HC Deb 26 May 1903 vol 122 cc1873-915

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- 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. YOXALL

said 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 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. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

said 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 ROBERTSON (Hackney, S.)

said 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 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 thought the Government ought not to accept this Amendment—that in this matter they had surrendered quite enough.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said 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 BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

said 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 CHAIRMAN

was about to put the question when,

MR. YOXALL

said 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 WHITE (Norfolk, N. W.)

said 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 ANSON

said 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 BUXTON

said 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 ANSON

said that he would undertake to carefully consider the matter before the Report stage.

MR. BRYCE

said 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 WHITE

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. J. H. LEWIS

moved 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 ANSON

thought 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. LEWIS

said 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. MACNAMARA

said 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 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 ANSON

said 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 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. MACNAMARA

said 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 ANSON

formally moved the altered Amendment, which was agreed to.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

moved 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. BRYCE

asked 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 ANSON

said 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 BUXTON

thought 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 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 FOSTER (London University)

said 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 WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W. R., Pudsey)

said 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 his way to accept the proportion of half and half.

MR. BRYCE

said 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 CHAIRMAN

said: 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. BRYCE

moved 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. 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 ROLLIT

quite 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,) Bristol, S.

also pointed out that the new clause varied from the Act of 1870, and he reminded 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. BRYCE

said 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 WILLIAMS (Dorsetshire, West)

asked 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 EVANS

submitted 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. YOXALL

said 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. CRIPPS (Lancashire, Stretford)

thought 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 ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe)

said 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 FITZMAURICE

pointed 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. BULL (Hammersmith)

said 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 (Monmouthshire, N.)

reminded the hon. Member that the Education Committee would be 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 EVANS

thought 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 LONG

said 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 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 (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

, 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. MACNAMARA

said 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. LOUGH

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

said 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 BUXTON

said 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 FITZMAURICE

moved 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 ANSON

was 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. BRYCE

thought 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 ANSON

appealed 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 FITZMAURICE

said he thought that was a perfectly reasonable offer, and he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

reminded 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 CHAIRMAN

ruled 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. LOUGH

said 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 ANSON

said 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 ANSON

moved 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 EVANS

said 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 DENNY (Kilmarnock Burghs)

retorted that he was waiting for the hon. Member to enlighten the Committee on the point.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

thought 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 LONG

observed that the suggestion was not altogether a reasonable one. The Amendment was 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 EVANS

asked the right hon. Gentleman to explain the meaning of the Amendment to the Committee.

MR. WALTER LONG

said if the hon. Member would give him notice, he would be pleased to explain the meaning.

MR. M'KENNA

found 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 ANSON

pointed 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 CHAIRMAN

put the Amendment to strike out the word, "and" in line 33.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Morley)

said 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 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 ANSON

said 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. BRYCE

thought 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 DIMSDALE (London)

said 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- 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 ANSON

saw 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 CHAIRMAN

said 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. BRYCE

pointed 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 DIMSDALE

explained 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. BRYCE

said 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 HOBHOUSE

said 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 ANSON

said 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. CROOKS (Woolwich)

said 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. DIMSDALE

said his Amendment included all schools that received no rate aid.

MR. CROOKS

hoped the Committee would refuse to concede this point altogether. It appeared to him to be quite unreasonable.

MR. ALBAN GIBBS (London)

said the hon. Baronet who was in charge of the Bill, and others, had stated that the Bill 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. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

moved 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 ANSON

said 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. BRYCE

said he thought it would be better that this question should be left over till to-morrow.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

that 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. CHANNING

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHANNING

moved 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 FOSTER

moved: "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 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 FOSTER

said 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 ANSON

said 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 GRAY

said 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 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. BRYCE

said 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 ANSON

said 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 FOSTER

said on that understanding he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

formally 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 EVANS

asked 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 ANSON

was understood to assent.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said 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. HALDANE

proposed, 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 ANSON

said 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. MACNAMARA

moved 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 ANSON

said 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 HOBHOUSE

said that last year he moved an Amendment, which was accepted almost unanimously, 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 EVANS

pointed 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 GRANT

said 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 should have their fair and proper part in this great work.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said 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. LOUGH

thought 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. MACNAMARA

moved 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 ANSON

said 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 EVANS

asked 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.