now been affirmed most emphatically that the London County Council were to be supreme in the matter of education in London. It followed naturally, and ought to follow practically, that the London County Council should appoint the major number of members on the Managing Committee. So long as it was proposed that the Borough Councils were to be managerial bodies by statute, it was in keeping that they should appoint three-fourths of the Managing Committee of a school or a group of schools, but now that had gone by the board, the larger proportion should go with it. Since the debate of that afternoon and the decision to reverse the idea and to pronounce the London education authority as the governing body, it followed that the London education authority ought to appoint the majority of the Managing Committees. Although he moved one-fourth in place of three-fourths as the ideal number, he thought something was to be said for the proportion of last year, viz., two-thirds and one-third. The right hon. Member for Somerset did not commit himself to the number laid down in last year's Act, and the Amendment did not restrict the number of managers on the Committee to six. For that reason he departed from last year's proposal and suggested that three-fourths should be appointed by the local education authority and one-fourth by the Borough Council. This question came up last year in relation to provided schools within the area of administrative government. They were now dealing with provided schools in the area of the County of London. The hon. Member for Flint last year made the proposal that the proportion should be reversed, and that instead of

1873
the County Council in an administrative county, appointing two-thirds and the minor authority one-third, the latter should appoint two-thirds and the major authority the other third. The scattered nature of the district justified the Amendment in last year's case, but the argument then put forward by the Prime Minister overruled every consideration. The Prime Minister said—
"The County Council is to be the supreme authority in all matters of education."
That was the point which had been decided that afternoon. The Committee had said that the County Council should be the supreme authority within the London County area in all matters of education. They might delegate their powers as they pleased but they ought to be the supreme authority in all matters of education. The Prime Minister further went on to say—
"It was only reasonable to give them the majority upon the Managing Committee of a school or group of schools."
That consideration weighed with the House in the Act of 1902 and on it he begged to found his argument in the present case. Since the London County Council was to be supreme in all matters of education in this area it would be in consonance that they should appoint the majority upon the Managing Committee. If they did not do that they would have that proposal getting across the main drift and line of the Bill.
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 3:—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 11, to leave out Sub-section (1), and insert the words, 'All public elemen-
  1874
  tary provided schools within the area of each Metropolitan borough shall have a body or bodies of managers whose number shall be determined by the Council of each Borough subject to the approval of the Board of Education. Provided that three-fourths of such body or bodies shall be appointed by the Borough Council, and one-fourth by the local education authority. Provided also that due regard shall be had to the inclusion of women on the said bodies of managers.'"—(Mr. Peel.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. YOXALLsaid at the interruption of business he was arguing in favour of an Amendment to the Amendment whereby the proportion to be appointed on the Committee of provided schools or groups of provided schools, should be reversed—that was to say, that the Borough Councils should appoint one-fourth instead of three-fourths, and that three-fourths should be appointed by the local education authority instead of one-fourth. It had been held throughout the debate that the essential thing to produce an absence of friction, and simplicity and smoothness of working, was that the minor local authorities should be clearly made to understand that the London County Council was supreme. If the Amendment as it now stood was permitted to pass into law, it might have a most disastrous effect. The Borough Councils might resent what had taken place this afternoon, and they might determine to appoint a Committee so large as to include thirty or forty members of the Borough Councils. Under the three-fourths arrangement as it existed now, the Borough Council would appoint thirty members, while only ten would be appointed by the London County Council, and the result would be that they might have thirty of the members of the Education Committee who, resenting what had taken place this afternoon, declined to act on the instructions of the London County Council as the supreme central body, and these thirty members would speak against and vote down the ten appointed by the London County Council. If the London County Council was to be the supreme central body, it must be supreme in every department, otherwise it would not have

  1875
  the fighting power to carry out its will. To avoid friction and keep up the symmetry of this Bill he asked the Committee to accept this Amendment. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out the word 'three-fourths,' and insert the word 'one-fourth.'—(Mr. Yoxall.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'three-fourths' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. J. H. LEWISsaid he should be greatly surprised if the hon. Baronet did not accept the Amendment which had just been moved by his hon. friend, if only for this one reason—that when the Act of last year was under consideration he himself proposed an Amendment to the effect that the proportion of representation should be reversed and that the larger representation should be given to the minor authority. That suggestion, however, was met by the First Lord of the Treasury by the statement that if the Amendment were accepted it would impair the control of the County Council and lead to considerable friction between the County Council, the major authority, and the minor local authority. The right hon. Gentleman had persuaded the House to agree with him in that conclusion, and therefore he could not understand how the Government could accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Manchester as it stood, because it distinctly reversed the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman last year.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid the idea of the Government was to give the London County Council complete control, and he thought under this clause the County Council had that control. There was a very great distinction between the London boroughs and the county boroughs. In the latter the local authorities undoubtedly had a greater local knowledge, and there was no difficulty in finding persons who were suitable to act as managers. In the London boroughs there was considerable difficulty. He thought the London County Council would be really helped by the information which the local authority would be
  1876
  able to supply in that respect. Headmitted the proportions set out in this Amendment were not exactly the same as those adopted in the Education Act of last year. He saw no reason why there should be any greater amount of direct control, and much as he disapproved of the Borough Councils themselves being managers he thought they were the right and proper persons to appoint the managers. The managers were persons who were distinctly under the control of the local education authority. They could not go outside the code of rules which was drawn up by that authority. The code of rules might not be exactly the same code as that of the School Board. There might be some difference in it, but he ventured to think that they would not be able to draw up a code which in any material way would be better than that of the London School Board. The managers were in a very restricted position; they could not run counter to the wishes of the School Board, and in the future would not be able to run counter to the wishes of the central authority. Another reason why these minor authorities ought to come in was that it would give the boroughs a certain amount of interest in the education of the neighbourhood. That was a distinct advantage. He would have been greatly pleased to have seen these Borough Councils brought into this scheme if he could have seen a way in which it could have been done, and for that reason he was pleased to see this particular Amendment brought in enabling them to assist in the appointment of local managers. They must not, of course, lose sight of the outside element. They had been told that many on the schools in the East End were managed by ladies and gentlemen who came from a long distance away to the great benefit of the schools, and it might be said that in giving the Borough Councils a proportion of three-fourths there would be a tendency to exclude that outside element, but that argument would not hold because there was the one-fourth which was to be appointed by the London County Council, who would, if they thought it was desirable to strengthen the local representation, appoint people living at a distance. Under the circumstances he

  1877
  thought the Government ought not to accept this Amendment—that in this matter they had surrendered quite enough.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he was in favour of local governmenr in relation to education as to othet matters. The very principle of local government depended on local knowledge, experience, and observation, and he was quite satisfied that a system of centralisation in the appointment of local committees would fail in these respects. In the case of the School Board, the work of which was beyond all praise, there was a disposition to too much centralisation. He thought that the existence of these cheeks locally would, on the whole, tend to the formation of the best committees. He thought the balance of power was best placed in the manner in which it was proposed in the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for South Manchester.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that the point now was how far they could make this Bill a workable one in its final particulars. This Bill was now much more likely to be of practical value, inasmuch as the County Council would have supreme control whatever might be the majority on the board of management. He thought the Government, however, would have been well-advised, under the circumstances, to have made a complete job of the matter, and to have withdrawn the Borough Councils altogether from the question of management. Everyone desired that local patriotism should be evoked, but such local patriotism would hardly be evoked by an authority nominating a certain number of managers in the schools. It would be less likely to lead to friction if the Borough Councils disappeared entirely from the scheme. The particular Amendment they were discussing was as to whether the major or the minor authority should have the majority of
  nomination of managers. If they were to carry out that which the Government always contended should be, namely, that the County Council, the local authority, should have the complete control, and if they were to base this Bill on the Act of last year, the local education authority ought to have a majority on these Committees of Management. If they gave the nomination of the majority of managers to the Borough Councils, he thought it would be necessary to introduce in the Bill some definition of "management" and "control." If the majority of the Board of Managers were not elected by the London County Council but by the Borough Council, unless there was some such definition given, there would be great difficulty in dealing with this matter. That was his principal reason for supporting the proposals of his hon. friend. He drew attention to the fact also that the clause as it stood would require some further definition as to what was to be the position of women who were to be nominated as managers. He supported very strongly the Amendment of his hon. friend, because he thought they had come to the conclusion that the local authority should be supreme in this matter, and that there should not be any friction between the boroughs and the County Council. The only way in which that could be attained would be by giving the local education authority not only supreme control, but also the majority in the appointment of the managers.
  THE CHAIRMANwas about to put the question when,
  MR. YOXALLsaid he thought the Amendment before the Committee was of such an important nature as to justify an answer being given by the hon. Baronet.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 83; Noes. 40, (Division List No. 105.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Austin, Sir John

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Chapman, Edward

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r

  Charrington, Spencer

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Arrol, Sir William

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Cullinan, J.

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Denny, Colonel

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Doughty, George

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Kerr, John

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lawson, J. Grant, (Yorks. N. R.)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Leamy, Edmund

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stock, James Henry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Flower, Ernest

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Purvis, Robert

  Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Russell, T. W.

  Bell, Richard

  Grant, Corrie

  Samuel Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Black, Alexander William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Brigg, John

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Burns, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Burt, Thomas

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Caldwell, James

  Lloyd-George, David

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Cameron, Robert

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Edwards, Frank

  Norman, Henry

  Mr. Yoxall and Sir

  Foster, Sir Michl. (Lond. Univ

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Brampton Gurdon.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Perks, Robert William

  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and agreed to.

  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid he begged to move that in line 7 all the words after "that" should be struck out, in order to insert the words "one-fourth of such body or bodies shall be women." He moved this Amendment so that there should be a recognised body of women to serve on these Boards. All educationalists recognised that women had played a most important part as managers of the schools throughout the length and breadth of the land. He was perfectly sure that the principle was a sound one, and the only difference between what he proposed and the Amendment as it stood upon the Paper was that he did not propose to leave the number of women to be appointed to the discretion of the authority, but to prescribe that they should have a statutory position on these Committees. Without detaining the Committee further, he begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 7 to leave out all the words after 'that' in order to insert the words 'one fourth of such body or bodies shall be women.'"—(Mr. George White.)
  Sir WILLIAM ANSONsaid that, while fully alive to the advantage of securing the presence of women on these bodies, he must resist the Amendment on the ground that he must resist any Amendment of this sort which placed a fixed number of women on any Committee. It was not desirable that the number of women should be fixed for every Committee. In the case of girls' schools, one-fourth might be an inadequate proportion of women, while in other cases it might be unduly large. It was much better to leave the number quite open. Therefore, he should only accept the Amendment in the terms of the hon. Member for South Manchester.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid at last they had been able to extract a definite opinion from the hon. Baronet. This matter was to be left to the choice of the Borough Councils and County Council. He was quite prepared to agree to that if the clause gave any guarantee that women would be properly represented. He suggested that his hon. friend might withdraw the Amendment if the hon. Baronet would give an undertaking that between now and the Report stage he would consider the best method of obtaining statutory powers for the proper representation of women. Under the circumstances, he did not wish to press this particular proposal at the present moment if the hon. Baronet would give an undertaking that between now and the Report stage he would consider the best method of obtaining some statutory powers for the proper representation of women on the Boards of management.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that he would undertake to carefully consider the matter before the Report stage.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he hoped from what the hon. Baronet had said that some provision would be introduced which would make it quite certain that there would be a substantial proportion of women as managers, for nothing else would meet the case. Experience had shown that it was very dangerous to leave these things to the mere discretion and benevolent, sympathy of bodies composed entirely of men. They made a provision last year that women were to be on these boards of management, yet, in one case, there were only two women out of eighty members. Any one who had followed these Education Acts knew how much less than justice had been done to women both as to a share in endowments and in the management. In the work of school management women were especially invaluable; they were the only people who could get into the confidence of the female teachers. He hoped it was to be distinctly understood that the representation of women on the boards of management would be large and substantial.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. H. LEWISmoved to add at the end of the section—
  "Provided also that the local education authority shall not appoint managers until the Borough Council has made its appointment."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONthought it would be exceedingly undesirable to adopt off-hand that arrangement. It was impossible to forecast the inconveniences which might arise from the hurried adoption of such an Amendment. It would be very unwise to lay down hard and fast rules.
  MR. J. H. LEWISsaid he felt sure that the hon. Baronet would give the matter due consideration between now and the Report stage, and he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that by Sub-section 2 of Clause 3, the Borough Councils would have the determination of the sites on which the schools were to be erected, subject to certain limitations as to price. What he said was that the local education authority, having determined that a school was necessary, should go to the Borough Council and ask their advice as to where the school should be placed, stating at the same time that every consideration would be given to the advice, but that they must keep in their own hands the final determination of the site. On this question of selection of sites he spoke from a long experience, and he insisted that it was not desirable to leave it to the Borough Councils to determine the sites of schools, first of all because many of the sites were now selected by private treaty, and the result was that they were secured more cheaply than by open public treaty and negotiation. If the County Council and the Borough Council were in open communication as to a site for the school, every likely spot in the area would immediately go up in price. Again, under the scheme set forth in the Bill, a Provisional Order would be necessary, and there would be a delay of twelve months. He had a list of 147 sites, which the School Board had chosen in London by private treaty, and, at a moderate estimate, a saving of £100,000 had been effected compared

  1883
  with what these sites would have cost by public selection. Then, if the matter were left to the Borough Councils absolutely, the best site might not be selected for the purpose. A Borough Council which had an insanitary area to clear would naturally urge the Education Committee to build a school upon it, the result of which would be that the area would be cleared, and whatever rehousing was necessary would be done at the cost of the whole rates of the County of London, instead of out of the rates of the particular borough. That had actually been proposed by Stepney. All he asked was that the general authority responsible for putting a school on the best site should have complete control. A Borough Council might otherwise suggest that a school should be put in the front of a noisy thoroughfare in order that it might prove an adornment to the street. He thought he had made out a strong case for giving the County Council a veto on the site suggested by the Borough Council. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In Clause 3, page 2, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (2), and insert the words, 'It shall be the duty of the local education authority to consult the Borough Council in respect to the site to be chosen for the erection of any new public elementary school within the area of such Borough Council.'"
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section 2 stand part of the clause."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid there was no doubt that the change made on the first part of the clause must have some effect on the succeeding part. There were two Amendments on the Paper which he thought would cover the ground. The first was the Amendment just moved by the hon. Member for Camberwell, and the second was that which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Wiltshire. They had to deal with two sets of circumstances, the acquisition of sites by private treaty, and by compulsory purchase. He thought that he might accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Camberwell in the following slightly altered form: "The site of any new public elementary school to be provided
  1884
  by the local education authority shall not be determined upon until after consultation with the Council of the Metropolitan borough in which the proposed site is situated."
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he would agree to the form of the Amendment suggested by the hon. Baronet, and he asked leave to withdraw his own.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONformally moved the altered Amendment, which was agreed to.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONmoved to add—
  "And in case of compulsory purchase, if the Council of the Metropolitan Borough does not concur in the proposed compulsory acquisition, the Board of Education shall be empowered, as a condition of its approval of the Provisional Order, to require, if it thinks fit, the substitution in the Order of any other site proposed by the Council of the Metropolitan Borough for that inserted by the local education authority."
  MR. BRYCEasked what was the existing practice. His impression was that under the existing system the Board of Education had power similar to that proposed, and that it did not interfere in such cases.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the Board had such control over sites and prices.
  Amendment agreed to, Sub-section 3 omitted from the clause.
  Motion made and Question proposed, that Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought it was necessary, in view of the position in which they were now placed, that a final appeal should be made to the Secretary to the Education Department to cut out the interposition of the Borough Councils and to leave the Bill a simple measure on the lines of the Act of last year. The great drawback which they still found in the Clause was that it contained, in a modified way, provision for the representation of the Borough Councils. He thought the proposal in the clause as it now stood might lead to friction. The Government

  1885
  had given way in regard to the appointment of teachers, and on the question of sites. He hoped they would now consider whether it was worth while retaining the proposal with reference to the Borough Councils. He congratulated the hon. Baronet on having kept an open mind so that he was able to listen to the arguments on both sides. The result was that they had an Education Bill infinitely better than the one which had been introduced to the House.
  SIR MICHAEL FOSTERsaid he could only express his great satisfaction at the changes which had been made in the Bill in Committee. He ventured to say, on the Second Reading, that he dreaded plunging into the unknown, and that he did not understand the principle of the Bill. He was very glad to learn that in all fundamental features the principle of this Bill was the same as the principle of the Bill of last year. His experience of the last two days would encourage him on other occasions to plunge with courage into the unknown, hoping that the result would be as favourable as it had been on this occasion. He hoped that the Government would make the transformation complete by making the scheme for managers the same as in the principal Act.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he desired to endorse what had been said with regard to the great improvements embodied in the Bill. He was certain that instead of being an unworkable measure, it would, in its transformed state, be a measure which bade fair to be satisfactory to all classes. He only regretted that the changes had not gone farther than they had in regard to the representation of the Metropolitan Borough Councils and the London County Council. It seemed to him if the hon. Baronet had been able to adopt the principle of half and half, which had been suggested from this side of the House, the compromise would have been satisfactory to all sections of opinion. He and others could have desired that the whole control of the work of education had been placed in the hands of the County Council. He hoped that when they reached the Report stage the hon. Baronet would see
  1886
  his way to accept the proportion of half and half.
  MR. BRYCEsaid after the changes which had been made, he thought it would be contrary to the general wish if they insisted on a division on the clause; but in saying that, he must not be understood to say that their objections to the proportion of managers to the new authority were at all removed. It would be their duty on the Report stage to give the House an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the question which had been raised.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Modification of Principal Act) and Clause 5 (Commencement, repeal, and short title), the last clause of the Bill, were agreed to without discussion, the former with a verbal Amendment.
  New clauses.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid: In regard to the new clauses it appears to me that some are modifications and should go into the schedule and some are already provided for. Some are neither extensions nor adaptations of the Act of last year to London. Any alterations of the Act of 1902 which are not extensions or adaptations would be beyond the scope of this Bill. Therefore, as far as I can see, none of the new clauses would be in order, except, possibly that standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen with respect to the inspection of books and documents.
  MR. BRYCEmoved the following new clause—
  "(1) Every ratepayer in London may at any reasonable time, without payment, inspect and take copies of and extracts from all minutes of proceedings of the Education Committee or any Subcommittee thereof. (2) Any person who hinders a ratepayer from exercising any of his rights under this section, or demands a fee for allowing him to do so, shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding £5 for each such offence."

  1887
  He hoped the Government would have no difficulty in accepting this clause. It was obvious that a provision of this kind was necessary and only fair in the interest of the ratepayers. The section was similar to that in the Act of 1870. It was obvious that a provision of that kind was necessary, It was only fair in the interests of the London ratepayers that they should have an opportunity of ascertaining what was going on. Section 87 of the Act of 1870 provided that a ratepayer in any school district might at all reasonable times, without payment, inspect the books and copy extracts from documents, etc., and surely it was only right that the same privilege should be extended in this case.
  New clause.
  "(1) Every ratepayer in London may at any reasonable time, without payment, inspect and take copies of and extracts from all minutes of proceedings of the Education Committee or any sub-Committee thereof. (2) Any person who hinders a ratepayer from exercising any of his rights under this section, or demands a fee for allowing him to do so, shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding £5 for each such offence."—(Mr. Bryce.)
  Brought up and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITquite agreed that the ratepayers should be protected by having this opportunity of getting information, but he saw a distinct danger in the words "or any Sub-committee thereof." For instance, a Sub-committee might be engaged on the purchase of sites, and it was most important that their proceedings should not be made public. In that respect, the words of this new clause differed from the Act of 1870, and he should, therefore, move the omission of these words.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That cannot be moved until the clause has been read a second time.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,)also pointed out that the new clause varied from the Act of 1870, and he reminded
  1888
  the Committee that this section was expressly excluded from the Act of last year, because it had been found inconvenient in practice. It would, if carried, throw an additional burden on the new authority, which, in his opinion, it ought not to be called upon to bear. He therefore hoped the Committee would not accept the clause.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he quite understood the objection raised by the hon Member for South Islington, and would be prepared to assent to the omission of the words as suggested. He still held, however, that the ratepayers were entitled to know what was being done by the Education Committee, and to take extracts from the minutes of the proceedings.
  COLONEL WILLIAMSasked whether it was at present open to any ratepayer to inspect the documents of any County Council on any subject. He did not see why there should be this right in regard to education if it did not exist in regard to county roads and so forth, and it seemed to him that if this right was given with respect to the Education Committee it must be extended to all the-other County Council Committees—and that could not be desired.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsubmitted that the proposal of his right hon. friend was absolutely sound; he had taken very nearly the words of the Act of 1870, only the words of that Act were more extensive. He quite agreed, however, that the proceedings of Sub-committees should not be open to everybody. Otherwise there was no object in appointing such Committees.
  MR. YOXALLsaid nobody knew of a case where a County Council sat in camera. The proposal would be a safeguard to the ratepayers, although he did not think it ought to be extended to Sub-committees. He pointed out that the London Technical Education Board, which was to be replaced by the authority created by the Bill, had hitherto sat in private, and they had no guarantee at present that the new Education Committee would sit in public.
  ME. CRIPPSthought it would be detrimental in many cases to have a power of this kind. After all, this Committee would not deal with local political questions.
  MR. JOHN ELLISsaid that in proportion as the Education Committees started with the wish to conceal nothing, the desire on the part of the ratepayers to exercise this power would diminish. He supported the new clause. Nothing had aroused more public interest in recent times than the education question, and he believed the Education Committee would best consult the feelings of those they represented by making their meetings entirely open. He heartily hoped the Government would accept the clause.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEpointed out that it was only the minutes, and not the accounts and books, in respect of which this power was proposed. The clause would not give a ratepayer the right to overhaul the books of the authority at any moment he chose. He would only be entitled to see the minutes and take a copy of them if he desired. Most County Councils printed and circulated their minutes, so that this provision would probably be but seldom required, because the information was generally available. If it were a proposal to enable ratepayers to make a disturbance and overhaul the books in the manner suggested by the hon. Member for Dorset, he would strongly oppose it, but it was nothing of the kind. It simply provided that, where the minutes were not circulated, ratepayers should be able to go and make themselves acquainted with what was being done.
  MR. BULLsaid hon. Members opposite seemed very disinclined to trust the County Council. It was within his personal knowledge when Chairman on more than one Committee of that body, that the public interest on several specific occasions would have suffered by the proceedings becoming known before they were reported to the Council itself.
  MR. M'KENNA: reminded the hon. Member that the Education Committee would be
  1890
  totally different from the existing Committees of the County Council. It would, in reality, be the School Board, and ought to be treated exactly as the School Board, was under the Act of 1870. The schedule of the Act of last year provided that minutes of the proceedings of the Education Committees should be kept in a book provided for the purpose, and all that this proposed new clause asked was that those minutes should be open to the inspection of the ratepayers. No one suggested that the public should have a right to inquire into the actions of an ordinary Committee of the County Council; it would be absurd to do so. But this proposal was a perfectly reasonable one, and ought to be accepted in the interests of the smooth working of the Bill.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSthought it strange the Government should object to this clause after their repeated assertions of the importance of the public taking an interest in the proceedings of the various Education Committees throughout the country. There was no suggestion here of the introduction of the Press, or anything of that sort. Unless the Government were prepared to say the proceedings ought not to be public at all—which would be tantamount to saying they wished to discourage the curiosity of the public in the matter—the clause ought to be read a second time. It would afterwards have to be considered in Committee, and if it was necessary to limit the right of the public in this respect the requisite Amendments could then be made. The Government ought really to make some statement on the matter.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not justified in attacking the Government for not replying upon the Amendment. He had already stated they were not able or willing to accept this new clause, but there was no foundation for the allegation that that refusal meant that the Government were prepared to acquiesce in the proceedings of the local education authorities being transacted in private. Hon. Members opposite had frequently stated that they desired this Bill to be similar to the Act of 1902. That Act repealed the section of the 1870 Statute to which reference had been made, and expressly provided that

  1891
  minutes should be kept. The London County Council was now the education authority under the Bill, with absolute power to direct and override the action of its Committee. Surely if hon. Members opposite could trust the London County Council with the whole educational administration they could trust them in this matter, as they had already trusted the local education authorities all over the country. He submitted that there was no justification for any departure from the Act of 1902, and he hoped the Committee would reject the clause.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY, who said he rose for the first time to support the right hon. Gentleman, could not conceive on what grounds the supporters of this proposal based their demand for the publication of the proceedings of the Committee. Everybody with any experience of such work knew that if the labours of a Committee were to be of any value they must be private.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid the section of the Act of 1870 which it was desired
  to set up in this clause was repealed by a schedule to the Act of last year, which the Committee had no opportunity of discussing, and to which the strongest objection was taken. That being so, where was the force of throwing the Committee back on the Act of 1902? These bodies could not be considered as mere committees. If there were questions which in the public interest it was not desirable to publish, they could be considered privately, as was done now by sub-committees of the School Board. As this authority would have to deal with an expenditure of £4,000,000 of public money, and 20,000 public servants, it was essential that its proceedings should be open to the investigation of the ratepayers — particularly as the County Council, although able to do so, would not have the time to supervise the doings of the Committee.
  Question put
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 103; Noes, 180. (Division List No. 106.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard, B.

  Moss, Samuel

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Norman, Henry

  Asher, Alexander

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Partington, Oswald

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Bell, Richard

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Perks, Robert William

  Black, Alexander William

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Price, Robert John

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Brigg, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Rea, Russell

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Rigg, Richard

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kitson, Sir James

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Caldwell, James

  Labouchere, Henry

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cameron, Robert

  Lambert, George

  Runciman Walter

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Mon'm

  Russell, T. W.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Crooks, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardig'n

  Leng, Sir John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Levy, Maurice

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Edwards, Frank

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Ellis, John Edward

  Lough, Thomas

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Crae, George

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Toulmin, George

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Grant, Corrie

  Morgan, J. Lloyd, (Carmarthen

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Weir, James Galloway

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Herbert Gladstone and

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcester., N.)

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. Huddersf d

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork N. E.)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arrol, Sir William

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Flower, Ernest

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Austin, Sir John

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Garfit, William

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gibbs, Hon A. G. H. (City of Lond'n

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  O'Malley, William

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Gordon, Maj Evans (Tr. Hmlts

  O'Shee, James John

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line)

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bignold, Arthur

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bill, Charles

  Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

  Purvis, Robert

  Bond, Edward

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Bowles, Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Brassey, Albert

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Groves, James Grimble

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Bull, William James

  Hamilton Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Midd'x

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Butcher, John George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford East)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somerset, E.

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Chapman, Edward

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Stock, James Henry

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Sullivan, Donal

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Kerr, John

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Cranborne, Lord

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Leamy, Edmund

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Valentia, Viscount

  Denny, Colonel

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Whiteley H. (Ashton-und-Lyne

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lowe, Francis William

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir. Joseph C.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Doughty, George

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Malcolm, Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  and Mr. Anstruther.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Question put and agreed to.

  MR. LOUGHmoved the following new clause, "That Sub-section 3 of Section 5 of the London Government Act of 1899
  1894
  shall not apply to proceedings under this Act." That sub-section enabled the London County Council, with the consent

  1895
  of the majority of the Borough Councils, to transfer all the duties which were conferred on them to the Borough Councils, with the approval of the Local Government Board. He thought such a power should not apply to the London County Council as the education authority of London. He asked the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, if this Subsection were not repealed in the present Act, such a transfer as he had mentioned might take place. Perhaps the reply would be that the transfer might take place but the Local Government Board would first consult the Board of Education. That was not a satisfactory way of dealing with this great question of education. It was never contemplated when the Act was passed that this would apply to all the duties of the County Council. He begged to move.
  New Clause—
  "That Sub-section 3 of Section 5 of the London Government Act of 1899 shall not apply to proceedings under this Act."—(Mr. Lough.)
  Brought up and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. WALTER LONGsaid there was no serious risk that the London County Council would transfer their powers as the education authority to the Borough Councils. It was a fact that the County Council must first make the application, the majority of the boroughs must approve, and the Local Government Board can only carry out the transfer by a Provisional Order, to which the consent of Parliament must be given. At the same time, he would rather accept the Amendment than have any prolonged discussion about it.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it would be necessary after what the right hon. Gentleman had said to discuss this question at short length, at any rate to discuss it sufficiently long to make the right hon. Gentleman give way.
  Clause read a second time.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEmoved the following new clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Nottingham:—
  New Clause—
  "The local education authority shall, in accordance with a scheme or schemes made by such authority and approved by the Board of Education, appoint for all schools for blind, deaf, and defective children, and for central schools for drawing, manual training, and domestic subjects, provided by them, a body of managers, and shall delegate to such managers such powers and duties as may by such scheme or schemes be determined."—(Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice.)
  Brought up and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONwas understood to say that schools for the blind, deaf, and defective children, would be placed in no different position than they were before, and he did not think the noble Lord's proposal was necessary.
  MR. BRYCEthought it would be better if this point was settled in such a way as to leave no question about it. The Amendment of the hon. Member for South Manchester which had been accepted ran:—
  "All public elementary provided schools within the area of each Metropolitan borough."
  The schools referred to were provided schools within the area of some Metropolitan borough, and it appeared to him that those schools would fall within the provisions of Clause 3. Apparently there was a direction in the Bill that every school within the area of a Metropolitan borough should have its managers appointed in a particular way. The Government ought to make it plain that these special schools did not fall within Clause 3.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONappealed to the noble Lord not to press his Motion, and he would undertake to look into the matter and see what could be done on the Report stage.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid he thought that was a perfectly reasonable offer, and he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSreminded the hon. Baronet that he had stated earlier in the evening that these schools required special treatment, and there was no doubt about the matter. Many of them were special schools, and it was plain that they were not contained within any particular borough, and should not be governed by any particular body of managers.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 1 omitted from the Bill.
  Schedule 2.
  THE CHAIRMANruled out of order nearly three pages of Amendments, on the ground that taken together they would certainly not be modifications of the Act of 1902 specially applicable to London. They raised rather questions of principle. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Morley, which stood first, suggested that Section 1 should not apply. That would be quite contrary to Clause 1, which had already been agreed to. All the Amendments down to page 29 were out of order, because they raised questions which could not fairly be called modifications, and were really matters of principle.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he hardly thought the Chairman's ruling could apply to line 31. Owing to the changes which had been made, he did not think that line was now either necessary or in order.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 31, omit paragraph A."—(Mr. Lough.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid it would be a most unfortunate thing if those words were left out, for they constituted a very useful power which could be very properly employed by the London County Council.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONmoved as an Amendment to line 32 to insert the word "and" in order to strike it out in line 33.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To insert the word 'and' after the word 'council' in line 32 in order to strike it out in line 33."
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the word be there inserted."
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid this seemed a very simple Amendment, but he would have understood it equally well if the word "or" had been substituted for the word "and." In a Court of law it had been held that the one word meant the other, a fact with which the hon. Baronet was doubtless familiar. They were in doubt on the matter and desired some further explanation He believed that it would be found that out of the whole Bill not four lines of the original Bill then existed. In order to facilitate matters he suggested that Progress should be reported. He noticed a Scotch Member opposite who was apparently willing to sit, although he did not understand the Amendment. If the hon. Member would tell the Committee the exact effect of the insertion of the word "and" it might bring the matter to a conclusion.
  COLONEL DENNYretorted that he was waiting for the hon. Member to enlighten the Committee on the point.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSthought the hon. Baronet ought to give them some enlightenment. There had been so many modifications made in the Bill that they were in a most helpless condition. It would be very much better for the Government to discuss the schedule among themselves in order to see what principal parts of it were applicable to the Bill as it then stood. There would be nothing to do on the morrow, and he suggested that further consideration should be postponed.
  MR. WALTER LONGobserved that the suggestion was not altogether a reasonable one. The Amendment was

  1899
  made upon the responsibility of the Minister in charge of the Bill as a consequential Amendment following the alterations made earlier in the day. His hon. friend had gone carefully through that part of the schedule with the draftsman, and this Amendment was proposed with a view to carrying out the Resolutions of the Committee.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSasked the right hon. Gentleman to explain the meaning of the Amendment to the Committee.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid if the hon. Member would give him notice, he would be pleased to explain the meaning.
  MR. M'KENNAfound that the hon. Baronet's Amendment had nothing to do with the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Manchester. It was an afterthought which had been put on the Paper. The schedule provided that any persons who were, at the time of the passing of the Act, members liable to become disqualified, should not be disqualified within a certain time.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONpointed out that now the Borough Councils no longer appointed the teachers, the provision relating to disqualification was no longer necessary.
  Amendment to insert "and" in line 32 agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMANput the Amendment to strike out the word, "and" in line 33.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he had an Amendment which had to deal with the clause relating to secondary education. He understood that with regard to the rate to be used for the purposes of secondary education county boroughs and the ordinary administrative counties were placed on a different basis. The county boroughs had escaped the statutory limit, but the administrative counties were limited to the twopenny rate except where, after consultation with the Board of Education, they received permission to levy a rate in excess of twopence. He
  1900
  believed the County Council of London came under the same characteristics as the ordinary administrative county and not as one of the county boroughs, and in regard to this limit for the rate for secondary education they were actually under the limit of the administrative county and had not the privileges accorded to a county borough. He had put down this Amendment in order that the County of London might have the privileges that had been extended to Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham, and other towns which were regarded as sufficiently powerful to be allowed to have a free hand in regard to the application of their rate for secondary education. Those privileges ought to be accorded to London, which city ought not to have to go to the Board of Education to get permission to obtain the few hundreds or thousands of pounds that might be required in excess of the twopenny rate. He hoped the hon. Baronet would put London on the same line as the county boroughs. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 5, after the word 'to,' to insert the words 'consultation with the Board of Education and as to.'"—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the words of the Amendment referred to consultation with the Board of Education, but the hon. Member's speech was directed to the limit of the rate. That limit was removed in the case of the London County Council, which was placed in the position of a county borough.
  MR. BRYCEthought the hon. Member was labouring under a misapprehension. This proposal was in no way a slur on the London County Council. His recollection of the history of the words "consultation with the Board of Education" was that they were intended as a stimulant to apply money for the purpose of education and not in any way as a restriction. If that were the case he did not see why the Board of Education should be struck out. It did not limit the power of the local authority, but merely gave the Board of Education an opportunity of expressing its views.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALEsaid the object of the Amendment he desired to move was to make it quite clear that the schools in the city of London under the control of the Corporation and the Livery Guilds were to be left entirely untouched by the clauses of this Bill. It was considered possible that the Bill might enable the education authority to intervene with regard to these schools should inefficiency be alleged, and it would be possibly difficult for the governors to resist such an application. It was true that they had received assurances that the intention of this Bill was not to touch in any degree whatever, schools under the control either of the Corporation or the Livery Guilds, but those assurances could not be regarded with any amount of confidence, as past legislation has shewn—The City of London, when the Endowed Schools Act of 1869 was before Parliament, feared that Christ's Hospital might be affected by that Act, and they very strongly expressed their apprehension. They were assured by Mr. Forster that the Bill was not framed for the good schools—which were known and acknowledged to have been well managed—and that those schools had nothing to fear from the operation of the Bill, which had for its object the furtherance of good management. In spite of that explicit assurance, however, Christ's Hospital was dealt with under the Bill. Then, again, in the case of the Land Transfer Act of 1897, that Bill was opposed by the Corporation with a view to giving them a right of veto in the case of compulsion. In the House of Lords the Lord Chancellor said he was sure that the City of London must know extremely well that he should not be a party to any order affecting the Corporation without first consulting them and considering their wishes on the matter. Notwithstanding that assurance, the order was made applying the Land Transfer Act to the City of London, and that in direct opposition to their expressed views. It was obvious, therefore, that if there was the slightest shadow of doubt, they could not allow this Bill to pass without a protest. Inasmuch as the Bill contained hardly a line of the original measure, it was not asking too much for the Govern-
  1902
  ment to back their assurance with a clause that would render beyond doubt the safety of those schools which were supported without rate aid, and were not in any way affected by party motives. These were some of the best schools in the Kingdom, and he wanted the Government, by accepting the Amendment, to back the assurance they had already given. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 6, at end, to insert the words 'the provisions of that section shall not be construed so as to enable the local education authority to compel the acceptance of the aid in that section referred to.'"—(Sir Joseph Dimsdale.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaw no reason for the hon. Member's anxiety, but if it would be satisfactory to make assurance doubly sure, he would not object to the Amendment.
  MR. LOUGH, on a point of order, inquired whether this Sub-section was not a modification of the principle of the Act. The Chairman had ruled, with regard to certain new clauses submitted from that side of the House, that they could not advance as new clauses any modification of the principle of the Act. If the Government were now to entertain any new clauses he thought progress should be reported and an opportunity given to those desirous of putting down Amendments to the Schedule.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid this Amendment did not appear to be any modification of the principle of the Act, or any extension of it, but only related to certain special schools belonging to the City of London.
  MR. BRYCEpointed out that there was nothing in the Amendment particularly relating to schools in the City of London. He did not think they gathered from the hon. Baronet's speech to what particular schools he was afraid the Act would apply. Mention had been made of the Skinners' Schools and Christ's Hospital, but the former was at Tunbridge Wells and the latter was no longer domiciled in the City of London.
  SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALEexplained that he only quoted two out of many schools under the jurisdiction and control of the City of London, and Livery Guilds which were subsidised from their funds. He only asked the House to put beyond all dispute the safety of those schools which were unaided by rates and which were supported by the Corporation or the City and Guilds of London.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he was still in great darkness as to the meaning of the proposal. It appeared to him that the object was to prevent these schools getting the benefit they might otherwise get. Why it should be the object of the right hon. Gentleman or the City that that should be done he could not understand.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid another serious objection to the insertion of these words was that they would throw considerable doubt on the interpretation of the original Act. The inference would be that without these words a local authority could compel acceptance of aid.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he was under a misapprehension, thinking the hon. Member referred to elementary schools. It appeared, however, that he was referring to secondary schools, and his Amendment was quite unnecessary, because the power of a local authority would only extend so far as it conferred benefits, and acceptance of the benefit could not be compelled.
  MR. CROOKSsaid if the right hon. Baronet would tell the Committee exactly what schools the City wanted to include and exclude they might know where they were.
  SIR J. DIMSDALEsaid his Amendment included all schools that received no rate aid.
  MR. CROOKShoped the Committee would refuse to concede this point altogether. It appeared to him to be quite unreasonable.
  MR. ALBAN GIBBSsaid the hon. Baronet who was in charge of the Bill, and others, had stated that the Bill
  1904
  already did what the Amendment asked, but the City was informed by its law advisers that it was not clear that it did so. The object of the Amendment was to make clear what was the expressed intention of the Government.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. CHANNINGmoved to leave out lines 7 to 13 of Schedule 2, inclusive. He did not think there could be any doubt of the wisdom of incorporating in this Bill Sub-section 1 of Section 12 of last year's Act. The effect of that would be that the London County Council would have it in its power to group their schools according to what seemed to them wise. As he understood the changes in the Bill which had been introduced in the course of to-day's debate, the position of the managers in London would be precisely similar to the managers under the Act of last year. Therefore he opined that the provisions of Sub-head B of the first schedule of the Act of last year ought to apply to these managers. He hoped the Government would accept this Amendment because it was really consequential, except in one point, upon the changes made in the course of the debate. He asked the Secretary to the Board of Education to accept his Amendment so far as it related, at any rate, to grouping on the part of the Council. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4 to leave out lines 7 to 13 inclusive."—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule."
  Sir WILLIAM ANSONsaid it was impossible to accept the Amendment as it stood. He suggested that the hon. Member should withdraw it in the meantime, and accept from him a promise that the matter of grouping would be carefully considered by him before the Report stage.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he thought it would be better that this question should be left over till to-morrow.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONthat he could not undertake to provide by to-morrow a scheme for grouping all the London schools. It would be better to wait until the Report stage.
  MR. CHANNINGasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHANNINGmoved to omit from the Second Schedule lines 12 and 13—"The provisions in the division headed B of the first Schedules to the principal Act shall not apply to the Council of a metropolitan borough."
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, to leave out lines 12 and 13."
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR MICHAEL FOSTERmoved: "In Schedule 2, page 4, line 14, at beginning, insert. 'The provisions of the principal Act as to endowments shall be modified so as to provide that, where under the trusts or other provisions affecting any endowment the income thereof must be applied in whole or in part to educational purposes, it shall be the duty of the local education authority to prepare a scheme for the application of any income so applicable to educational purposes adapted to the needs of the parish or district concerned, and to submit such scheme for the approval of the Board of Education."
  He wished to point out that, owing to the differences of rating in London, Clause 13 of the principal Act could not be applied as intended by that Act. Hence without some Amendment very large sums of money derived from endowments would be used in reducing the general rating instead of being employed with the greatest possible advantage in secondary and elementary education, in the foundation of scholarships, and the providing of special instruction. His suggestion was that the endowments should not be thrown into the general fund, so as to lower the ordinary cost of education, but should be retained for the special advantage of the particular classes for which the endowments were intended. In that way very material assistance would be afforded to
  1906
  the educational development of London. He begged to move.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member ought to put in some words limiting the Amendment to London. Otherwise it will be applicable to the whole country.
  SIR MICHAEL FOSTERsaid he would insert the words "in London" after "endowments."
  Amendment proposed.
  "In page 4, line 14, at beginning, to insert the words 'The provisions of the principal Act as to endowments in London shall be so modified as to provide that, where under the trusts or other provisions affecting any endowment the income thereof must be applied in whole or in part to educational purposes, it shall be the duty of the local education authority to prepare a scheme for the application of any income so applicable to educational purposes adapted to the needs of the parish or district concerned and to submit such scheme for the approval of the Board of Education.'"—(Sir M. Foster.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he thought the Committee would be ill-advised to modify the endowment clause. He quite appreciated the difficulty of applying the money in London to a particular parish. No doubt the endowments so far as they were applicable to the maintenance of elementary schools would be lost in the general fund for education in London; but if the endowment clause remained as it was the purposes of the charity would be adequately served. The money would be applied primarily to the maintenance of the school; and what was not required for that purpose would go to purposes desired by the hon. Gentleman. He thought it would be inadvisable to recast the endowment clause in the manner proposed, especially as the endowment clause of last year's Act was working, on the whole, more satisfactorily than hon. Members supposed.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he thought his hon. friend was not accurate in his reading of the endowment clause. Was it not a fact that the portion of the endowment paid to the County Council was credited to the district in relief of

  1907
  the poor rate? The change proposed would be a very important change indeed; because, instead of that portion of the endowment being lost in relief of the general rate of London, it would be available for educational purposes. The Amendment was an exceedingly important one, and he did not think that the answer of his hon. friend met the claim put forward. There was no need for diverting educational endowments in London to the relief of the local rates; and he therefore hoped the matter would receive the very close attention of the Government in order that the money might be earmarked for special scholarships and the dozen and one purposes for which the County Council could use it with advantage.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that the subject was one of the greatest importance. Indeed, he did not know any question connected with the Bill of greater importance to the people of London. The endowments were numerous, and in some cases were very valuable; and there was the greatest need for their application to various educational purposes for the benefit of the people of London. For instance, they might be used for giving secondary instruction to promising boys from the Board Schools. The Secretary to the Board of Education had admitted that there was a prima facie case for dealing with the matter, and that the case of London was peculiar. The local education authority would be the authority for the whole of London; and would, therefore, be in a position to use the money for the purposes for which the pious founders intended it should be used. Otherwise the destination of the money would be the relief of the ratepayers; and he thought the pious founders never intended the endowment to benefit ratepayers both rich and poor. If the Secretary to the Board of Education thought it was too late that night to recast the clause, he suggested it should be left over until to-morrow. The opportunity of conferring a great benefit on education in London should not be lost, and he hoped the Government would take a more benevolent view of his hon. friend's Amendment, and carry out his admirable intention.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the matter required careful consideration, more, he thought, than would be available between then and the following afternoon; He suggested, therefore, that they should wait until the Report stage, when he would deal with it.
  SIR MICHAEL FOSTERsaid on that understanding he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONformally moved—"In Schedule 2, page 4, line 14, to leave out paragraph 4."
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 14, to leave out paragraph 4."—(Sir William Anson)
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSasked if the constitution of the Education Committee was to be precisely the same as under Section 17 of the Act of last year.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONwas understood to assent.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid it would be found that the section would require a great deal of revision, and that some of its provisions would have to be struck out.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HALDANEproposed, as an Amendment, the addition of words at the end of line 39 to the effect that "where governors or managers were appointed by the local education authority on the governing body of an institution aided by grant from the local education authority, the qualifications required by the scheme or trust deed of the institution should not apply to such governors or managers." He thought it right that where the education authority appointed representatives on the Boards of Management of institutions aided from public funds, those representatives should not be subject like the other governors to the qualifications required by the trust deeds. The necessity for this had come under his notice in practice in several cases recently, and he hoped that the Government would be prepared to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 39, at end to add the words, 'Where governors or managers are appointed by the local education authority on the governing body of any institution aided by grant from the local education authority, the qualifications required by the scheme or trust deed of the institution shall not apply to such governors or managers.'"
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he had some hesitation in accepting the Amendment, but he would do so subject to reconsideration on Report if the Government found it necessary to modify them.
  DR. MACNAMARAmoved to add at the end of the schedule a provision that there should always be at least six women on the Education Committee. He pointed out that this matter came up when the constitution of the Committee was under debate, and it was decided to leave it over until the schedule was reached. Although the Secretary to the Board of Education had been able to quote one case in the country where four women had been elected on the Education Committee, the fact remained that in the great bulk of the cases only one, or at the most two, had been appointed even on very large Education Committees. There was a general feeling on all sides of the House that there should be security for a due representation of women on the London education authority. He begged therefore to move.
  Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment to add the words—
  "There shall always be at least six women upon the Education Committee of the local education authoiity."—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he felt it would not be desirable to fetter the discretion of the education authority, or to lead them in any way to think that Parliament doubted their ability to discharge the duties imposed upon them. He therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid that last year he moved an Amendment, which was accepted almost unanimously,
  1910
  to secure the inclusion of women on every Education Committee. It was understood that woman would be interpreted in the plural, but the Secretary to the Board of Education had given a most restricted reading to it, and accepted it as only meaning one woman. That, no doubt, would be the interpretation put on it in the future, and the Board of Education would no doubt be content with insisting on a single women—or rather one woman member—on the London education authority, unless this Amendment was carried. In his opinion they ought to secure that women had a substantial representation on the authority.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSpointed out that Education Committees throughout the country had not on them any considerable number of women. He held it was very important that they should have their place on the management of schools, but he thought that that could be secured by giving the Education Committee power to appoint them as managers; and it was not necessary that they should be on the Education Committee itself. It would be well to leave this matter in the discretion of the Education Committee.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid they all were aware of the views of the last speaker in regard to the participation of women in politics generally, but he thought the arguments in favour of this Amendment were exceptionally strong. There were nine women serving on the London School Board, in addition to a very large number acting as managers of schools, many of whom would no doubt be willing to go forward on the Education Committee. As the electors themselves had chosen nine women, the Amendment would only be carrying out their expressed wishes. Education Committees throughout the country, by reason of the pressure put upon them to find places for men, had kept down the number of women members to the lowest possible point, and in view of the great necessity for the co-operation of women in the work of London education, he hoped the House would insist on the small minimum indicated in the Amendment, so as to secure that women

  1911
  should have their fair and proper part in this great work.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid they had been endeavouring to make the new Education Committee as representative as possible of the people of London, and why should they not leave it to the Committee to say how many women should serve. At any rate, it might be left to the discretion of the Education Committee of the London County Council. The Committee ought not to interfere with the County Council in this matter. They might as well say that no man should be elected to that body unless he had six wives. He should oppose the Amendment as being contrary to all they had been fighting for up to the present.
  MR. LOUGHthought that, as the Committee had admitted the principle that women should be appointed, soma such Amendment as this ought to be accepted. There was a very strong case for the proposal with regard to London. In the interests of the large body of women teachers who would be controlled by the new authority, and of the immense number of girls who were taught subjects with which men had a very remote acquaintance, it was essential that the appointment of an adequate number of women should be secured.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 61; Noes, 124. (Division List No. 107).

  AYES.

  Allen, Chas P. (Glos., Stroud)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Russell, T. W.

  Asher, Alexander

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somrst E.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Holland, Sir William Henry.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Thomas, D'vid Alfred (Merthyr

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Caldwell, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Toulmin, George

  Causton, Richard Knight

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney

  Cawley, Frederick

  M'Crae, George

  Weir, James Galloway

  Channing, Francis Allston

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  White, Luke, (York, E. R.)

  Denny Colonel

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Ellis, John Edward

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Moss, Samuel

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

  Priestley, Arthur

  Dr. Macnamara and Mr.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Rea, Russell

  Corrie Grant.

  Harwood, George

  Rigg, Richard

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cullinan, J.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Doughty, George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

  Durning-Lawrenee, Sir Edwin

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Elliot, Hon A. Ralph Douglas

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorqan

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Black, Alexander William

  Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Kerr, John

  Brassey, Albert

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lambert, George

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin and N'rn

  Lowe, Francis William

  Chapman, Edward

  Gordon, Maj Evans (T'r H'mlets

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Macdona, John Cumming

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Purvis, Robert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. (George

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Smith, Abil H. (Hertford, East

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  O'Shee, James John

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stock, James Henry

  DR. MACNAMARAmoved to add the proviso "The Education Committee of the local education authority should transact all its ordinary business in public." He could not leave this matter to the County Council, because it was not the practice of that body even to admit the Press to the meetings of the Technical Education Board. Under the Act of 1870 the ratepayers had a right to inspect documents and so forth. That right having been taken away by the Act of last year, the least they could do was to say that all the ordinary business of the Committee should be transacted in public. It might be said that so many personal and other delicate matters would have to be dealt with that it was inadvisable to pass the Amendment. His Amendment dealt with the conduct of all ordinary business. As they had taken away from the ratepayer the right to inspect documents, and as £1,000,000 was involved, the least they could do in London was to admit the Press and the public to the ordinary business of the Education Committee. If the argument was that
  the reports of the Education Committee would all come before the County Council, when they could be revised in public, his reply would be that this work was so great that such reports could only come formally before the County Council, and could not form any real part of the debates. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment to add the words—
  "The Education Committee of the local education authority shall transact all its ordinary business in public."—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that as the law stood at present every County Council could conduct its proceedings in public or in private as it pleased. He saw no reason why Parliament should give an instruction to the London County Council which it did not give to any other County Council.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 117. (Division List No. 108).

  AYES.

  Allen Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Asher, Alexander

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Rigg, Richard

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk,

  Russell, T. W.

  Black, Alexander William

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Clereland)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Lambert, George

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Caldwell, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  M'Arthur, William (Cornicall)

  Toulmin, George

  Channing, Francis Allston

  M'Crae, George

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Weir, James Galloway

  Ellis, John Edward

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Moss, Samuel

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Dr. Macnamara and Mr.

  Harwood, George

  Rea, Russell

  Corrie Grant.

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Forster, Henry William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fyler, John Arthur

  O'Shee, James John

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elginand Nairn

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Gordon, Maj Evans (Tr. Hmlts

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Purvis, Robert

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

  Rutherford, John (Lancashir)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  Brassey, Albert

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somrst E.

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarhs.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Kerr, John

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Stanley, Lord (Laucs.)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Stock, James Henry

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Chapman, Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Loder, Genald Walter Erskine

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lowe, Francis William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Denny, Colonel

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

  Doughty, George

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday, 8th June, and to be printed. (Bill 216.)
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSasked the Government if the Bill as it now stood would be printed. He thought as so many alterations had been made that this was necessary.
  No reply was given.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. BRYCEenquired if it would be convenient for the First Lord of the Treasury to state the business to be taken on the morrow.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said he pro-
  1916
  posed to take as the first business the Committee stage of the London Dock Bill. Next would follow the Committee stage of the Municipal Trading Bill, the Education (Borrowing) Bill, and the Railway (Electrical Powers) Bill. After that the House would consider the Report of Supply. The Motion for the Adjournment of the House over the holidays would be taken at the morning sitting on Thursday.
  MR. LOUGHasked whether anything would be submitted before the holidays with relation to the Brussels Sugar Convention.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURreplied that there was every intention to bear that question in mind.
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Two o'clock.