EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

HC Deb 14 June 1904 vol 136 cc30-92

(Considered in Committee.)

(In the Committee.)

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

Clause 3.

Question proposed, "That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)

said he thought they were entitled on this clause to get some more definite statement from the Government as to their reasons for adopting the ad hoc policy in regard to Scotland. Personally, he was not in favour of ad hoc administration, and he expected that the Government would apply to Scotland the principle which they professed to apply, but, by introducing clerical control, did not, in the case of England, viz., that town and county councils should be the education authority. He thought they were entitled to some explanation on that point when they considered that the Prime Minister himself, on the 28th April, 1903, said— I am clearly of opinion that it is a most retrograde policy to go in for the principle of ad hoc election to deal with particular subjects authoritatively and with power to draw on the rates. Then they had the President of the Local Government Board on the following day announcing that, whether for good or for evil, the Government had decided that it could no longer support the ad hoc principle. Again, the late Vice-President of the Board of Education, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, said that they could no longer support an ad hoc authority in this or any other country and, of course, he presumed that that included Scotland. He thought they were entitled to demand from the Government a specific explanation why they had departed from the principle of the town and county councils being the education authority, and why they had reverted to what they themselves called a retrograde principle. Those who had any experience of municipal administration must be impressed with the fact that an ad hoc authority was not conducive either to economy or efficiency. They had a much clearer field for applying the principle in Scotland than in England. They were hampered in England by the religious difficulty; in Scotland there was no such difficulty, and, therefore, they had a clear field for applying the principle of creating one authority for all local purposes. He himself had never looked upon the ad hoc authority as a fetish. He thought ad hoc bodies were an antiquated system of administration. They were merely a phase in the evolution of local government, and the very fact of the small interest that had been taken all over the country in the elections to those ad hoc bodies showed that there was no real feeling in their favour on the part of the great body of the people.

Twelve years ago he had the honour, when a member of the Corporation of Edinburgh, to propose a scheme for that city whereby there was to be an enlarged municipal authority to deal with all purposes, municipal, school board, etc. He maintained that the larger the powers of self-government they could give, and the more important they made the local body, the better the man they would attract to take part in the administration. School boards and parish councils had been looked upon very much as mere training grounds for municipal work. In regard to Edinburgh he thought the Secretary of State would bear him out in saying that the principle would have simplified educational administration very much. On the one hand, they had the school board, which had now got large power in regard to secondary education, and on the other hand, they had very many efficient secondary schools as the result of private endowments and voluntary effort. In regard to some of these schools they had at present on the boards of management a large representation of town councillois, and it certainly would have tended to simplify and co-ordinate educational administration if the town councils had been made the local educational authority. There was a danger of friction between the school boards and these other secondary education bodies, and there was also the danger of overlapping and of wasteful expenditure of money. He could not understand why the Government, having such an opportunity, had not attempted to carry out this principle of co-ordination in educational matters. It appeared to him that they had tried to evade the responsibility. They had given evidence of tha tshifty and shiftless policy which had obtained in other parts of their administration. That might be paradoxical, but, after all, the present Government was altogether a paradox. If those who agreed with him accepted this Bill, they would merely do so as a stepping stone to a complete scheme of uniformity of local administration. He really thought that the levity which the Secretary for Scotland displayed on the previous night in replying to the hon. Member for Camberwell was not justified. A serious proposition was put to the right hon. Gentleman by that Member, and either he or the Prime Minister ought to have replied to it. He would now make an appeal to the Secretary for Scotland to explain this sudden change on the part of the Government in regard to the ad hoc principle, and he hoped that such an explanation would be forthcoming before they went to a division on the clause.

THE SECRETARY FOB SCOTLAND (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,) Buteshire

said he would like the Committee in no spirit of levity to seriously consider what was the use of the speech they had just listened to. He believed they were all at one in the House in wishing that this Bill should pass. A great deal of very necessary and very useful discussion had taken place, no doubt, but still they had had a speech from the hon. Member which, so far as he could see, would serve no useful purpose whatsoever. As to the suggestion that he had answered the hon. Member for Camberwell in a spirit of levity, he would say at once that the hon. Member was perfectly justified in his intervention in view of the part he had taken in the passing of the English Act through Parliament. Remembering what were his views on the question of an ad hoc authority, it would have been less than natural had the hon. Member missed the opportunity of pointing out that this Bill differed in one very essential particular from the English Bill—in the respect that it created an ad hoc authority, which the English Bill did not. But what was the use of an hon. Member getting up, as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh had done, to speak of the ad hoc authority as a retrograde principle.

MR. McCRAE

I did not call it that; it was the Prime Minister who said that it was a retrograde principle.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said the hon. Member no doubt attributed the phrase to the Prime Minister, but he also added that he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. McCRAE

Well, I was only supporting the Prime Minister.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

At any rate, the hon. Member was running in very curious double harness with the hon. Member for Camberwell.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

Really I must object.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,

continuing, asked why had not the hon. Member for East Edinburgh had the courage of his convictions, why had he not put down Amendments to give practical effect to his convictions. He had never put down a single Amendment. Had he done so, he would soon have found out how much support he would have obtained on the Benches around him. Yet that was the course he should have taken had he been speaking from conviction and not in a spirit of levity. The hon. Member urged the House to municipalise their educational institutions, but what title had he to say, as he did, that those of his friends who accepted the Bill only accepted it as an instalment of a complete scheme for the entire municipalisation of the system of administration. Before he was entitled to say that surely he must get rid of the hon. Member for Camberwell. He did not know which hon. Member would live the longer, the hon. Member for East Edinburgh or the hon Member for Camberwell. He was not quite sure, but he would not put his—Well, he did not bet and did not go to race meeting like some right hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN here shook his head.] He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition dissented, but then the right hon. Gentleman only came into the House on the preceding night after the hour at which the last race was run.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

I did not go to the races. I was here all the time that the House was sitting, although not perhaps in the Chamber itself.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

intimated that he would not pursue the subject further. He could only say that, joking apart, he did not believe that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh would really have the power to carry out the boast which he had made of treating this Bill as only a step towards entire municipalisation. He would not detain the House at any further length on that point. It was quite well known that, acting to the best of his judgment, he had chosen to adopt the ad hoc principle for Scotland. [Several HON. MEMBERS: Why?] There were many reasons why he had done so. It was necessary, for one reason, because the Scotch burgh system had no analogy in the English system. In Scotland they had an intricate network of police and Royal burghs which were exceedingly jealous of their responsibilities and their powers, and which would never have consented to have been represented in educational matters by county councils. Reference had been made to the views of certain Ministers and of the late Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education. He had sins enough of his own to be responsible for, without being called on to defend the general expressions used by other Ministers in debate on previous Bills, or the perhaps too general expressions of the former Vice-President of the Council, who was well able to defend himself and to repudiate any unwarranted interpretation which might be put upon his words. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would repudiate the general meaning which had been placed upon his words—words quoted, as they had been, without referene to the context. He hoped that the Committee would be allowed to get on with the work of the sitting with as little delay as possible.

SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)

said that after the very pointed reference which had been made to him by the right hon. Gentleman he was bound to explain in one or two words his position. The phrases which had been quoted by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh were not his words, they were the words of the Prime Minister and of the President of the Local Government Board, and they were words uttered in the debate on the English Education Bill in general condemnation of the ad hoc principle. On that occasion he, too, no doubt, did express a desire to see the municipalisation of education. Possibly his opinion was not now so important as it was when be uttered the words which had been attributed to him, but he would like to point out that he had most consistently life advocated the municipalisation of every kind of administration wherever it was possible, and he would give his reason for that in a very few words. He looked upon the municipalisation of a great deal of our administrative work as the only way out of the extraordinary impasse in which Parliament now found itself. Parliament was now quite incapable of pressing on with that social legislation which was so much demanded by the people, and the only way out of the difficulty was to give greater powers to municipal and local bodies and to trust them to perform a great deal of the work which was now vainly attempted to be performed in Parliament. They could not have a great number of different local bodies, they wanted to have one strong self-contained body which would have charge of the finances of a district and be able to weigh one necessity against another and see where the product of the district rates could be most wisely spent. It should also at the same time be responsible to the ratepayers for the finances of the district and for the proper application of the methods of local self-government.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

said he did not desire to detain the Committee, but he was bound to express his opinion that this discussion had served a very useful purpose. It would help them to learn how to measure the sincerity and consistency of the Government. Possibly his hon. friends the Members for Camber-well and East Edinburgh were just a little hard upon the Secretary for Scotland. It was not he who made those broad sweeping declarations about the ad hoc principle. It was the Prime Minister who did that, and he strongly suspected that the Secretary for Scotland himself, with his acutely critical mind, was not so very much imposed upon by those declarations of the Local Government Board as were his ingenious and simple-minded friends the Members for Camberwell and East Edinburgh. The House knew pretty well what was the reason why school boards were destroyed under the English Act. They were destroyed because the clergy did not like them and because it was desirable to curry favour with the clergy. An excuse was wanted for throwing the charge of the maintenance of voluntary schools on the rates, that was the reason for the destruction of the school boards in England. But in Scotland no such necessity existed. And as the system there obtaining was working well it had been allowed to continue, whereas in England, although there it also had worked well, it had been ruthlessly destroyed. That was a very simple explanation of the whole matter. He was bound to say that no Prime Minister within their recollection had displayed such a capacity for suddenly invoking great principles for the nonce as had the present Prime Minister, and then throwing them away when they had served his purpose. The example given them in the different policies pursued in regard to the English and Scotch Education Bills would be of some value to the House when it came in the future to consider the weight which should be attached to the declarations of the Government on other subjects. He thought that they would do well to remember that when they came to discuss a matter which could not be much longer delayed—the necessity of amending the English Act.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! We are not now discussing the English Education Act, and I must invite hon. Members to resume debate on the Scotch Bill.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)

asked permission to give a few words of explanation as to his failure to move, on the previous night, the Amendment which stood in his name upon the Paper in regard to the educational district for Dundee. He had found that the Secretary for Scotland in the clause as amended would have power to make the alteration which he had desired to secure by legislation, and that being so, with the consent of those at whoso request he had put the Amendment on the Paper, he had decided not to move it.

MR. HUNTER CRAIG (Lanarkshire, Govan)

said he was bound to express his regret that the Government had refused the appeal made on behalf of Govan parish that it should be constituted a separate educational district. It had a most excellent record in regard to educational matters, and its school board, as well as the leading representatives of opinion in the parish, including the Burgh Councils of Govan Partick and Kinning Park, were unanimously in favour of the Amendment which had been proposed. But the Amendment having been rejected, he supposed it was a foregone conclusion that their object would not be attained and he, therefore, proposed to enter his protest against the decision of the Government by voting against that clause.

MR. GEORGE BROWN (Edinburgh, Central)

made an appeal to the Secretary for Scotland as to whether the proposals he had brought forward for the inclusion of certain suburban districts of Mid-Lothian in the area of the Edinburgh School Board could be dealt with as an administrative matter under the clause as it had been amended. If he could get an assurance that that was so, it would not be necessary for him to further trouble the Committee.

MR. BARRAN (Leeds, N.)

said he desired to draw attention to the fact that the Government had taken entirely different areas in the Scotch as compared with the English Bill. When this matter was being discussed on the English Bill—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to go back to the discussion which took place on the English Bill.

MR. BARRAN

said he was only using the English Bill as a means of comparison. This was the first opportunity they had had of ascertaining the real mind of the Government with regard to large county areas for educational purposes. They seemed now to have decided that the county areas should be split up, where it was desired that smaller areas should be constituted. Were they to take it that the Government agreed that smaller areas were desirable for educational purposes? Did they admit that education would be better served in Scotland by having smaller areas than it was in England, where they had such large areas as in the West Riding of Yorkshire? Did they now say that large areas were unworkable and undesirable? Surely they ought to have a direct declaration to that effect from the Government, so that they might know on what lines educational legislation would proceed in the future. The Secretary for Scotland had commented on the fact that in his country they had Royal burghs to deal with, but was that any reason why Scotland should be treated differently from England? In the latter country they had larger cities and towns. If these areas were to be broken up in Scotland then there was a claim for similar treatment to be extended to England. What was the reason for denying to England that which was granted to Scotland? They were entitled to some explanation from the Government on that point.

SIR JOHN LENG (Dundee)

said he desired to support the statement of his hon. colleague as to the desirability of extending the Dundee education area to the suburban districts. He regretted that the Dundee people did not move earlier in the matter, so that the point might have been more deliberately submitted to the Secretary for Scotland, and he hoped they would receive an assurance that it would be possible under the clause, as amended, to deal with these cases administratively. He certainly held that in cities like Dundee, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh there should be power to extend the radius, so as to embrace suburban districts.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

promised to consider the matter before the Report stage.

MR. BLACK (Banffshire)

rose to suggest a further Amendment, which would, he thought, effect a decided improvement in regard to representations upon which the districts named in the Bill might be altered. A school board was not likely to vote itself out of existence after the Act came into operation. He would therefore suggest the desirability of making it competent for a parish council, or for a body of thirty or fifty ratepayers, to come forward and make representations as to the enlargement or splitting up of areas. That, he thought, would facilitate the working of the Bill.

MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire)

pointed out that the words "School Board" in this clause conveyed a different meaning to the words as used in the last Act. There it represented a combination of parishes; now it only represented a single parish. The Secretary for Scotland was now to have power to divide a district, if required, into parishes, or combinations of parishes, for educational purposes. But he would like to point out the difficulties which existed in some large parishes of inter-communication for local government purposes. There was the proposed district including the islands of Mull, Tiree, and Islay, and it was almost as difficult for these Islands to communicate with each other as with the mainland. The same applied to Colonsay and Jura, and he mentioned these matters in order that the right hon. Gentleman, when the clause came up on Report, might he prepared to deal with such cases as these.

Question put. and agreed to.

Clause 4.

SIR CHARLES RENSHAW (Renfrewshire, W.)

formally moved.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 22, to leave out the word 'department,' and insert the words 'Secretary for Scotland.'"—(Sir Charles Renshaw.)

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

The Government accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The next Amendment on the Paper was as follows— In page 2, line 22, to leave out from the word 'by' to the word 'the,' in line 24, and insert the words 'means of a schedule attached hereto indicate.'"—(Mr. Weir.)

THE CHAIRMAN

This Amendment is out of order. There is no power to add a schedule to an Act after the Act has been passed.

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

asked if it would not be in order to move the Amendment on the understanding that, if adopted, a schedule would be brought up before the Bill became law.

THE CHAIRMAN

said it was open to the hon. Member to bring up a schedule himself when the schedules were reached.

MR. MAXWELL (Dumfriesshire)

next moved an Amendment providing that the Orders with regard to the number and apportionment of members of school boards should be duly advertised in the Edinburgh Gazette. He thought it would be the most effective means of calling the attention of local authorities to the matter.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 23, after the first word 'be,' to insert the words 'published in the Edinburgh Gazette within one month of the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Maxwell.)

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

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed. He held that there was not the slightest necessity for that. He had never been in the habit of making Orders without giving those interested an opportunity of being heard upon them, and the adoption of this Amendment would involve both delay and unnecessary expense, and would as well unduly hamper the Department in completing the arrangements for the first election.

MR. MAXWELL

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. DALZIEL

thought the Amendment was of more importance than the author of it realised. This Bill gave very extensive powers to the Secretary for Scotland and his Department. It practically placed in their hands the whole management of education under the Bill. It was, therefore, important that the public of Scotland should know what was intended to be done, and in his opinion it is not sufficient that the Order should be merely laid on the Table of the House. What objection could there be to the simple publication of the Order in the Gazette for the information of the people in the different localities? It would not be treating the local people with proper respect to refuse this, and he, therefore, hoped that the Amendment would be pressed to a division.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said the hon. Member was always anxious to prolong discussion. Had he taken the trouble to read the Amendment he would have seen that the proposal was practically impossible. How could he decide on the number of members for school boards until he had had representations from the county councils and other bodies?

MR. THOMAS SHAW (Hawick Burghs)

pointed out that there was an Amendment on the Paper later on providing for consultation with local bodies, and in view of that he did not see what advantage there could be in advertising the Orders in the Edinburgh, Gazette, the circulation of which was very limited.

MR. DALZIEL

said the Secretary for Scotland commenced every speech on I Amendments by telling the mover he had not read it, and he would respectfully suggest that the progress of the Bill was not likely to be assisted by such a line of policy. As to the Gazette, he admitted that the circulation was limited and he would have been prepared to substitute the words "daily papers." Surely a natural anxiety for publicity did not necessarily prove a desire to retard the progress of the Bill.

MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.)

pointed out that under the Local Government Act of 1894 this procedure of advertising Orders in the Edinburgh Gazette had been adopted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 26, after the word 'government,' to insert the words 'or other.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick)

next moved an Amendment, the object of which was he said, to ensure that police burghs should be on the same footing as Royal and Parliamentary burghs. They were, he averred, of equal importance.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 27, to leave out the words 'Royal and Parliamentary.'"—(Mr. Parker Smith.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said there must be some misapprehension on this point. Police burghs were included in the electoral divisions, and it was, therefore, unnecessary to provide in the Bill that the police burghs should have a proper proportion of members. A provision of that kind was necessary in the case of Roval burghs, because they were not included in the electoral divisions.

MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS (Lanarkshire, N. W.)

How about Coatbridge?

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

That has given us more trouble that any other burgh in the matter of drafting. But in the Act of last session a clause was inserted placing Coatbridge on the same footing as other burghs.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The next Amendment on the Paper was as follows— In page 2, line 32, after the word 'circumstances,' to insert the words 'and on the application of a county or burgh council he may cause a local inquiry to be made, and for the purposes of such inquiry the provisions of Section 93 of The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, shall be deemed to be part of this Act.'"—(Sir Charles Renshaw.)

SIR CHARLES RENSHAW

said he did not propose to move this Amendment. All he asked for was an assurance that there would be full opportunities of consultation with the local authorities and that they would have a chance of being heard if they so desired.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said he certainly intended to gather the opinions of the local authorities.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said the right hon. Gentleman would satisfy a very prevalent feeling if he would insert words later on dealing with the case of the police burghs.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

regretted that he had not made it clear that police burghs were part and parcel of the electoral divisions, and must necessarily have a proper proportion of the members. Royal burghs were on a different footing.

MR. WEIR (ROSS and Cromarty)

said he wished to move in Clause 4, page 2, line 32, to leave out from "circumstances" to the end of line 38. He understood the Secretary for Scotland was prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 32, to leave out from the word 'circumstances' to end of line 38."—(Mr. Weir.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said that as the hon. Member had not explained the Amendment, perhaps the Secretary for Scotland would oblige.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said that as the Bill was originally drafted the dis- trict was the unit; and there was no power to either combine or sub-divide. Therefore, it was provided that at least one member should be assigned to each electoral division. The Committee had pressed upon him, and he had accepted, the power of combining and sub-dividing. That being so, he did not want the cast-iron rule about there being at least one-member for each particular district to remain; and he had to alter the provision because of the altered circumstances created by these combinations and subdivisions. If there were a cast-iron rule, it would operate against the combinations he desired to make. That was why he did not object to the Amendment.

MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.)

said that if the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment he would be acting contrary to what he had just said. The words safeguarded the case of police burghs to secure separate representation. If the words were omitted that security would be removed.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said that the security to which the hon. Gentleman referred would be taken away in any case. The first question was to ascertain what the unit was to be. Then they had to decide the number of members of the school board; and, after that, how many of the members were to be given to districts other than Royal burghs. All those questions would have to be decided on the basis of size, population, and valuation. No one district would have greater security than another.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said that, so far as the Bill stood at present, he agreed with the Secretary for Scotland. They had introduced by Clause 3 a certain amount of elasticity; and it would be inconsistent with that to so operate on the language of this clause as to adhere to what was not an elastic principle. At the same time, he thought that a proviso should be introduced to give the Secretary for Scotland, as it were, a statutory guide with regard to the appointments for each cut-up or unified division. The public had to be considered; and there should be no possibility that any officer of the Crown should be in a position to elect all the members. A statutory guide would be to the advantage of all parties, and would at all events be a guarantee that each portion of a locality would have one or more representatives.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said he would try and amend the section, in order that each electoral division should have at least one member. If, however, there was a large combination, such as, for instance the entire county of Lanarkshire, and if they had a cast-iron rule, the school board might consist of 100 or 110 members.

MR. MCCRAE

said he wished to move an Amendment to the Amendment, namely, to leave out all the words from "circumstances" to the word "and" in line 35. His object was to provide that every ward in a burgh should have at least one representative.

THE CHAIRMAN

There is no means of moving an Amendment to this Amendment. The proper course would be to negative the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ross; and then it would be open to the hon. Member to move his Amendment.

SIR LEWIS McIVER (Edinburgh, W.)

said that the difficulty would be got over by negativing the Amendment before the Committee and proceeding to the next Amendment standing in the name of the Secretary for Scotland. His right lion friend stated that they wanted to put representation on the same elastic footing as the areas; but they were striking at the old system of election by wards. If election by wards was abolished, an elector might only know two or three candidates out of sixty or eighty; whereas, if there was election by ward the elector would know the man he wished to represent him.

MR. BRYCE

said he could not agree that the abolition of ward voting was, as regarded cities of a certain size, a great advantage. Ward voting in Glasgow would be very different to ward voting in Aberdeen or Dundee.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said that the question was a very interesting one, but it would arise absolutely on Clause 6. Why, therefore, should it be discussed now?

MR. McCRAE

asked if he would have an opportunity of discussing the subject on Clause 6?

THE CHAIRMAN

I will consider any Amendment that the hon. Gentleman frames. The question is "that the words proposed to be left out stand part: If the hon. Member can frame any Amendment to that he will be in order, but I have never known it to be done yet.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said the whole point would be directly raised by the Amendments on Clause 6, why then should the Committee discuss the question on a clause in connection with which it was not directly raised?

SIR CHARLES RENSHAW

submitted chat a distinct question was raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty. The right hon. Gentleman had given notice of an Amendment to omit the words from line 35, but not the words from line 33, and he desired to speak from the county point of view with regard to the omission of the earlier words. The right hon. Gentleman thought the omission of words necessary in order to give him a freer hand in the constitution of the new educational districts under Clause 3. But that clause did not give the right hon. Gentleman power to divide electoral divisions. In view of the fact that considerable importance was attached by many county councils to the question of electoral districts, he asked whether the present Amendment could not be withdrawn, and the Amendment of the Secretary for Scotland accepted, on the understanding that between now and the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether any further alteration of the clause was necessary.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith Burghs)

said that one of the securities for the proper representation of large districts on the boards was the appointment of one representative for each unit, and that was a strong argument in favour of retaining the original design of the Bill as far as was practicable. He did not agree that better members would be secured from a division than from a parish or ward. He was not an economist in matters of education, but he believed the large ad hoc bodies tended to become extravagant, and consequently, so far as the original scheme of the Bill was departed from, the security for economy would be lost. The Secretary for Scotland had promised that as far as possible he would give members to wards or parishes, but the Committee ought to have an assurance that to as large an extent as was practicable the original design of the Bill would be followed.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said the reason for his original Amendment being in the shape in which it appeared on the Paper was as clear as possible. The Bill began with a cast-iron unit, namely, the district, and with that cast-iron unit there was no harm in saying that in making the school boards there should be at least one representative for each electoral division. Moveover, as originally drafted, the Bill provided for voting by ward in the enumerated cities, and in that case also there was no harm in saying that there should be at least one representative for each ward. But since then he had put down an Amendment to Clause 6 based on the principle that voting by wards was not the best plan to adopt in the great cities, and in consequence of that Amendment it was necessary that the latter part of this clause should go. In the discussion on Clause 3, the cast-iron unit was entirely dropped, and he had been given power not only to divide, but also to combine districts. The moment that power of combination was given the plan of one member for each electoral division became a practical impossibility. He would illustrate that by referring to the county of Renfrewshire. There were in that county twenty-one county council representatives in the upper district and seventeen in the lower district, so that under the cast-iron rule, if the whole of the county was formed into one district for educational purposes, there would have to be a minimum of thirty-eight members for the education authority. They would represent a population of 83,000. But there was also to be provided for a population of 167,00 It comprised in the great cities of Paisley, Renfrew, Greenock, and Port Glasgow, and, if they were represented in the same proportion as the remaining population, it would mean that the school board would have to consist of 114 members. That would have been the effect of the cast-iron rule, and yet the hon. Member was surprised that it had been dropped.

MR. McCRAE

said that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman applied altogether to districts other than the enumerated districts, and he hoped the Secretary for Scotland would allow the Committee to vote on a straight issue as between the enumerated and the other districts. The contention of the supporters of the Amendment was that in the enumerated districts each ward should have one representative, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to that.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said that the whole question to which the hon. Member referred depended on Clause 6, and there he would have a direct issue. If the hon. Member carried his point, there would be no objection whatever to giving each ward one representative.

MR. MCCRAE

asked whether he would be out of order in attempting to raise the question on Clause 6 if the present Amendment were voted upon.

MR. PARKER SMITH

pointed out that Kinning Park, which was a part of Glasgow, had four wards each containing 4,000 people. If each of those wards of 4,000 people was to have one representative, the remainder of Glasgow, consisting of 1,000,000 people, would require at least 250 representatives. It was just as necessary to have the latitude in enumerated districts as in any others.

MR. WALLACE (Perth)

asked whether if the present Amendment were accepted it would hereafter be said that the question had been decided.

THE CHAIRMAN

explained that under the clause, power was given to the Secretary for Scotland to make certain Orders. Under Clause 6 the Committee would lay down the standard which the right hon. Gentleman was to follow. That seemed to take away the discretion.

MR. WALLACE

pointed out that in the particular words concerned there was no question of discretion whatever. The words were "Provided that in every enumerated district at least one member shall be assigned to every ward." If that were decided on now, would the Committee be precluded from dealing with the question on Clause 6?

THE CHAIRMAN

said that the whole of Clause 4 was governed by the words at the commencement, by which the Secretary for Scotland was given a certain discretion. If by a later clause the Committee chose to say that in exercising this discretion the right hon. Gentleman should do certain things, it was obviously in the power of the Committee to do so. He did not see, therefore, that by the Committee omitting the words now the hon. Member would be precluded from raising the question later.

SIR CHARLES RENSHAW

said he would be extremely sorry if the figures with regard to the county of Renfrewshire given by the right hon. Gentleman had the effect of inducing the Committee to reject the Amendment. Renfrewshire was not at all a typical instance, as it contained an exceptional number of burghs and a very large population. In fact it had: no parallel in the whole of Scotland; consequently it was hardly a fair illustration.

MR. JOHN DEWAR (Inverness)

said; he was sorry that the words were going, but after the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman it was probably necessary that they should be omitted. He was altogether in favour of election by wards in burghs, and he believed that the relative popularity of town council elections as compared with school board elections was due to the fact that in the former case the elections were by wards. In Inverness-shire there were many districts in which the religious question would arise. Some districts were purely Roman Catholic, others were predominately Protestant, while others might be said to be half and half.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said it was really unnecessary for the hon. Member to go into the case of Inverness-shire. He had already stated that he was perfectly willing to give representatives to electoral districts, where possible; it was only when the authority would become so large as to render it practically impossible that he would not be able to do it.

MR. BLACK

suggested that the views of both parties might be met by inserting words to the effect that "except in cases where there is a combination of counties or county council districts the principle of one man for each electoral division shall apply."

Question put and negatived.

Question proposed, "That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

MR. CALDWELL

pointed out that in apportioning the members of the school board between the county or local government district and the Royal or Parliamentary burghs, the Secretary for Scotland was to have regard to population, distribution and pursuits of the population, area, annual value, and educational and other circumstances. It was quite right and proper that such matters should be taken into account in the constitution of a local government area, because they affected the question of taxation, but he submitted that when the question was purely that of education nothing more than population need be considered. The principle of the equality of votes ought to hold good. Complaints were often made of the inequalities of the franchise under which some Members of Parliament were elected by large numbers of voters and others by very small numbers, and he contended that if it was right that all voters should be equal in Parliamentary elections, it was equally right that the same principle should apply in school board elections.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 5.

SIR CHARLES RENSHAW

formally moved the substitution of "Secretary I for Scotland" for "Department."

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 39, to leave out 'department,' and insert 'Secretary for Scotland.'"—(Sir Charles Renshaw.)

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential drafting Amendments agreed to.

Question proposed, "That Clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

suggested that it would be better to leave out the proviso to the clause by which it was proposed that in making an amending or modifying Order the procedure prescribed by the 46th Section of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1894, should be followed as nearly as possible. That section provided that Orders should be published in the Edinburgh Gazette. It appeared to follow, therefore, that under the proviso an amending Order would have to be published in the Edinburgh Gazette, whereas it was not necessary so to publish the original Order. As the beneficial provisions of that section of the Local Government Act had already been secured, he submitted that the proviso in this clause was unnecessary.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said it was not intended that the section should apply to the original Orders, because it was absolutely necessary that they should get on as quickly as possible in order that the Bill might be started. But when once the Bill was in operation and the whole of the arrangements in going order, so that time was not of the essence of the matter, he thought it would be advisable that they should adopt the more serious procedure laid down by the Act of 1894.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said it appeared to him that if they could trust the Secretary for Scotland with the initial arrangements of the districts throughout Scotland, they might very well trust him with power to amend an Order. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the procedure provided by Section 46 of the Act of 1894 could be applied here.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 6.

MR. JOHN DEWAR

moved to omit the word "not" in line 10. The effect of the clause as drafted was that burghs for electoral purposes would be included in the electoral district of a county. At present the burghs elected the school boards as a whole instead of by wards, as in the case of the election of town councils, and he believed that this was the explanation of the greater interest taken in town council elections. Elections by wards always added to the interest, as the personal element entered so much more into the contest. In saying this he believed he would have the support of the Attorney-General, who represented a burgh which had lately been divided into wards to the great benefit of the town. He believed that burghs such as Perth and Inverness should elect their school boards as they elected their town councils. For that reason he begged to propose that, in cases where burghs were divided into wards, the election of members of school boards should be by wards.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 10, to leave out the word 'not.'"—(Mr. John Dewar.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'not' stand part of the clause."

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said he could not help thinking that the hon. Member had not fully considered, the proposal he had made. It was something quite different from what the hon. Member expected. He asked the hon. Member to consider what would be the use of election by wards in a burgh in a non-enumerated district unless it meant a member for each ward.

MR. JOHN DEWAR

Certainly.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

The hon. Member said "Certainly." Let him take the hon. Member the next step. A burgh which was only a smallish burgh was part of a large county district. Suppose that the burgh had eight wards.

MR. JOHN DEWAR

There is no small burgh divided into wards.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said it was quite obvious that a burgh might divide itself into wards, if it liked. Accordingly, if they passed the Amendment of the hon. Member, there must be one representative for each ward. That burgh was only, of course, a fraction of a much larger district, or it might be, under the powers of this Bill, a fraction of two or three districts combined. That burgh could only have representation somewhat proportionate to its own population. Yet if this Amendment were accepted, they would begin with a necessary minimum of members according to the wards of the burghs, and these wards might be altered from time to time, and they would have proportionately to raise the representation of the other places in the county in order to make the proper proportion to the wards in the burgh. The Amendment would really produce chaos.

MR. WALLACE

said there were burghs to which this Amendment should apply. The city of Perth, which he represented, was divided into four wards, and he understood that the city itself would represent nearly four-fifths of the population of the school board area. Did the right hon. Gentleman suggest that in regard to a school board election in the city of Perth there should be no opportunity of dividing the city into wards, so that the different sections should have an opportunity of expressing their opinions? The city of Inverness, with a slightly smaller population, was of a very similar character to the city of Perth. He agreed with his hon. friend that interest in elections was greatly quickened when, in such places, the electors were divided into smaller areas. Speaking in regard to the city of Perth he could state that the school board election never aroused the same degree of interest as the elections which took place in the ward areas. He thought that was the experience of everyone in connection with the elections in England, and the result was that the minority had governed for education purposes. Recognising this state of matters the Government, in the Education Bill of 1902, objectionable as it was in other respects, introduced the principle for which he was contending. The right hon. Gentleman had asked what they were going to do in regard to the very small burghs, if they were to have them as an electoral unit. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the small burghs in Scotland were not divided into wards at all. The question only arose in regard to a few large towns.

SIR CHARLES RENSHAW

thought there was a good deal in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Perth. He would like to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it would be possible to deal with cases of this kind by inserting in the Amendment, of which the right hon. Gentleman had given notice in regard to Sub-section 2 of the clause, words for the purpose of protecting the interest of the larger burghs to which his hon. friend had referred. He quite agreed that it might not be necessary to apply this arrangement in the case of some of the smaller burghs, but in the case of burghs of over 10,000 inhabitants it would be valuable.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said he was perfectly willing to accept that suggestion. Of course, they should be in a better position to discuss the proposal when they came to deal with the merits of the next Amendment. If the hon. Member would not press the Amendment, the matter would be kept open for consideration on the next Amendment.

MR. JOHN DEWAR

begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 12, to leave out the words 'municipal ward of every.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

DR. MACNAMAEA

said this was an endeavour to introduce the fantastic manner of election which was fatal to the school board system in England. They got all the disadvantages here of the cumulative vote and none of the advantages. They did not protect minorities at all, and that he imagined was what the right hon. Gentleman desired to do. He saw that the Secretary for Scotland would take power, by the Amendment which he would afterwards move, to combine wards. In Edinburgh there were sixteen, and in Glasgow twenty-five wards. Under the system proposed they would have to elect sixteen members for Edinburgh, all on one voting paper. They might have twenty-five or thirty candidates, and acute as the people of Scotland were in matters of education, how did they think it was possible to give an intelligent vote for sixteen out of the number nominated? Supposing the Secretary for Scotland, under the powers which he proposed to take, combined the wards, they would have precisely the same experience as they had in London, where twenty-five members had been elected. They had been elected in areas sending six, five, and four members. For ten years he had been elected from an area which selected six members of the London School Board, and he was bound to say that there had never been an intelligent vote on any of these occasions, because the number of candidates to be voted on was too large. He might be excused for saying this, because he was always at the top of the poll. There had been the most profound lack of interest under the cumulative system of election, when the voters had to select from so many candidates. He was sorry to find himself in sharp difference with the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen; and with great deference he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he was at entire variance with what was the proper democratic idea. He maintained that, with small areas of voting, the greater interest was taken in the elections. The proposal before the Committer, was merely doctrinaire. He did not know what was behind it. If it was desired to secure a representation of the minority because the cumulative vote had been thrown over, then he believed that that would not be accomplished. He admitted his conviction was that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland had not made a single proposal which had not been directed to secure a better educational system for Scotland, and that the right hon. Gentleman hoped by breaking up the ward system he would get a better election. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee why he thought so? His contention, derived from experience, was that by general voting a lack of interest was produced, and there was not so intelligent a choice of members as under the ward system. In London they had to come back to what was practically the ward system on account of the hopeless breakdown of the general voting system. They took it upon themselves to form sub-divisions of the area and agreed that each of the six candidates should run for a certain portion of the area. That was the only I way in which they could get anything like an intelligent interest in the election. If they had to do that in London, surely the Secretary for Scotland should pause before he broke down the ward system.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said that so far as he could see they were more likely, under the system of general voting as against ward voting, to get the best class of members on the school board. Although the proposal was not meant as a protection to the minority, he would be perfectly thankful if it would be more likely to secure the election of women and Roman Catholic representatives. In fact, he thought that there would be a better chance under the system he proposed than under ward voting. He confessed he parted with the cumulative system with regret, but he could not see his way actually to repeat it, because there were obvious difficulties in the way, and it would work very badly with the general scheme of the Bill. He could not help saying that under the cumulative system they got a class of members who were devoted to education, and who had done very good work indeed. Although they could not have the cumulative system in its entirety, he thought that under the system he proposed women and Roman Catholics would be able to retain their places. He might be wrong, but, as a matter of fact, he had received a great many representations on this matter from those who were very much entitled to speak on educational questions. He did not for one instant believe that what was called the diminution of interest in school board elections was due so much to the cumulative vote as to other causes. He was glad to think that he was going to have a stalwart backer of his proposal in the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen who had such great educational experience.

MR. MCCRAE

said he regretted the attitude assumed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, "because he thought the reasons the right hon. Gentleman had adduced were not good and sufficient. In this case second thoughts were not best; the original proposal in the Rill was the right proposal. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had given way to pressure brought to bear upon him by those who were, no doubt, interested in education, but who were only familiar with the old, bad system which this Bill should have put an end to. The Secretary for Scotland had said that he looked upon this provision as a protection to the minority. So far as Edinburgh was concerned the right hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned the case of the Roman Catholics. He ventured to say that election by wards would give a better representation to Roman Catholics than the proposal now made for voting over the whole district. Voting over the whole district, in the absence of the cumulative vote, would, he was sure, prevent any Roman Catholic being elected, not only in Edinburgh but, he believed, also in Glasgow. It must be remembered that Roman Catholics in these cities were concentrated in certain districts, and if the election were to be made in these wards they would be able to return representatives of their own communion, but would not be able to do so by general voting over the whole district. He agreed with the hon. Member for Camberwell that the smaller interest taken in municipal and school board elections was due to the fact not only of the cumulative vote but to the large areas called upon to vote for representatives out of a large number of candidates. The Secretary for Scotland should have stuck to the original principle of the Bill. Be it good or bad, the right hon. Gentleman had adopted the ad hoc principle, and, therefore, whatever might be said in regard to the unenumerated districts, he ought to have maintained representation by wards in the enumerated districts. He was anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should concede that the minimum of representation should be one member for each ward. If the right hon. Gentleman would consider this matter in all its bearings, he was sure that educational interests would not suffer by this being done. He had been astonished at the position taken up by his right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen because he was sure that the original proposal of the Bill would give effect to efficient representation, and that, under it, the right men would be got more easily by election by wards than under the scheme now suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

SIR LEWIS McIVER

said that he entirely concurred with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh that if there was to be a protection for minorities it would be by voting by wards. The Roman Catholics occupied districts by themselves, and there were certain wards in Edinburgh where they might be fairly competent to send representatives to the school board, but in which they would fail if the voting was over the whole city. He did not profess to express an opinion as to whether or not better men would be got by ward representation; but this he knew, that the ward system was interwoven with the whole civic life of the towns and cities of Scotland, and that it would be a great pity to depart from it. To depart from the ward system would, he believed, be to take a retrograde step.

MR. BRYCE

said that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh had expressed his belief that the ward system of election was the best; but he and others who supported it had given no ground for their belief.

MR. MCCRAE

said that the groundwork of their belief was experience.

MR. BRYCE

said that, of course, there were many causes which conduced to the lack of interest taken in school board elections, such as the many questions as to administration which confused the issue. His own belief was that they were much more likely to rouse a real interest in the great question of educational policy in the hearts of the citizens by having the elections spread over the whole city than by having them in wards. He did not agree with his hon. friend that it would be difficult for people electing fifteen members over a whole city to know for whom they voted. They had done so ever since the Act of 1872 had come into force. The electors had no difficulty in knowing who were the good candidates. He was not fond of the system, and he was glad it was gone, but it appeared to him that this Amendment would give some protection to minorities. He was no advocate for representation of minorities, but he did not think it was possible to leave that out of account altogether, because different cities were affected by different citcumstances. What they wanted was to get the best men of the city or burgh who would come forward and devote their knowledge and experience to this kind of work, and they were a good deal more likely to do so if they went to the city as a whole than if they went to a particular ward and got the best man in that ward. They would get a better candidate for education if they went to the city as a whole, and by so doing they would also eliminate a certain number of questions which sometimes gave trouble. He did not want to sec a representative of a ward come forward and represent the interest of his ward as against another ward or as against the whole city. In his opinion everybody ought to represent the city as a whole, and do the best he could for the city, every part of which ought to interest every member of the board. That was of special interest when they came to deal with secondary education, which it was clear must be dealt with over the whole city. Although these arguments applied to every city he agreed that there was a difference between the large cities and the small. He was not prepared to deny that in the case of a great city like Glasgow, which would have a large school board, it might be better to cut the city up into districts, each district returning a certain number of members. If they had to return fifty or sixty members, it might be difficult for the individual elector to judge of the individual capabilities of each candidate, but when they came to a small city like Aberdeen, whose board only consisted of some thirteen members, then a better result would be obtained by having the election over the whole city. That was the view of Aberdeen, and he hoped that those cities which had not boards of an inordinate size might be allowed to elect their members over the whole city if they chose to do so.

MR. HALDANE (Haddingtonshire)

said this was a question on which there was a great diversity of opinion, but it must be considered from the point of view of how they were likely to get the best result in the composition of the school boards. A good deal had been said as to the Catholic minority which had to be considered, but there was a much more serious minority in his opinion than that, and that was that of the women. In his opinion they were less likely to get the best result in the election of women by an election over the whole city than by an election over a ward. If the people of a ward had to elect three candidates they would say: "We will have two men and one woman." That was a matter which weighed considerably in his mind, because the part which women had to take in the education of Scotland was very important. They had more leisure and were good workers, and with regard to the education of girls and young children had done very efficient work indeed. He had been very much moved by that consideration. The Secretary for Scotland did not propose to leave the big cities in their present condition; he proposed to divide them into smaller divisions, but on the merits of the proposal it seemed to him, on the arguments of his hon. friend the Member for East Edinburgh, that the question was of great general importance, and that all the concessions made went in favour of the proposal which the Secretary for Scotland had put upon the Paper. He associated himself in this matter with the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen.

MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS

said he was sorry to differ from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen and from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but he thought the Secretary for Scotland had made an unfortunate change, and the grounds upon which he had maintained that change were that there had been some compulsion. The right hon. Gentleman frankly admitted that he preferred the cumulative vote but he abandoned it because public opinion rendered it wholly impossible. The Secretary for Scotland desired to protect the minority, but the right hon. Member for Aberdeen supported the proposal because he thought it would not protect the minority. If the right hon. Gentleman desired to protect the minority surely it was better to have a cumulative vote than a vote which would have all its vices and none of its supposed merits. The right hon. Gentleman did not believe that the lack of interest in school board elections had been due to the cumulative vote, but most of those who had been engaged in school board work would not agree with him. They would say the lack of interest was largely brought about by want of close attention to the work, not by the supporters of the schools but by the community, and by the power given to the people who had special interests to serve in defeating the intention of those in office. Anything that perpetuated that in the least degree would do a great deal of harm in this Bill. Under these circumstances he deplored the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to stick to the Bill as he brought it forward. The abandonment of this part of the Bill made it entirely different in its application in the towns and in the country districts, because the right hon. Gentleman had given an assurance that day that he was going to adopt this old method of cumulative vote for the country. But every argument put forward against the cumulative vote in the town would apply equally well to the country, especially in the crowded parts of it. Why had the right hon. Gentleman adopted a different system for the towns and not for the large rural districts which lived practically under the same conditions as the towns and the suburbs? He hoped this would not be insisted upon because, if it were, it would impair much of the usefulness they hoped to get from this Bill. I After all, educational local government was not so different from other local government as to necessitate its being managed by entirely different staffs. His experience was that when there was local responsibility and local representation there was much greater interest on the part of the public than there could be under any other elective system.

MR. PARKER SMITH

expressed his approval of the Amendment of the Secretary for Scotland partly on the ground that it gave the minority a better chance of representation, but mostly because it permitted a better class of people to be elected on the school board. It was a most imperfect method of protecting minorities, and if-parties interested in local government were organised in the same way as political Parties it would be no protection at all. To carry out this Vote properly the method of preferential voting ought to be altered so as to allow the people to vote for one man and one man only, but to transfer their votes in order of preference. In that way they would have secured the protection of the minority and would have also had the advantage of the large district and an increased chance for the election of women and other suitable persons. As to the system most likely to give the best results, the weight of educational opinion was in favour of the Amendment of the Government and upon that ground he should support it.

MR. ALEXANDER CROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie)

said he was not in favour of the view taken by the Government. It occurred to him, from the remarks of the right hon. Member for Aberdeen, that the right hon. Gentleman spoke of some necessary complement by which persons in a ward were bound to vote for a person residing in that ward. That would not be the case at all. It was also said that the system of election with regard to women would not be so well carried out over a ward as over the whole city. That was a statement which he could not understand, because from his experience of Edinburgh it was not the fact. In his opinion the services of the best people could not be secured by the electoral area being spread over large districts. The best people did not care to fight a large election involving great public meetings and a large amount of speaking, when, in the case of a ward, the social standing of the candidate was frequently sufficient to return him to

the school board. Up to now the school board elections had been run on a system of scrutin de liste. They had been run by one party in favour of that party, and the men who were returned were the representatives of a clique; the nominees of a party or a church. He followed and shared the views of the hon. Member who had spoken in favour of election by wards.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 85; Noes, 213. (Division List No. 149.)

AYES.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Runciman, Walter
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	Russell, T. W.
Asher, Alexander	Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Schwann, Charles E.
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry	Furness, Sir Christopher	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Atherley-Jones, L.	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Barlow, John Emmott	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Hayter. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Soares, Ernest J.
Brigg, John	Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.	Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)	Holland, Sir William Henry	Stevenson, Francis S.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Tennant, Harold John
Burt, Thomas	Horniman, Frederick John	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Joicey, Sir James	Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)
Caldwell, James	Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Wallace, Robert
Causton, Richard Knight	Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Kitson, Sir James	Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)	Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)	Weir, James Galloway
Crombie, John William	Leng, Sir John	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Dalziel, James Henry	Lewis, John Herbert	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Lloyd-George, David	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.)
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Woodhouse. Sir J. T (Huddersf'd
Dobbie, Joseph	M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh,W	Yoxall, James Henry
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe
Edwards, Frank	Morgan, J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Elibank, Master of	Nussey, Thomas Willans	M'Crae, and Mr. Alexander
Ellice,Capt. E.C(SAndrw'sBghs	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Cross.
Emmott, Alfred	Reid,Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries.
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Black, Alexander William	Coates, Edward Fcetham
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Blundell, Colonel Henry	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Aird, Sir John	Boland, John	Coddington, Sir William
Ambrose, Robert	Boulnois, Edmund	Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Arrol, Sir William	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Condon, Thomas Joseph
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Austin, Sir John	Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A (Glasgow	Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim.S.)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Crossley, Rt, Hon. Sir Savile
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Cullinan, J.
Balcarres, Lord	Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire	Cust, Henry John C.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r	Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Dalkeith, Earl of
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Delany, William
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.	Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Chapman, Edward	Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)
Bignold, Arthur	Charrington, Spencer	Dickinson, Robert Edmond
Dickson, Charles Scott	Kerr, John	Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Kimber, Henry	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Reid, James (Greenock)
Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.	Laurie, Lieut. General	Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Donelan, Captain A.	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Renwick, George
Doogan, P. C.	Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th	Richards, Henry Charles
Doughty, George	Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R.	Ridley, Hon. M.W. (Stalybridge
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green
Dunn, Sir William	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Roberton, Herbert (Hackney)
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart	Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)	Roche, John
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r	Lundon, W.	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Field, William	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Macdona, John Gumming	Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Maconochie, A. W.	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Fisher, William Hayes	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrtw)
Fison, Frederick William	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)	Sheehy, David
Flannery, Sir Fortescue	M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Flower, Sir Ernest	Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Forster, Henry William	Middlemore, on. Throgmorton	Spear, John Ward
Gardner, Ernest	Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.	Spencer, Sir E. W. Bromwich)
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.	Milvain, Thomas	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.
Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin&Nairn)	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon	Morpeth, Viscount	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Stroyan, John
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Mount, William Arthur	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hediey
Graham, Henry Robert	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Sullivan, Donal
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)	Murnaghan, George	Talbot, Lord E (Chichester)
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Murphy, John	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G (Oxf'dUniv.
Gunter, Sir Robert	Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Hain, Edward	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Thorburn, Sir Walter
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)	Thornton, Percy M.
Hall, Edward Marshall	Myers, William Henry	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Hammond, John	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)	Nicholson, William Graham	Tuff, Charles
Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Haslett, Sir James Horner	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)	Valentia, Viscount
Hay, Hon. Claude George	O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Hayden, John Patrick	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Wanklyn, James Lieslie
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.	Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton
Heaton, John Henniker	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Hickman, Sir Alfred	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hoare, Sir Samuel	Parkes, Ebenezer	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Hogg, Lindsay	Percy, Earl	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R. (Bath
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside	Pirie, Duncan V.	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil	Plummer, Walter R.	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Hunt, Rowland	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Power, Patrick Joseph	Young, Samuel
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Joyce, Michael	Pym, C. Guy	Alexander Acland Hood
Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.	Rankin, Sir James	and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 14, to leave out from the word 'such' to end of sub-section, in order to insert the words 'burgh, and, except as hereinafter mentioned, any division of such burgh into wards shall not have effect for the purposes of such election: Provided that the Secretary for Scotland may by order as aforesaid determine that such election shall be held in electoral districts, each of which shall consist of two or more municipal wards of such burgh.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, lines 19 and 20, to leave out the words 'ward of a burgh or,' in order to insert the words 'for a burgh or electoral district of a.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 23, to leave out the word 'ward,' in order to insert the words 'electoral district.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. DALZIEL

said the Amendment he desired to move raised the question of one man one vote. Under the new arrangement it would be possible for a man to have a vote in, say, both Edinburgh and Leith, and the object of the Amendment was to secure that such a man should exercise the franchise only once in the same election. As he understood the Secretary for Scotland was not antagonistic to the Amendment, he would simply move.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 23, at end, to insert, '(4) At every election of members of a school board for an education district, any person registered as a county elector for any division of such district, and also as a municipal elector for any burgh embraced therein, or registered as an elector for two or more burghs embraced in any one of the enumerated districts, shall only be entitled to vote in respect of one such qualification.'"—(Mr. Dalziel.)

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said he was quite willing to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.

Clause 9.

MR. MAXWELL

(said the Amendment he now proposed to move raised the question of the qualifications of members of school boards. Under the Bill it was not necessary for members of school boards to be either ratepayers or electors, and the object of the Amendment was to render such a qualification necessary. In this matter he was following the precedent of the county and parish councils, in regard to which it was necessary for members to be electors in the district over which the council had jurisdiction. Such a qualification he thought was necessary in the interests of economy, because, if a member was not an elector or a ratepayer, he was likely to be more extravagant and less thoughtful of the interest of the ratepayers than members possessing those qualifications. He was aware that at present it was not necessary for a member of a school board to be a ratepayer in the parish, but that was because, in consequence of the smallness of the area, it might sometimes be difficult to secure suitable persons for the office. But under the Bill the much larger area of the district or county was taken, and there would be no difficulty whatever in securing from within that area suitable persons who, by reason of their position as ratepayers, would have a greater feeling of responsibility than persons who had no such connection with the parish. In order that the qualification should not make it more difficult for women to be members of school boards he had placed a further Amendment on the Paper to except women from the provision. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 13, after the word 'board,' to insert the words, 'if he is not at the time of the election registered as a county or burgh elector within the education district and.'"—(Mr. Maxwell.)

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

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

thought it would be a great mistake to accept the Amendment. The Local Government Act and the Parish Councils Act afforded no analogy whatever. It frequently happened that there were persons who had really devoted their lives to educational work, but were not electors in a particular district. It would be a great pity to prevent for that reason their being chosen by the electors to serve on the school board.

SIR CHARLES RENSHAW

said he attached much importance to the Amendment, which was considered very desirable by many persons connected with local government in Scotland. At present there was no obligation upon persons elected to the school board to be rate payers, but that was not the case in regard to parish or county council elections, and he could not see why it should remain the case in regard to school boards. Having regard to the enormous amount of money now raised from the rates for educational purposes, everything possible ought to be done to secure the interests of the ratepayers. About £1,200,000 was now raised by rates for educational purposes in Scotland, and when this Bill came into operation the amount would probably tend to increase. The Bill would also considerably change the incidence of the rates, because the outlying rural parts would be more heavily burdened than at present. That being so, it was essential for the protection of the ratepayers that those upon whom the responsibility of spending the money was to devolve should themselves be liable to the burdens they were going to impose on the locality. He hoped that before the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the question.

MR. TENNANT (Berwickshire)

felt bound in the interests of education to support the Government. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the necessity of widening the area of choice so that the people of a locality should not be in any way fettered in their selection of persons to represent them on the school board.

Question put and negatived.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 14, after the word 'the,' to insert the word 'paid.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. DOBBIE (Ayr Burghs)

said the Bill very properly disqualified teachers in Board schools for being members of the school board. He fully appreciated the necessity for that disqualification, but he thought it was unnecessary that it should apply to certain teachers in continuation classes. It frequently happened that in a burgh there would be an expert in some technical subject who happened to be an important member of the local town council and who voluntarily gave his services to the continuation classes in order that the youth of the district might have the benefit and advantage of his experience. He submitted that it would be a hardship if such persons were debarred from serving on the school board, and in order to exempt them from the disqualification he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given notice.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 18, after the word 'Act, to insert the words' other than the office of teacher of continuation classes.'"—(Mr. Dobbie.

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

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

thought the position of the persons to whom the hon. Member referred would be met by the insertion of the word "paid" which had already been made. If a man was paid for teaching it mattered not whether he was a teacher in a board School or in a continuation class.

MR. DOBBIE

said he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman; he was I not aware that the Amendment referred; to had been made.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DOBBIE

said the next Amendment he desired to move suggested that a man's connection with a co-operative society contracting with a Board should not of itself be a disqualifying element. The Bill very properly gave to directors of joint stock companies the right to sit upon school boards, and inasmuch as the only difference between a joint stock company and a co-operative society was that the former was a company of capitalists while the latter was a company of working men, there was no reason why the same privilege should not apply to persons responsible for the management of co-operative societies as applied to directors of joint stock companies. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed. In page 5, line 37, after the word 'company,' to insert the words 'co-operative society.'"—(Mr. Dobbie.)

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

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said the hon. Member was under a misapprehension in supposing that a member of a co-operative society would be disqualified from sitting on a school board while a director of a joint stock company would not be. There was no disqualification of either class; the disqualification took effect only if they happened to have a contract with the school board. But this clause was not really framed for the present Bill at all; it was taken from several Acts of Parliament, and if any change was to be made it should be made generally and not simply in an Education Bill. The whole question of disqualification by reason of contract relations was a general principle which ought not to be settled by a side wind.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said there was doubtless much force in the right hon. Gentleman's remark, but the matter would have to be dealt with at some time, and the present seemed a good opportunity for beginning. He quite agreed that the disqualification was in respect of a person having a share or an interest in any contract with the school board, but exceptions were already made in the case of persons who were members of companies limited under the Companies Act. Under Section 21 of the Industrial Societies Act, 56 & 57 Vic, cap. 30, industrial societies and limited liability companies were in several respects placed on the same footing. That being so, why should a man who happened to be in humble circumstances be disqualified for serving on a school board because he was a member of an industrial society which had entered into a small contract with the school board for the supply of soap, towels, and articles of that kind? The Amendment infringed no great principle; it simply desired to provide that all members of the community, however humble their circumstances, should have the privilege of serving on their local school board, if their fellow-ratepayers chose to elect them.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said that if the matter were not further discussed at present he would undertake to refer the matter to the Law Officers and bring up a proposal on the Report stage.

MR. CALDWELL

said that a similar point was raised by a Municipal Corporations Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division of Lancashire. He had looked very carefully into the matter and had come to the conclusion that there was much force in the arguments used by his hon. friend. That being so, if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to remove the disqualification in the present Bill, he, on his part, would permit it to go in the case of the Municipal Corporations Bill in England.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said that if the arguments had convinced the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark, he had no doubt the law officers of the Crown would fall an easy prey.

MR. DOBBIE,

in view of the reply of the Secretary for Scotland, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10.

COLONEL DENNY (Kilmarnock Burghs)

moved an Amendment for the purpose of providing that one-third of the members of school boards should retire annually. He said it must not be forgotten that under the new system the school boards would have a very much enlarged sphere. The proposal in the clause was that the whole of the members should be elected for three years, and what he suggested was that a certain proportion of the members should retire annually so that the boards should be refreshed by the addition of some new men. The school boards would have a great deal of most important work to do, and what he wished was to secure continuity of policy. The work of a board might at the end of three years fall into absolutely new hands, and the result would be that it would be dealt with by the permanent officials. He was in favour of having the election of the new school boards on the same principle as the municipal authority, namely, one-third retiring annually. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page C, line 13, to leave out the word 'in.'"—(Colonel Denny.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'in' stand part of the clause."

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said the meaning of this Amendment could be stated in a word. It was to substitute the burgh system of a third of the members going out every year instead of the whole of the members going out every three years. He really did not believe that anybody was in favour of multiplying elections. They might be necessary evils, but they were evils, and certainly a school board would not gain in strength of policy or in grasp of the subject if a third went out and a new third came in every year. He did not wish to argue the principle of the burgh system. It was a very old principle, but he did not think it could be adopted in school board elections.

MR. MCCRAE

supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs, who, he thought, had taken up unassailable ground. The Secretary for Scotland had very wisely evaded the issue. With regard to any question which arose in a board there should be an opportunity, yearly, for the citizens to express their opinion. With regard to continuity of policy, it was admitted that the burgh election gave; that continuity by electing a third each year. There was no doubt that a considerable part of the lack of interest in school board elections was due to the fact that the ratepayers at the present time had no real control over the board not only because of the cumulative vote but because the members were elected en bloc for three years. From that point of view he welcomed the Amendment. He thought the Committee would do well to homologate the principle that hid worked so well and so long in burgh elections, namely, that one-third of the members should retire annually.

MR. EUGENE WASON (Clackmannan and Kinross)

hoped that the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs would not proceed with the Amendment. So far as the towns were concerned it might be possible to work the arrangement proposed, but it would not be so easily applied in the country districts. He hoped they would not be put to the trouble of having annual school board elections.

MR. JOHN DEWAR

said he was in entire sympathy with the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs. He was of opinion that the proposal would not only give continuity of policy but would give the electors an opportunity of annually reviewing the policy of the board, and thus keeping the board in close touch with public opinion. In regard to the board's finance the proposal would have an excellent effect, as at present it was not unusual for a board elected for three years to assess in the last year of its office for 1d. or 2d. less than was necessary, leaving the new board to impose a a rate correspondingly too high in its first year of office. This would be avoided if one third of the members were elected annually.

COLONEL DENNY

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DOBBIE

moved an Amendment to Clause 10 to provide that, in the event of casual vacancies occurring in a school board, "a fresh election shall be held to to supply such a vacancy." The effect of this substantially would be that the vacancy would be filled by the electors and not by the remaining members as would be the case under the proposal in the Bill. He brought forward this Amendment on the suggestion of the Edinburgh School Board and after representations received from the members of other school boards in Scotland who thought that the practice on this point should be assimilated to the practice which obtained in connection with town councils. He quite agreed that in small boards it was, perhaps, hardly worth while putting the electors to the trouble and expense of an election in the event of the death or the retirement of one of the members. He thought, however, they had a different atmosphere in dealing with the large areas contemplated by the Bill. This question became all the more important as they multiplied the number of members, or increased the area over which the board had control. In the town council of Edinburgh, for example, there were at the present moment three casual vacancies caused through death or the retirement of members. That illustrated the importance of determining that in a large board with heavy responsibilities there should be a resort to the electors, and that the remaining members should not have the duty of filling up the vacancies. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 6, line 20, to leave out from the word 'office,' to the word 'shall' in line 23, and insert the words 'a fresh election shall be held to supply such vacancy, and every person so elected.'"—(Mr. Dobbie.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

MR. A. GEAHAM MURRAY

said he could not accept the Amendment. Everybody, he thought, deprecated these continually recurring elections. The hon. Member admitted that there would be a difficulty in regard to the boards for the smaller areas. The hon. Member failed to see that the argument cut both ways. In a burgh like Glasgow the average life of the members might be taken at forty. If the hon. Member looked into life tables he would find that I there was a certainty of one death during the triennial period, so that there would be one extra election and possibly many more. They might have one election after another, and they might be doing nothing for three years but electing school board members.

The Amendment was negatived without a division.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11.

MR. MAXWELL

moved an Amendment having for its object the conferring on the Secretary for Scotland instead of the Department the powers proposed as to the nomination of I persons to serve when boards were not elected at the time they ought to be elected, when an insufficient number were elected, or if a school board became unable to act by reasons of the deficiency in the number of members. It appeared to him that the Bill proposed to put enormous powers in the hands of the Department which could be better exer- cised by the Secretary for Scotland. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 6, line 29, to leave out the word 'Department' and insert the words 'Secretary for Scotland.'"—(Mr. Maxwell.)

Question proposed, "That the word ''Department' stand part of the clause."

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said that this clause was no novelty; it was merely a repetition of what had been the law all along. Where there was a continual refusal to elect there must be power to appoint a board to carry out the work.

SIR CHARLES RENSHAW

said he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way to accept this Amendment, because it was undesirable to allow the Department to fill up casual vacancies by gentlemen who had no relation whatever to the locality. It was true that when there were 940 school boards in Scotland there was one case where a school board refused to act in filling up vacancies, and caused considerable trouble. But that was not likely to happen in the future with the larger areas and larger school boards. Under the County Council Act of 1889 vacancies were not filled up by nomination, but by a distinct provision for a fresh election; and in the Parish Councils Act of 1894 the vacancies could only be filled up temporarily by nomination. He thought there was a great deal to be said for the hon. Member's proposal.

MR. CALDWELL

said there might be something to be said for the Secretary for Scotland filling up these vacancies; but if there was anything which the Scotch people objected to, it was the interference of Departments in local questions. If there was not a sufficient number of members on a school board let there be a fresh election.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said that assuming a case where a locality was anxious to make a fresh election in order that the fresh opinion of the locality might govern a particular situation, the Department might be put into an awarkward situation if they were to have the power of nominating members to the vacancies, and so preventing the people having a fresh election. He hoped the Amendment would not be withdrawn.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said, if the electors would not elect, things would come to a dead-lock. The clause was not meant specially to deal with casual vacancies.

SIR CHARLES RENSHAW

said that the nomination should not take place before an opportunity was given for a new election.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said that if the hon. Member would bring up a new clause it could be considered on the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11, agreed to.

Clause 12.

Amendment proposed— In page 7, line 4, at end of clause, to add the words 'All deeds granted by a school board shall be signed by two members of the board, and by the clerk to the board.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13.

COLONEL DENNY

said that there was a fund in existence in many burghs in Scotland which he did not think existed in any town in England. It was known as the "Common Good," which was as much the exclusive property of that burgh as a man's watch was his own. Consequently, it should not be divorced from that burgh's purposes unless very good reason could be shown. He might illustrate his case by a specific instance. The county of Renfrew had probably given more trouble to the Lord-Advocate than all the others in Scotland. Renfrew was an ancient burgh, and had had from time immemorial a fund in the "Common Good," which had been gifted to it in days gone by. The grammar school of the burgh had been maintained out of that fund without memory. A movement was initiated in the burgh, long ago, to erect a memorial to a distinguished citizen, and it took the shape, as it often did in Scotland, of an educational institute known as the "Blythswood Memorial." The burgh, out of the "Common Good," gave a sum of £223 11s. to that memorial. When the Education Act of 1872 was passed, this particular contribution was made constant, but specially attached to this one particular school. Now, under this Bill the fund would be divided up, and distributed over the educational district of which Renfrew formed only a part, to the disadvantage of Renfrew to which the fund really belonged, and, therefore, henceforth, if the Bill passed in its present shape, it would only enjoy an infinitesimal part thereof. In like manner the burgh of Haddington felt very strongly about a sum of £45 which was being treated in that same way. His complaint was that where a fund belonged to one particular place, it should not be withdrawn, from its original and wise purpose and distributed over districts that had originally nothing to do with it. The "Common Good" belonged to the burgh just as much as a private man's fortune belonged to him. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 7, line 28, at end, to add the words, 'Any contributions made by the town council of any burgh under charter or agreement, or in virtue of Section 40 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, to the school fund, may be withdrawn by the said town council.'"—(Colonel Denny.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."—(Colonel Denny.)

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said that since the days of the wolf and the lamb he had never heard of a more outrageous proposal. He should like to call the attention of the Committee to the position in which the matter stood. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the "Common Good" belonged to the burghs, just as much as a private personal fund belonged to an individual. Certainly that was so until a burgh came under any obligation, statutory or other-wise, in regard to its "Common Good." A burgh might put a certain portion of the "Common Good" under a trust, and then that portion belonged to the trust. When, under the Act of 1872, the educational system in Scotland was made national, the framers of that Act said that they would make part of the national assets whatever had been in use, whether given by a private individual or under a private trust or by a burgh out of its common fund; and, although no perfectly constituted trusts were instituted, the use of the contribution was taken as the equivalent to a specific trust in favour of a particular school. Accordingly, Section 46 of the Act of 1872 provided that all such funds should be given to the school boards as part of the general arrangement under the Act; and the cost to the ratepayers of any particular burgh was the cost of the school, minus whatever was contributed from the "Common Good" or by private trust. If his hon. and gallant friend's argument were good for anything it would be good for every other contribution made all over Scotland under Section 46 of the Act of 1872. There was an extraordinary confusion of ideas in this matter; and on the broad ground that the burghs were getting so much the best of it —that was why he mentioned the fable of the wolf and the lamb— and that they should not get an additional advantage and impose an extra cost on the county districts, he could not accept the Amendment, which had not the slightest semblance of equity.

MR. WALLACE

said that undoubtedly there was some confusion of mind in regard to the proposal; but, with all respect, he ventured to suggest that the confusion was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, and not in the minds of hon. Members who were supporting the Amendment. The proposal was practically one to punish burghs in Scotland who had acted generously in the past, and to let off the burghs which had devoted their property to purposes other than education. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that there was some trust in connection with the "Common Good"; but that was not an accurate legal postion to take up.

MR. A. GRAHAMMURRAY

said that I in his remembrance as a lawyer Section 46 of the Act of 1872 distinctly constituted I a statutory trust for that portion of the "Common Good" which was devoted to education.

MR. WALLACE

said he was dealing with the suggestion of the right hon. I Gentleman as to the position in 1872. At that time the owners of the "Common Good" were, out of their generosity, making contributions to existing schools. They were under no obligation to make them, and could have withdrawn them at any time. What he ventured to point out, therefore, was that those who used the "Common Good" in the past in that way were now to be penalised. Under the Act of 1872 that which had been a mere gift became a legal obligation for the purpose of education; but it was strictly qualified and was not for education generally, nor for the relief of the rates at large, but particularly for the purpose of the grammar school of the particular burgh owning the "Common Good." The whole matter was now changed. In future, they were no longer to have the grammar school as the exclusive property of the burgh; and the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would practically put an increased burden on the inhabitants of the burghs as against the inhabitants of the county districts joined on to them. In future the grammar school of Perth would be utilised for the higher education, not merely of the children of the citizens of Perth, but of a considerable outside area. Why, therefore, should not the cost of that grammar school fall in equal proportions all over the whole area, so that the contribution that the burgh made from the common fund should be balanced by some extra rate from the county? He would, therefore, strongly support the Amendment.

MR. ASHER (Elgin Burghs)

said he would support the Amendment. If, however, it had had for its object the limitation of the resources of any body which was to provide secondary education, he would not have had anything to do with it. But it would not have any such effect. It would merely distribute over a locality the responsibility for providing the money necessary for secondary education. It appeared to him that the burghs had a very strong case. The "Common Good" was undoubtedly the property of the burghs for use within the burghs. The circumstances now were very different from the circumstances in 1872; and that made it necessary to revise the whole situation. There was the strongest possible reason for taking the course which was adopted in 1872. The burghs were then the only centres for secondary education in Scotland. When the school boards were created it was natural that it should be said that they were merely transferring the administration of education from the town councils to the school boards; and that the "Common Good" was transferred to the school boards to be used for the purpose for which it had been previously used. Now school boards with a greatly enlarged area were to be created. Those areas might have a large number of secondary schools; and the question was whether the contributions for maintaining those schools should be used equally over the whole area or whether the contribution from the common fund should be devoted solely to the schools within the burgh. The proposal of the burghs was a reasonable one. It was that they should pay their share with others for what was necessary for secondary education, but that they should not be specially assessed to make up the contribution taken from them in 1872 under totally different circumstances, and which since that time had been employed exclusively for the maintenance of secondary education within their own borders.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said that Perth had tried to wriggle out of its obligations in 1878. In that case between the Perth School Board and the magistrates, the learned Judge having quoted the section, said that he was of opinion that the effect of the provision was to convert the amount of the customary payment made by any burgh on behalf of the burgh school into a permanent annual debt. The hon. Member was really going back and arguing on the fallacy that what was settled in law to be a debt was only a voluntary contribution and that they should not be called upon to make that contribution twice over. Those for whom they pleaded had no more right to shake themselves free of this liability than any private individual.

SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)

said, as he understood the matter, in 1872 an obligation was imposed upon the burghs to provide a certain sum of money, and it became a debt, but that debt then imposed upon them was to be spent for the benefit of the school in the burgh. Since then the uses of the school board, in consequence of the advantage derived from the debt created in 1872. had been enlarged, and when a common burden was imposed on an area to maintain the schools of that area, surely the fact that the debt which was created in 1872 was created for the benefit of the burgh itself ought to be taken into consideration.

SIR CHARLES RENSHAW

said he did not rise to express any opinion as to what were or were not the obligations of a burgh, but to advocate generosity on the part of the burghs. He appealed to the burghs not to propose-any difference in a system which had worked well for so many years. It seemed to him that whether the right hon. Gentleman was a lawyer or not the law on this occasion was on the side of the Secretary for Scotland and he appealed to the Committee not to continue the discussion.

CAPTAIN ELLICE (St. Andrews Burghs)

said that in the case of Perth they tried, to wriggle out of this responsibility, and could not do so; but in other cases they did it, possibly by the superior intelligence of the people of Fife.

MR. JOHNDEWAR

said that the charge for education on the "Common Good" had existed, not since 1872 but for generations previous to that date, and if the hon. Member would look into the history of the matter he would find that in many cases sums had been given to the various towns for the special purpose of education and had been incorporated in the "Common Good" of the burgh. The sums to be paid to grammar schools and high schools had been fixed after careful consideration of all the circumstances. A good deal had been said about this money being intended for education in the burghs, but he wished to point out that it would still be devoted to that purpose. The £286 to which the hon. Member for Perth objected would still be spent for the benefit of the inhabitants of Perth and the students who would be, as they always had been, attracted from the surrounding country, would add to the efficiency and value of the Academy. He hoped that on this point the Secretary for Scotland would maintain the position he had taken up.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said this was a case of pull burgh, pull county, apparently. He supposed that, as a burgh Member, he ought to say something. So little had he been lobbied in the matter that he was really destitute of accurate figures or information beyond the most summary knowledge contained in a representation conveyed by the Town Council of Stirling to the right hon. Gentleman. But he did not think there was any reason to make a joke of the position of the burghs or speak lightly of what they had done. They had in the past maintained those schools for the benefit of the benighted districts in the county where was neither the means, the funds, nor the public spirit to create the necessary machinery for education. The burghs in the past had done all that with the greatest goodwill and without grudging it in the least. For his part he took a somewhat opposite view to the hon. Member opposite, because he was very glad that under this new arrangement the counties would be made to pay a little towards the cost of intermediate education, the benefits of which they had been enjoying so long at other people's expense. The hon. Member had complained that they would be made to pay too much; but he was glad that they were not going to get all these advantages gratis as before. In the case of Stirling they had charitable endowments of great value, but they were to have the mortification of seeing the money which should be secured to Stirling spread over the whole of the county round about. That money was left strictly and tied down to the burgh of Stirling; the men who left that money might have been wrong in tying it down in that manner to some particular object, but there was one thing beyond all question, and it was that this money was intended to be applied strictly within the burgh of Stirling for charitable purposes. Under the legislation of thirty years ago, a large part of these endowments was diverted to education, and now it was proposed that the enjoyment of these funds, which had been left solely to the people of Stirling, should be extended to people who had no claim whatever to them. By this money being used for that purpose the people of Stirling were practically being deprived of the full enjoyment of those large sums of money, and all for the beneft of those who had no claim what-ever upon those funds. With all the generosity that could be imagined towards their neighbours, and with all the desire they had shown to share their advantages with their neighbours, they must draw the line somewhere. This was a case which he would strongly commend to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He referred to the case of endowments for charitable purposes confined to a particular locality which had been, with the assent of the community, diverted from charity to education in days when there was a very inadequate provision for education. Now, when education was being provided for in other ways, they thought it was very hard that they should be deprived of the use of these funds for charitable or other beneficial purposes which the founders undoubtedly intended.

Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said he acknowledged fully the great services which the burgh schools had rendered in the past. At one time they were practically the only secondary education schools for many years, but he assured the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there was no intention whatsoever by this Bill of interfering with anything like endowments. There was a clause down on the Paper, which he intended to accept, which would secure endowments for the purposes for which they were intended. This Amendment before the Committee dealt with the statutory contributions under Section 46 of the Education Act. He could not without inquiry say whether that applied to Stirling institutions. His view was that it merely limited it to the Education Act and nothing else.

COLONEL DENNY

said that the hon. Members who had spoken against this proposal represented the county. He wished to ask hon. Members opposite if any of them had ever heard of Paisley. That was one of the poor districts which would benefit by this proposal. He thought that what had been given to one

particular school in the past should still be given to it. As the Secretary for Scotland had shown no disposition to accept his proposal, if he did not get some better assurance on this point he have would to press his Amendment to a division.

Question put—

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 83; Noes, 220. (Division List No. 150.)

AYES.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Eve, Harry Trelawney	Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Asher, Alexander	Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Richards, Henry Charles
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Rigg, Richard
Barlow, John Emmott	Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Barran, Rowland Hirst.	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn	Grant, Corrie	Runciman, Walter
Brigg, John	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Schwann, Charles E.
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Holland, Sir William Henry	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Burt, Thomas	Horniman, Frederick John	Soares, Ernest J.
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Tennant, Harold John
Caldwell, James	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Labouchere, Henry	Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)
Causton, Richard Knight	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)	Leng, Sir John	Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)
Crombie, John William	Lewis, John Herbert	Weir, James Galloway
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Dalziel, James Henry	M'Crae, George	Whittakcr, Thomas Palmer
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Bobbie, Joseph	Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose	Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd
Dunn, Sir William	Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)	Yoxall, James Henry
Edwards, Frank	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Ellice, Capt E.C(SAndrew'sBghs	Partington, Oswald	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Emmott, Alfred	Pirie, Duncan V.	Colonel Denny and Mr
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Reid, James (Greenock)	Robert Wallace.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N,E)	Poland, John	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Boulnois, Edmund	Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Aird, Sir John	Bull, William James	Cullman, J.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Burdett-Coutts, W.	Dalkeith, Earl of
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Butcher, John George	Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Arnold-Forester, Rt. Hn. HughO	Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow	Davenport, William Bromley
Arrol, Sir William	Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Delany, William
Atkinson, lit. Hon. John	Cautley, Henry Strother	Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire	Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.
Balcarres, Lord	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Dickson, Charles Scott
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-
Balfour, Capt. C.B. (Hornsey)	Chapman, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore.	Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds	Chapman, Edward	Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Charrington, Spencer	Donclan, Captain A.
Bartley, Sir George C. T.	Clare, Octavius Leigh	Doogan, P. C.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Doughty, George
Bignold, Arthur	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers
Bigwood, James	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)
Black, Alexander William	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Duke, Henry Edward
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart	Maconochie, A. W.	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Round, Rt. Hon. James
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Field, William	M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)	Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.	Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Fison, Frederick William	Milvain, Thomas	Sharpe, William Edward T.
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Flower, Sir Ernest	Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Forster, Henry William	Morpeth, Viscount	Sheehy, David
Galloway, William Johnson	Morrell, George Herbert	Smith", H. C (North'mb.Tyneside
Gardner, Ernest	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.	Mount, William Arthur	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn)	Muntz, Sir Philip A.	Spear, John Ward
Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop	Murnaghan, George	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Murphy, John	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.
Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)	Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)	Stew-art, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Stock, James Henry
Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Haslett, Sir James Horner	Myers, William Henry	Stroyan, John
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Hayden, John Patrick	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)	Sullivan, Donal
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley	O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Thorburn, Sir Walter
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford,W.)	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)	Thornton, Percy M.
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Hickman, Sir Alfred	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hoare, Sir Samuel	O'Malley, William	Tuff, Charles
Hogg, Lindsay	Parkes, Ebenezer	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside	Percy, Earl	Valentia, Viscount
Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil	Pierpoint, Robert	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Hunt, Rowland	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Plummer, Walter R.	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Joyce, Michael	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Webb, Colonel William George
Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.	Power, Patrick Joseph	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Keswick, William	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Kimber, Henry	Pym, C. Guy	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
King, Sir Henry Seymour	Quilter, Sir Cuthbert	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Laurie, Lieut.-General	Randies, John S.	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Rankin, Sir James	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)	Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R.	Reddy, M.	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Leamy, Edmund	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine	Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Renwick, George	Young, Samuel
Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)	Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Lundon, W.	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Alexander Acland - Hood
Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Macdona, Joun Cumming	Roche, John
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

MR. MCCRAE

said he wished to point out to the Secretary for Scotland that in addition to the existing school boards there were education committees discharging duties for which certain provision must be made for handing them over to the new authority. These committees were doing useful work, and he thought some provision should be made as to the time when they were to hand over their duties to the new authority created by this Bill.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said it would have been quite out of place to have mentioned these committees in the Bill. They did not require to be dealt with by statute.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14.

MR. CROMBIE (Kincardineshire)

moved an Amendment by which the debts and liabilities transferred would be limited to debts incurred in respect of loans contracted under the Act of 1872. He said this clause was intimately connected with Clause 25 (Power to impose rate), which he did not wish to discuss at present. The Bill really dealt with the debts in two ways. There were first the ordinary current debts and secondly the permanent loans. Under the Bill as it stood the permanent debts were not to be handed over to the new authority, but were to remain a charge on the parishes which contracted them. There was a general feeling all through the country that this would be unjust, and Amendments were put down against it. He was glad that the Secretary for Scotland had made a concession on that point by agreeing that these debts should also be transferred to the new authority. In regard to the ordinary current debts, the point that he wished to bring up was this. Any debt that a school board incurred at present would be taken over by the new authority. He was told by many people that this would entourage school boards to have conveniently large debts to hand over on the day the Bill came into operation, with the result that many districts would get lightly off. He had information of a case where a school board had been mulcted in damages for injury done to a child, or something of that sort. It seemed to him that it would be very hard if the whole of the new area had to pay for that. Apart from debts of that sort, he quite recognised the justice of transferring the whole of the debts to the community within the new area. Did the Secretary for Scotland not think that if Clause 14 stood as it was there would be very great danger of school boards running up large debts in order to hand them over to the new board?

Amendment proposed— In page 7, line 29, after the word 'board,' to insert the words 'incurred in respect of any loan contracted by an existing school board in terms of the forty-fifth Section of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872.'"—(Mr. Crombie.)

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

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

thought the hon. Member would see that this Amendment would not do, because it would restrict the debts to be taken over to the debts in respect of loans. That, of course, would leave the ordinary current expenses debts in the air. The hon. Member had spoken of a case in which a school board had had to pay damages for an assault. He did not think there was any likelihood of teachers indulging in a jollification of that kind between now and the time when the present school boards would cease to exist.

MR. DALZIEL

asked what was to be done in respect of debts for schools in course of construction.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said that if schools were in course of being erected, and if the present school board had raised a loan for that purpose, the loan would be taken over by the new authority. If they had not provided for a loan the new district would have to raise a loan.

MR. DALZIEL

The point is, will they be justified in going on incurring fresh expenditure?

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

Yes, subject to the ordinary rules to be observed in carrying out the erection of such buildings.

DR. MACNAMARA

said they were really discussing a serious proposal now which might have a far-reaching effect. According to the Bill as it stood, the liabilities would be taken over subject to the provisions of Section 25. If the Bill remained in that way, each parish would have to pay its own debts, but he understood that the proposal now was that the new district should take over the whole of the debts. The people of Scotland would signalise the passing of the Bill by handing debts over to others to pay. With great respect, he would say that was characteristically Scotch. Districts in Scotland would cut down the maintenance to the very bone. There was a place in Scotland called Kirriemuir. Supposing Kirriemuir carried out the work of education thoroughly, and did not anticipate this Bill by pooling all its debts, why should it have to pay a deficiency created by another district? A district which had built a good school ought not to be taxed until it had wiped off its loan; on the other hand, a district should not be allowed to anticipate this Bill by having its debts wiped out at the expense of other people. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would consider some means by which a proportion of the specific debt which accrued to a particular school board should in future be paid by that school board; otherwise they would have districts which would anticipate this Bill by cutting the maintenance down to the lowest limit, reducing the rates, and piling up debts which would have to be paid for by other districts. Take the case of Forfar. He was informed that the school board there met a couple of nights ago and decided to impose no rate for the ensuing year. Last year the ratepayers paid 8d. in the £1. In view of this it might be said that it would not be fair at the end of May next year if the board were to hand over to the county board a debt of about £2000.

SIR CHARLES RENSHAW

said there was no doubt that this was a very serious question. No one could read in the Scottish newspapers during the last few weeks the requisitions to parish councils by the school boards for the amounts they required to make their annual budgets, without realising that there had been a very substantial reduction. The result would be that they might close their last [financial year with a deficiency. He should like to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether provision could not be made in the Bill that in the amount apportioned in the first year after the Act came into operation between the parishes, anything standing to the debit should be an additional charge on the parish, and any-thing standing to the credit of the parish should be applied to the relief of parish rates for the first year. In that way, equal treatment would be given.

MR A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said that when he spoke on the Amendment he was really considering the necessity of having some clause to transfer debts. He thought the hon. Gentleman would see that his Amendment would scarcely do in its present place. There must be some provision for making someone liable; and if there were to be no transference to the new school boards there would be no one to sue for debts. That was quite a different question to the question men- tioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell. He did not know whether the school board for Forfar had been "running cunning" or not; but it was quite clear that they ought to see that each school board should, on the date of transfer, have a clean balance sheet; and he would be glad if the hon. Gentleman would assist him by suggesting, between now and the Report stage, some kind of clause to carry out that object, and prevent what certainly would be a very scandalous abuse of the position. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment and the Bill could be amended later in accordance with the general consent of the Committee.

MR. CROMBIE

said he would withdraw the Amendment. It was a point of importance, however; and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his reply.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said he would move in Clause 14, page 7, line 29, to leave out from "shall" to "become" in line 31.

Amendment proposed— In Clause 14, page 7, line 29, to leave out from the word 'shall,' to the word 'become, in line 31."—[Mr. A. Graham Murray.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

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.