HC Deb 11 July 1906 vol 160 cc900-89

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair].

Clause 25:—

Amendment proposed— To leave out the Clause/' (Mr. Birrell.)

Question, " That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put forthwith, pursuant to the Order of the House>>i the 18th June, and negatived.

Clause 26:—

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

said that by Clause 26 it was intended to adopt the principle of devolution or the delegation of certain powers to the looal education authority. He proposed to say a few words upon the general principles of the delegation which the clause covered. A very large number of Members greatly regretted the loss of the school board system under the Bill of 1902, and their opinion was shared by a very considerable number of educationists throughout the land. The loss certainly lessened the power of local control, and also the interest of the parents in the schools, because parents became wholly disassociated from the work. No doubt, under the old system, there were many parish schools which were inefficient; but at the same time, there were a great many which were very effective; and, generally speaking, the school board system did secure a considerable amount of local control which the Act of 1902 failed to maintain. It was because of this that the Government were induced to frame Clause 26. He thought the working of the Act of 1902 had fully justified the foreboding which was held in many quarters with respect to it. The areas of many of the counties wore far too large for practical control, and were also very difficult of access, and in many counties local authorities met under circumstances which did not give them full power to exercise any genuine control over the work in the local areas. Local authorities, therefore, were not in that direct touch with the work in their educational areas which it was desirable should be the case. Nor had they sufficient time to perform the duties appertaining to the schools, the result being that the Act had largely to be worked by officials. He did not wish to speak in anything but terms of the highest respect for these officials, who no doubt did their work conscientiously; but still they did not and could not take the place of the local authority. He thought it would be universally admitted that the boards of managers acting under these local authorities were an absolute farce. Clergymen and others had complained to him that boards of managers could not even order a slate pencil or determine that a window should be mended. Such a state of things simply reduced their work to a farce. That, however, was the position of a great many of the boards of management in various parts of the country, and consequently those managers had ceased to be any force whatever in the educational system of the country. Of course many on the Ministerial side of the House would prefer that the Government should go back to thead hocsystem but, at the same time, they fully admitted the difficulties of such a course, and therefore could not unduly press it. Failing this, however, some general system of delegation should be adopted by the Committee. Ministerialists were of opinion that the county council should be compelled to delegate some portion of their control to local authorities, and further that county councils should have power to adopt schemes variable in their nature—as it was most desirable they should be, because the different counties of the kingdom were variable in their character and pursuits, the feeling of the inhabitants were different, and in many other ways did they vary—all of which showed that a hard and fast scheme of a uniform character should not be made to apply to every county. Therefore, if the Amendments were carried, committees would be able to adopt their own schemes. He thought that more financial responsibility should be placed upon managers in local areas in order that they might feel that their management was a real and genuine work and not the farce which at present existed. He hoped the Amendments would be considered as educational in character and not calculated to engender that bitterness which had existed with regard to some Amendments which had been considered. Those who had had experience of county council management in educational matters in the larger counties would agree that something must be done to make the educational system more complete, that there should be given to parents some direct contact with educational work, and that a more general control should be exercised in the localities. In saying this he did not at all agree that the local area should be an ordinary parish; in fact, in most cases, he thought it should not be so, for it would i be too small; but the county county council should be able to apportion the areas. If that were done they would see restored that local control which was such a desirable element in the educational system of the country. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 16, line 16, to leave out from the beginning, to the word ' any,' in line 18, and insert the words ' Each county council shall delegate to the council of any borough (other than a metropolitian borough), or of any urban or rural district, or of any parish within the county, or to local education committees constituted in areas as hereinafter provided the exercise of.' "—( Mr. George White.)

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


opposed the Amendment on the ground that it would upset the settlement of 1902. He did not agree with the hon. Member in his statement that the work of the present Act was largely carried out by officials. Under the Act of 1902 there had been an improved attendance of the children at the schools, and that was the main consideration in an education authority's work. The salaries of teachers had also improved. There had been an improvement in the buildings and an improvement all round under the Act of 1902. He was anxious that this Bill should not break up the settlement which had worked so well and which, he believed, would work better in future. He did not say that there should be no devolution. At present the county council could devolve its powers to smaller areas or groups of areas. In large counties like Yorkshire and Devonshire there was that elasticity. The Amendment said that instead of leaving it to the county council who knew the necessities of their own districts, the county council should breakup the county areas and should delegate their powers to small local education authorities. What he wanted to point out was the danger of friction when this dual control was established. It was proposed to reserve to the county council the powers and duties in connection with the engagement, dismissal, and salaries of the teachers, but the powers in regard to the engagement and dismissal of caretakers and the like we re to be devolved to the minor authority. As to the question of attendance, he thought that that should be essentially left in the hands of the county authorities. There had been an immense improvement in the attendance of children at the public elementary schools since the passage of the Act of 1902. The attendance officers had been very active and local circumstances had not been allowed to hinder them in their work. He contended, therefore, that it would be a reactionary step to put back the control of attendance into the hands of the guardians, who would probably hand it over to the relieving officer in his odd time. He admitted that there was some demand for devolution; but it depended on two things whether the devolution might suit the county council. It should be left to the county council to settle in what manner it should be made; it should not be made mandatory upon them. Then the division of the powers between the county council and the minor authorities should be most carefully thought out. What the parents in a village were really interested in was the choice of a teacher, and not in the appointment of caretakers and the like. At least that was his experience all the counties with which he was connected. The county area was too large for this, and in no ease of which he knew where the parishes had agreed to be grouped had the appointment of the teachers been made in opposition to the wishes of the parishes or villages concerned. The right form of devolution was, therefore, to give some choice in the selection of the teachers, subject, of course, to the supervision of the county council. That could easily be done without breaking up the present organisation under the Act of 1902. He had put down an Amendment that four managers of a school should be chosen by the parish and two by the county council; but he had no objection to the whole six being chosen by the parents. He was not an enemy of devolution, and he was anxious to see some scheme of devolution, but if education was to be advanced and if the progress made under the Act of 1902 was to be maintained the county council should remain supreme. Only in that way would a pure administration be secured.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)

said he wished to ask the hon. Member for N.W. Norfolk to explain one or two points which were rather obscure. The hon. Gentleman had said he desired to substitute a general policy of compulsion for the policy of limitation set forth lower down in the Bill. What he wished to know was whether the hon. Gentleman wanted the limitation to extend to the appointment and the salaries of the teachers?




The second question he wished to ask was, had the hon. Gentleman put in his Amendment that this compulsory delegation was to take place without any express wish on the part of the areas referred to. The Amendment ran thus— The county council shall delegate to local education committees constituted in areas as hereinafter provided. It did not require that there should be any demand from the places to which the delegation was to be made. It was to be compulsory. But if that was the plan, who was to settle the unit on which the delegation was to be conferred? Was it to be a compulsory delegation on every parish, or was it to be left to the county council to say whether they should go to a parish, or group of parishes; and for the county council to decide how big that group of parishes was to be? A group might be half a county. If the county council was to be compelled to make a delegation there must be some superior authority to say to whom the delegation was to take place.


said that he had purposely not entered into details. If the Government accepted the principle of devolution there would have to be a new clause which would fill up the details of the scheme and cover the ground. His idea was that the county-council should be compelled to make a scheme after inquiry.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

said he rejoiced that the Committee were having a discussion on a strictly educational question—the first during these long debates. The Act of 1870 had this defect, that it took the rural parishes out of the local administration of education. There was no doubt that many village school boards did efficiently very difficult work under difficult circumstances; but, on the other hand, many of them were highly inefficient, partly because the areas were so small and rate-able values so low that the burden was enormous just where the estimate of the value of education was the lowest. Notwithstanding the eulogy of his hon. friend the Member for South Birmingham, the Act of 1902 had, in his judgment, swung the pendulum in the other direction. Under that Act in large counties like Yorkshire, Devonshire, Glamorganshire and Hampshire the control of education had become absolutely bureaucratised and had fallen almost entirely into the hands of a far too powerful body of officials. Education was a thing which could only flourish in an area of public concern, and the moment one took it away from public concern and put it beyond that, official action would sterilise it and public interest was taken away. Local interest in a good many administrative counties was so killed under the Act of 1902. Two means had been devised to remedy this state of things. The first was Clause 26 proposed by his right hon. friend. Undoubtedly the spirit of that clause was an attempt to try to remedy the extent to which the pendulum swung too far in 1902. Then there was the new clause of his hon. friend the Member for Middleton. Clause 26 compelled the county council to allow so small an area as the parish autonomy on demand, but he did not himself think that so small an area ought to be allowed to demand autonomy at all. The demand ought to come from the authority of the superior area. In that respect he thought that Clause 20 was faulty. If the parish was a rich one, it would consider that its rateable area and the value of it was above that of the county generally, and they would endeavour to get out of their communal obligations. They might also go out because of trouble with the county authority. Of course the superior authority should have a big voice in the settlement of the area, and Clause 26 reserved powers and duties connected with the engagement, dismissal, and salaries of teachers. That was an admirable reservation, and he was glad to see it incorporated in the proposed new clause of his right hon. friend. He hoped the administration of Section 74 of the Act of 1870 would also be reserved. He could not look with any equanimity upon any scheme of devolution which would allow a parish council' to fix its own standards of exemption or manage its own attendance by-laws. The records of the Board of Education were full of cases in. regard to the old village school lands, in which the members of the board illegally employed child labour. Therefore it was necessary to insert safeguards in regard to this point. Mr. Acland and Sir John Gorst had had to deal with this matter. The finance of Clause 26 was difficult, and under it three rates would have to be levied. The proposed new-clause was also very involved and intricate, and would, it appeared to him, involve six different financial proceedings. What he thought they really wanted was, omitted. They wanted devolution of certain powers to be given to poor law unions alone or in combination or by a district council alone, or a combination of district councils. If they could evolve a practicable scheme they might arouse once again the enthusiasm which had been damped down in the country since the Act of 1902.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)

said that it would be well to know what was the actual proposal before the Committee, because under the new clause put down in the name of the hon. Member for Middleton, the small local authority would step into the shoes of the county authority for all purposes of elementary education, whereas under the Government's clause they would only step in for the purposes of management.

MR. ADKINS (Lancashire, Middleton),

in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for N.W. Norfolk, thought the distinction drawn by the hon. Member for Oxford University between the proposal of the Government, the Amendment of the hon. Member for N.W. Norfolk and the new clause which he himself had upon the Paper, although correct, was neither material nor important. If they were allowed to discuss the question of delegation, all the clauses were alike in this respect, that they were all anxious to have in every English county some scheme of delegation subordinate to and regulated by the county authority, and so long as they had a scheme that was subordinate to and directed by the county authority these differences came to nothing. The criticisms of the hon. Member for North Camberwell were criticisms of detail and not of principle. He, himself, supported the clause of the hon. Member for Norfolk. It was agreed in all parts of the House that there was room for some delegation. There was a wide-spread desire for delegation, and there were two ways of bringing it about. One was by a revolutionary measure directed entirely against existing legislation, and the other a measure consistent with existing legislation. The Amendment which he suggested was in the latter direction. He suggested that they should leave, as now, the county council supreme, and put upon it the initiative for a scheme for devolution. Any one who read his clause would find in it very careful provisions to maintain the supremacy of the county council, and that whatever was delegated was subject to their control. But if that was the first, step, the second was to give the widest powers of delegation consistent with that supremacy. The hon. Member for N.W. Norfolk believed in a considerable amount of delegation. The needs of the English counties varied enormously according to their geographical features, and if the Government adopted the proposal that each county should draw up a scheme in a certain time, to be fixed by the Bill, it might very well happen that all the devolution required in some of the smaller areas would be a devolution to parish councils of the duties of managers of small parochial matters. But when they came to deal with the larger English counties, it was obvious that the parish council would not be the appropriate authority and there would be a need for greater devolution. The English counties, however, might be trusted to draw up their schemes for devolution and select the authority which was most appropriate to the particular county. First of all they wanted devolution from the county council, but they wanted that devolution to representative bodies in order that the people who exercised it might not only help the county council, but be directly responsible to the area for the work they did. That was the second principle of devolution which they laid down, and of which he hoped his right hon. friend would approve. The third principle was that when this was done it ought to be only after full public inquiry. It was one of the customs of the English people to grumble, and if the people were given an opportunity to state their grievances early in matters of this kind, they would be far more likely to have a good scheme. With regard to financial matters, the alleged computations of the hon. Member for North Camberwell did not carry weight, because the six different kinds of rates were alternatives not cumulative and could not all fall on any one spot in these islands. His own contention was that if they delegated authority to a representative body after public inquiry, that representative body ought to have some financial responsibility. He hoped the Government would accept the suggestion to give to the locality some financial responsibility, and that they would feel that the proper method of devolution was not to draw one hard and fast line all over the country, but one which would leave each county council free to provide for its own needs. He did not suggest that every detail of the clause was approved by the County Councils Association, but the executive committee of the Association by a considerable majority had recently approved of the scheme's being universal and compulsory without distinction. They also thought it might be applied to authorities ad hocas well as to municipal authorities. There had long been jealousy between the ad hoc and the municipal principle, and here he submitted was an opportunity of testing both methods. On that ground alone he believed this would be a wise educational experiment. It was imperative now without delay to have such a devolution throughout the country as would stimulate local interest and yet maintain the county council supremacy. He therefore supported the Amendment, and he earnestly asked the Government to adopt the substance of the clause which he had putdown.


hoped the Committee would allow him to say a few words on this subject, he having had many years experience in the administration of local affairs in this connection. At the time when the Act of 1902 was before the House, the question partly of delegation, partly of division into districts of large areas was fully discussed, but he did not think the conclusion arrived at was altogether satisfactory. His own experience related mainly to the West Riding of Yorkshire, and he had had almost constant opportunities of observing the difficulties under which that great authority laboured. They were oppressed by the vastness of the area, and by the great diversities and the different conditions of the population, their occupations, their tastes and their needs. At present the condition of affairs was that the West Riding County Council, a most able, a most laborious, and now a most experienced authority, had almost broken down under the multiplicity of details. Allusion had been made to pencils, and some merriment arose in consequence. He did not know what was the fact at the present time, but sometime since the West Riding County Council kept within their control the selection and ordering of all materials. He hoped they had grown wiser since those days of comparative-inexperience. While, however, they had the county authority oppressed by these details, those living in the different districts who had the management of the schools day by day felt a bitter sense of their want of power, and a just irritation at the constant interference of an authority at a considerable distance, and so laden with the multiplicity of business that promptitude was extremely difficult. There was a danger that the business might be conducted under iron regulations carried out by officials, highly trained no doubt, but unable from their very position to have regard to the varying needs of the districts. The whole system lacked the elasticity which was absolutely necessary to adapt it to the wants of each' locality. He thought the time was come when the House ought to take the matter in hand and relieve education from the difficulties in which it was involved by the present state of' affairs. As for the mode of procedure, it was clear there should be in every case searching local inquiry. There must also be some power of review, either by the education authority or the county council itself. In his opinion the initiative ought to be with the county council, and inquiry to be made by them. It ought to be prompt, efficient, and sympathetic, and there should' be a final review by the Board of Education in order that the scheme might possess the symmetry which was really necessary. It should be borne in mind that in this country the population, moved from county to county, and while having regard to the different wants of different places, they should take care there was such a system,. and such sympathy between county and county, that people going from one to another would not feel that they were moving from their own country to a strange land. They should all work under the same system — a system 'framed with comprehensiveness of view, but also with due proportion and adaptation to the needs of different places.

VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)

said that one speaker had said, and he thought very truly, that most Members were in favour of some system of delegation; but there was one reason why, in his opinion, delegation of some sort was necessary, which had not been adduced up to now, and that was the rating system. There was no doubt that one of the great objections to the Act of 1902 in agricultural districts had been the fact that a great many small areas had felt that they were paying a rate for education which they ought properly not to be called upon to pay. They had realised that owing to the pooling of the rates for education over so large an area as the county they were paying a rate larger than they would have to pay if they had the management of education in their own area. In the North Riding County Council—which, he thought he might say justly in contradistinction to the West Riding, had certainly tried to administer the Act in the best possible way—a report had been drawn up showing the extent to which this burden of rating fell on local districts owing to the pooling of the rate over so large an area. No fewer than fifteen unions comprised in the district of the county council were paying a larger rate than they would if there were differential rating to defray the expenses of the education given in the schools in the union, and a uniform rate levied over the whole county to defray the central expenses which could not be apportioned. Supposing the county council were to raise a different rate on each union in proportion to the expense incurred in that union, then in the Thirsk Union, for instance, the local rate which they would be called upon to pay would be l.ld. and the general rate l.7d. the total rate, therefore, being 2.8d., whereas under existing circumstances they were paying a rate of 5.7d., which showed that that particular union, owing to the pooling of the rate over so large an area, paid almost 3d. in the £ more than it would do if it paid only for the education given in its own area. There was a precedent for such a system of differential rating as he thought would meet the case of delegation under this Act in the police rate, which was levied by a general rate for common expenses, and a special rate for those expenses which fell exclusively on one area. It was the rating inequality which had created a demand, in agricultural districts especially, for some system of devolution, and he was heartily in agreement with that part of Clause 26 which said the county council should charge any expenses incurred in the exercise of those powers or the performance of those duties exclusively in the area of the council to which the powers or duties wore delegated. That part of the clause seemed to him in some degree to meet the views he had expressed as to the difference of rating. He would prefer the adoption of a system by which the county council should, purely and simply, be required to levy a differential rate, and that there should not be such a large delegation of powers as was contemplated under Clause 26. It might be urged that if they levied a differential rate on the different unions they must give the unions more power in proportion to the rate they levied upon them, but he was bound to say, in the interests of education in a great many districts, or at all events except in cases such as the West Riding of Yorkshire, that the delegation proposed by Clause 26 would probably not be an advantage to the district. It would be sufficient if, as the hon. Member had suggested, the managers were appointed by, say, the rural district council or some union authority which was selected, and if they were given larger powers than the existing managers had under the Act of 1902. Holding the view that some alteration of the existing rating system was necessary, he was bound to give his support to that part of the clause which altered the rating inequalities, which had been so much complained of in rural districts. At the same time he hoped the Government would not pursue the extreme plan of delegation proposed in Clause 26, because that was a delegation which he thought would be dangerous to the interests of education.

MR. HARVEY (Rochdale)

remarked that almost every speaker in the debate had recognised the absolute necessity of a considerable amount of delegation on the part of the county councils. He himself was very strongly in favour of such delegation. He had had the honour to be the chairman of what he believed was the second largest Education Committee in the country' since the passing of the Act of 1902; and he had had constantly to lament that his committee had to spend many weary hours in discussing trumpery details, when all its members felt that they ought to be engaged in work for the advancement of education. There were already several powers of delegation under the Act of 1902. For instance, there were the powers of dividing a county area into various parts, and of appointing sub-committees. These powers, however, were not sufficient If the House would allow a considerable amount of delegation in the educational administration, it would do much good to the county councils themselves, for they would then be able to devote themselves to settling the larger matters of education administration. Delegation if effectively and wisely carried out would also be good for the people of the country. It was essential, if we were to progress educationally, as all desired to do, that the people should have a zeal and enthusiasm for education, which they could never get if the local details of education were sent to distant county towns. At present it was impossible for poor men under any circumstances to be members of county councils. [An HON. MEMBER: Yes, there are numbers.] That at any rate was his experience. His belief was that by delegating powers to small local subordinate authorities the Committee would not injure or degrade county councils, but would provide a wide field for utility and activity for many men who wanted to be interested in education and to do educational work. He did not view with apprehension the financial objections that had been urged against this course. He had a great and abiding belief in the people of his own country, and believed that England could stand in the forefront educationally, notwithstanding criticism of inefficiency. He preferred an elastic and free system of education far beyond the much flaunted rigid system which obtained in Germany. If the Committee would give the power to promote education in different localities according to the needs of each locality, he believed we should obtain a system of education which would bring our people not many years hence to the front amongst the best educated nations of the world.


said the debate was an extremely interesting and important one. There appeared to be on both sides of the House a real desire to increase the powers of delegation existing I under the Act of 1902. The Government had not yet made any observations on the Amendment and he thought they were quite right in waiting to see what was the general trend of feeling in the Committee. His remarks were not intended to be critical, but he desired to fix the attention of the Committee on the real difficulties of the problem as they appeared to him. He did not, however, think the rating difficulty or grievance referred to by his noble friend the Member for Thirsk could be met by any practical scheme which was now before the Committee. Was it suggested that if delegations were arranged, the general charges should have a different incidence in different parts of the county? It was understood that the powers delegated should be paid for in the district to which they were delegated; but that would not meet his noble friend's view, nor the views of those who thought that the incidence of rating was very heavy under the Act of 1902. Let the Committee consider what were the powers anybody had yet proposed to delegate. The appointment of teachers, the salaries of teachers and capital charges were not to be delegated. In the circumstances he did not see how delegation would help his noble friend in the object which he very legitimately desired to carry out. Turning to the educational problem, he said he had been somewhat disappointed with what he had heard of the work ng of the Act of 1902 in some districts, although he had not really had an opportunity of giving the matter sufficient examination to express an opinion of his own. He had heard that councils which had control of education in great rural areas, but on which urban areas had a great preponderance, showed too great indifference to the special needs and wishes of the country districts, and were apt to impose upon them schemes better fitted for urban districts with a kind of universality which perhaps naturally commended itself to a great central authority like the county council. Again, he was not quite sure the Committee had before it any scheme remedying that state of things. Were they going to leave to these bodies the settlement of such questions as attendance, or would the clause be so amended that attendance would be left out?


Yes, they will have the power of making by-laws.


asked if they would also have the power of seeing that the by-laws were properly carried out. That was a real and genuine difficulty. Some of the great authorities, perhaps, had not taken pains to make the curriculum in a village school suited to a country village. Were the Committee sure they would improve that by leaving the village to settle its own curriculum without the county council's having anything to say to it? Appointments, salaries, and by common consent the power of making by-laws as to attendances were excluded, and now it was doubtful whether the curriculum should be delegated. If they excluded the curriculum, all that would be delegated would be the power to buy books and coals and lead pencils. He started with a great desire to see delegation, but when he asked himself how it was to be done, he saw that in the process of delegation they might introduce a system much less favourable to sound education than the system they proposed to amend. He himself rather hoped that the results which they all desired to see from delegation would partly be attained by the use of the powers already given under the Act of 1902." These powers were very wide, and probably they had not been largely used. But they existed, and if they were going to leave the initia tive to the county council, he did not see why it should not act under the powers conferred in 1902. It was perfectly true that under those powers they could only delegate to the managers of a school, and that it might be desirable to have larger areas. But they could have larger areas under the Act of 1902. In addition to the powers of delegation referred to by the hon. Gentleman, there were powers under Clause 17 of the 1902 Act. He should have thought that these two parts of the Bill of 1902 gave all the powers wanted.


said the powers under Clause 17 of the 1902 Act were not powers of delegation. They were powers which really only allowed' a county council to split up its area, if it so desired, into several areas, each of which would be independent.


said he was not sure that he understood what the hon. Gentleman meant by delegation. He rather thought that the hon. Gentleman meant that the county council was perpetually to hold its authority, and, if it cared, to disapprove of the action of the body to which the delegation had taken place. That was not delegation. The county council was to be relieved of certain of its powers; the powers were to be transferred to somebody else, and the county council was to have no authority to intervene in reference to the details delegated. His first remedy for mitigating over-centralisation—if it existed, and he was inclined to think that it did exist—was to be found in the exercise by the county councils themselves of the great powers which they already possessed under the Act of 1902. He hoped that they would exercise their powers. There was another matter which brought them back to the religious controversy. He would refer to it as briefly as he could. He would like to ask if they were to hand over to the parishes, or groups of parishes, the regulation of the religious instruction. That was a very important point, because if there were pig-headed members on county councils, there would be more of them on the local bodies. He agreed with delegation, but when it came to working out the principle, there were practical difficulties. What the clause at present delegated was very trifling and would not really lighten the labours of the central authority.

MR. STUART (Sunderland)

said the Leader of the Opposition had dealt with this subject with great fairness, but he had difficulty in making out whether the right hon. Gentleman did or did not desire a clause in the Bill providing for delegation. He sympathised with the feeling of difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman had in coming to a conclusion on the matter. The general expression of opinion which had been given in the Committee indicated that at this stage it would be very undesirable to come to a definite conclusion upon the form of the clause, and he hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn and that the Government would undertake to bring forward on the Report stage a clause dealing with the matter. He was entirely in favour of some form of delegation, as everyone must be who had taken part in the work of any great educational body under the Act of 1902. That Act, though objectionable in many respects, had in some ways done a great deal of good. London was not included in the Bill, and he would not enter into details of the work which had come under his notice as a Member of the London County Council. In many respects London stood in a different position from other portions of the country on the matter of education. He would take it that the agricultural Members were favourable to differentiation of the rating on the ground that it would benefit the poorer localities in the counties. Everyone who was acquainted with the question of rating in London knew that; if there was a separate system of rating for the different districts, there would be an injury done to the poor. In the county of Norfolk where he resided, he ' could foresee great difficulties altogether beyond those which had been touched upon by the Leader of the Opposition. ' Owing to the great distances, there was enormous difficulty in members attending the meetings of the educational authority. One result was that the business was tremendously scamped. An immense number of matters at the end of the agenda paper were left in the hands of officials to settle, or held over to the next meeting. He believed if they could get localised bodies, directly elected for the purpose, to deal with the minor matters of education, it would immensely facilitate the good conduct of business at the centre as well as improve the interest in education in the localities. He admitted that there was a difficulty in knowing where to draw the line in the delegation of work. He had observed that it was little things capable of being left to local bodies which entangled and hindered the central bodies in their work, He ventured to say that if there was nothing delegated except advice as to the curriculum to be adopted in the local schools it would be most valuable. He did not say that the local bodies ought to create and establish finally the curriculum, but they should have the power to represent to the central authority what the curriculum should be from the point of view of the ratepayers in the locality. That was where the method of delegation was superior to the one to which the right hon. Gentleman had pointed, viz., that it should be to the managers. He would much rather delegate the powers even to a body representing a considerable group of areas directly elected than to the school managers. He was very glad that for the moment the religious question had not got its nose into this subject; and he hoped that the Committee would try to keep it out. The discussion which had taken place was perfectly illuminating, and the atmosphere of the House that afternoon was very much to be thankful for. From the point of view of both the central authority and the local bodies, there were great advantages in delegation. It had been said that working men could not sit on the central body, although in many cases—such as the county of Durham—they did. But in the county of Norfolk he knew that they lost the assistance of many men interested in education, who being busy men could not attend the meetings of the central committee in the county town. Their services would be secured in the cause of education if there was delegation. It might be of great advantage if the curriculum were varied from one part of the country to another, and even from one part of a county to another. They must always remember that it was not a good thing to aim at uniformity in education; it was, indeed, desirable to encourage variety.

MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford)

said that the debate had been a very interesting one. Any person who camefrom a large rural district must approach this subject with a great deal of sympathy. One of the disappointing things connected with the Act of 1902, as he had already pointed out, was that the urban districts had too much dominated the country districts. It was generally found that the members who were appointed to the education committee of the county council were town and not rural members. The result had been that there was now a general feeling that the rural districts were not given that full attention they wished for; and hence there had arisen a demand for delegation of some sort or another. That was particularly the case in regard to the school curriculum, because town and country interests were widely different. In his own county of Kent the agricultural interest should form the larger part of of the curriculum for the children; such as instruction in relation to the hop or fruit industries. The rural members of the county council had not enough influence to induce the education committee of the county council to vary the curriculum so as to instruct the children of their districts in their own branch of agricultural industry. He was quite sure that some means could be found by delegation to give the rural districts power to make representations to the central authority that would be fairly and adequately considered as to changes in the curriculum, or to enable experiments to be made which might be of advantage to these country districts. There was no doubt that the centralisation which followed the Act of 1902 would make the county council reluctant to give up their powers, and had alienated feeling in the country districts which desired greater freedom of local administration. Of course there were certain things which should be left in the hands of the central authority. Coal had been mentioned. He himself had been very much struck at the enormous saving that had been effected in dealing with the supply of coals to the schools by the central authority in a wholesale way and also in regard to the supply of books. Naturally, that was not a very popular thing in the villages. But he thought the Committee should try and discover a means of linking the central and the local authorities and rousing in the latter a greater interest in education. If that could be accomplished, he was sure the Committee would have spent a very useful afternoon.


said that nobody would rejoice more than he did that his foot had been taken from the burning marl of Part I., but he could not feel in paradise in view of the difficulties which surrounded him on the question of delegation. That was a very difficult problem before him. They had had interesting speeches from hon. Gentlemen representing important counties like Lancashire, Norfolk, Northumberland, Yorkshire, Kent, etc., who, without exception, expressed a strong desire in favour of delegation. They all concurred that there was great difficulty in the county councils of these huge counties in discharging at present their educational duties without doing injustice to the rural parts of their areas. They had also heard a great deal about the difficulty of even rich and busy men, as well as poor working men travelling long distances to the county town and spending a whole day every month in attending the meetings of the education committee. He had had constant representations made to him since he came into office on that point. He thought there was. therefore, entire accord in all parts of the House that every thing should be done that could be done in order to break up existing centralisation and to secure to localities some measure of control over the schools in which they were interested, which were at their own doors, and which were attended by their own children. But there was also something else that was clear; and that was that everybody said that the central control ought not to be interfered with; that it was most desirable in the interest of the children themselves that they should not be left to the tender mercies of their own parents or of the village population; that they should be subjected to the wiser rule of a larger body which would concern themselves with their education as a whole. His hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell shuddered at the idea of the awful consequences that would ensue if a particular locality were to frame regulations to secure the attendance at school of their own children. Another hon. Gentleman had said, ' For Heaven's sake do not extend this delegation to the purchase of coal"— probably because coal could be bought in the county town at a far cheaper rate than in a village shop. These were the difficulties that arose between the desire to excite local interest with a certain amount of control and the anxiety that the central authority should maintain, not a dull monotony, but a good equal level of education. Then everybody said that the Minister for Education, or somebody else, should frame a clause to reconcile these two irreconcilable points of view and do equal justice all round. The Minister for Education had certainly been assisted by as hardworking and efficient a staff as ever mortal Minister had, and while he had been engaged over Part I. there was no clause in the Bill to which they had given greater care than this Clause 26. There had also been deputations from local authorities, and Members from either side of the House who had been actively engaged in the administration of the Act of 1902 had contributed much useful information. The general feeling seemed to be that the clause as it stood was defective, as had been pointed out, by giving an initiative to parishes. If one did not know, it might be thought that for the most part the delegated power should be given to those who asked for it; but it seemed to be generally thought that this would not be the proper course to pursue, because the power might pass into the hands of improper persons or be exercised over too small an area, and the responsibility should be imposed on the county council itself. The clause was considered defective in that it did not ensure delegation, but left it to be asked for; and it was said the power might be asked for by those who should not have it and sometimes not asked for by those who should be compelled to take a greater interest in education. The clause was not comprehensive and elastic enough, it was said, and he recognised that there was a good deal of substance in that complaint. That being so, his hon. friend had come to his assistance with a formal, well thought out, and elaborate clause. The great principle of that clause was that there should be an obligation upon the county council to frame a scheme. Everybody agreed that twelve months was entirely inadequate for the purpose; some such period as two years should be substituted. Between his hon. friend's clause and the Government clause there was considerable similarity in the matters to be excluded from the purview of the delegated authority, and these having been enumerated by the Leader of the Opposition, the proposal was open to the formidable criticism of the right hon. Gentleman who said— " What, in the name of Heavon, will be left? " The question of the curriculum was raised, and he could not for a moment think that the Board of Education would hail an intention that it should be left to a delegated authority to determine the curriculum in every school. Anxious as were the country and the Board to consider the wants and feelings of a neighbourhood, and to excite interest in the children in the world around them—and this was the basis of all intelligent education—anxious as the Board were for that, they still wanted to maintain a good level of education, and, though the subjects might vary, the standard of excellence ought not to be allowed to be lowered in any part of the country. The Board would never favour the control of the curriculum by the delegated authority, but agreed that the delegated authority should have a voice in suggesting the curriculum. People were often singularly slow in ideas of their own until they were presented to them, and, unless informed, might assume that the same routine suited all parts of the county. They should not despise the duties that might be delegated because of their limitations, if there was enough in them to stir up local interest and local zeal in the general maintenance and management of schools. Visits to a school, though it did not include the right to appoint or dismiss a teacher, could be best undertaken by peop e on the spot. [Mr. BALFOUR: As inspectors?] He meant by " visiting the schools" taking an interest in the teaching; he was not thinking so much of inspection, but of taking an interest in the work; and this could be best done by people having right and responsibility by virtue of their representative character. Therefore he assumed there was a desire that an attempt should be made at delegation of certain powers to bodies as varied as possible in character, and not excluding the elective element. Although he quite agreed that it was substantial criticism to say they would have very little to do, yet there might be enough to arouse and maintain local interest in educational work. Here he put in a word for women. Nothing personally gave him more sorrow than the exclusion of women from the administration of the educational work of the country, for they were by common consent among the best members of the old school boards. It was work for which they were eminently fitted, considering the number of female children in our schools, and the whole character and abilities of women lent themselves to educational zeal. Though they could not be elected upon local councils, he hoped there would be no objection if the Government proposal enabled women to play a more useful, responsible part in a great work from which they ought never to have been excluded. He assumed that the Committee would not be indisposed to impose on the education authority an obligation within two years of framing a scheme in the manner indicated in the clause of which his hon. friend had given notice. He took exception to it, however, one respect. There were small counties, such as Huntingdon and Rutland, where it would be unreasonable to impose such an obligation, because the complaints which necessitated some change in larger areas did not apply to them. It might be provided that, in the event of a county council coming to the conclusion, after inquiry, that no scheme was necessary, a special report should be made to the Board of Education upon which that authority might be exempted. This might save a good deal of expense and irritation. The obligation would be general upon local authorities to make schemes, but in a few cases they might be released from the obligation. Speaking generally, there ought not to be much difficulty in the Government's framing a new clause which might come on for discussion not only on Report, but on the day in Committee for considering new clauses and schedules. Difficult as the task might be, the experiment should be made, for they were perishing for lack of interest, to the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan he always listened with interest, for the older he grew the better speaker he became, and every word he spoke on this Rill supported the object everybody had at heart; but it was no answer to say that what could be delegated would, after all, be no great matter. If it was a sufficient matter to excite interest, they would have done something, and it might be, as time went on and our smaller areas became more animated with the spirit of education and the love of education, more and more power might be given to them, and the time might come when even they might be competent to appoint a teacher. They might begin with a day of small things which would grow to large ones. There was a provision made for the audit of the accounts, a technical matter which would have to be inserted in any proposal. He could not move to omit Clause 26, but he could see that it did not stand part of the Bill when it was put, on the understanding that he introduced as soon as he possibly could, before the Committee stage ended, a clause which should attempt what he had indicated.

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)

regretted that the right hon. Gentleman in the interesting statement which he had made had not been able to give the Committee any hope of an elaborate discussion when the new clause came before it. It would come before the Committee with many others and this would be admittedly the most difficult and complicated of all. He would also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had obtained the assistance of the Local Government Board with regard to the drawing up of the clause. If he had not he would suggest that he should seek the assistance of that Department, so that the clause would be made really applicable to our local government system. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman was right in suggesting that there was any lack of zeal and energy upon the part of the local authorities in the matter of education. The lion. Gentleman the Member for Middleton and others on both sides of the House would admit that since the Act of 1902 was passed the local authorities had done excellent work in this direction, and had shown great zeal in doing their duty. But the education authorities had to cover very wide areas and, naturally, they had found it impossible to do the entire work to the general satisfaction of the locality. Ire admitted that if they could secure general control by a central authority and at the same time set up new areas of administration it would be a great advantage. But he was rather anxious when he heard of the exclusions that were to be made from the work to be done by these local authorities. He gathered from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman that there was very little to be done at present, but if these authorities justified their existence they would be given more to do in the future. If the right hon. Gentleman desired to have greater zeal in the future than there was at present he did not think he would attain that end by setting up these bodies and giving them no duties to perform. Devolution could only be attained in one way and that was that the Government should impose on the county councils the duty of framing schemes and give them, not only sufficient time to do so, but leave them a very wide discretion as to the form the scheme should take. When it came to the kind of body that was to be set up he was; surprised at the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, which seemed to suggest that women had been excluded from the administration of the Act of 1902. He believed they were—he did not like to use the word co-opted as it was considered ' offensive, but brought on to these bodies, and he thought under the new schemes women should be allowed to sit on these subordinate bodies. He understood that I there were to be two kinds of subordinate, bodies, one the body suggested in the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Middleton Division and the other thead hoc body. If it was left to the county councils to settle the areas, if there was any power of that kind given to the county councils, he very much questioned whether it would be popular or whether it was necessary or whether it would have the result the hon. Member for Middleton desired to attain. What the hon. Member wanted was that there should be smaller areas than those now represented by the county councils; that there should be popularly elected representatives properly fitted for the work they had to do and having devolved upon them important duties in which they should be made to take an active and zealous part. He did not see the necessity for setting up new popularly elected bodies in any particular town. He thought the right policy was not to make new areas which were only combinations of other local government areas. He would rather see them able to group towns together and have those areas separately established. That was a way in which they could meet the difficulty described by his noble friend. Everybody in the House had great confidence in the discretion and common sense, of the county councils as a whole, and on ' a question of this kind they and they alone could tell what would be the best areas and the best way of settling the question. He hoped when the clause was brought up it would be found to give the county councils a very wide discretion as to the formation of these areas; also that this policy would be imposed upon the county councils and that it would not be left to them to adopt a scheme on the initiation of any, subordinate authority. The Government knew what great inconvenience had been caused in the past by areas which had reached a population of 50,000 coming out of the area, becoming self-governing and leaving only the remnants to be governed by the county councils. Exactly the same result would take place if they allowed these changes to be made on the initiation of a small locality. He could not conceive anything worse than that there should be a patchwork system of that kind in the country. If they set up these bodies and created these new areas, real and not imaginary powers must be given to them, otherwise it would be difficult to get to serve the men and women whose services were worth having. He regretted that the discussion of this important subject was to be left to the fag end of the debates, and he hoped the Government would give their most careful consideration to the whole subject and invite the co-operation and assistance of the Local Government Board. He hoped the scheme would be drawn up in such a way as to give the local bodies the best chance of performing the duties to be entrusted to them successfully and well.

MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

thanked the Minister for Education for his sympathetic speech. To many workmen this was an important matter, especially in those areas where they formerly had school boards. Having lost these school boards under the 1902 Act it was impossible for them to take the same interest in educational affairs, and some step which would again give these men such an interest by enabling them to serve on these bodies would be accepted by them with extreme gratification. At present those who served on education committees felt themselves to be servants rather of the county council than of the district they represented, and that made a wonderful difference in their feelings. The proposal to give some financial powers to these bodies was advisable. The main thing to him was that it gave them power of management, which was the best feature of the scheme. The county council should take the initiative and not wait for local districts which had been laggard in regard to education to ask for these powers. Those who were responsible to-day for education should take the initiative in trying to rouse the feeling in smaller districts in favour of more direct responsibility for the education of the children. Some words should be inserted in the clause to enable women to serve on these bodies. If it was not convenient under this Bill to enable women to be elected to these bodies, at least the local authority should be given the power to appoint them to act on the committees, pending legislation which he hoped would deal with the whole subject of women serving on public bodies. It was an absurdity to talk about women being on the education authorities to-day. On the Lancashire, County Council there were seventy members and only two of them were women. Although these two did do useful work it was impossible for them to do the work that, say, a dozen women might do who were elected by the will of the people. He hoped the Minister for Education would not be too much influenced by the pessimistic speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. Some of the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman feared, he thought, would never be realised. He did hope that when the matter came before, them again this debate would have paved the way for a unanimous decision in favour of the principle foi which they were contending.

MR. CHEETHAM (Stalybridge)

said the Cheshire County Council, which had carried out an enlightened education policy, had, for the purposes of delegation, taken the poor law union as its area; an administrative committee had been set up in each area, partly composed of the representatives of the county council, representing divisions within the area, partly composed of those who represented the local bodies in the area, and a small body composed of co-opted members, amongst whom women were always included. These administrative sub-committees reported periodically to the county council, but they were very largely autonomous. The power to appoint and dismiss teachers, which had been very carefully barred under the clause of his right hon. friend, was entrusted to these committees in the case of all provided schools, and, he believed, with excellent effect, but the question of teachers' salaries was carefully reserved to the county council, and he was bound to say that the Cheshire authorities were agreed that it would be unwise to place any separate financial responsibilities upon these sub - committees. Their opinion was that it would lead to great difficulty in the finances of the county, and inevitably lead to differential rating; at the same time some districts might starve their schools. Though the principle that had been so successfully carried out in Cheshire differed from the proposals of the Government, he hoped nothing would be done which was likely to embarrass or prejudice in any way the operations of the county council of Cheshire.


feared that the Committee would not have any considerable opportunity of discussing the Government clause when it was brought up. Therefore, he hoped if this debate were prolonged it would be with a view to thrashing out the subject thoroughly, so that when they saw the new clause it would be framed in accordance with the opinion expressed; in the debate. He had always been; in favour of delegation. He was informed last year oh good authority that one county council was spending £30,000 a year on administration alone. This was partly owing to the size of the area and the difficulty which individual members had in dealing with the work. And a further argument for delegation was the extent to which work was falling and would fall into the hands of the organising secretary. The hon. Member for the Richmond Division, speaking a few days earlier, had said that no teacher ought to stay too long in one school, and the remedy suggested was that the organising secretary should look round and see when a teacher ought to be transferred from one district to another. That seemed to him to be putting too much power in the hands of the officials in a matter which concerned managers and parents and the wishes of a locality. Much as they desired delegation they were always confronted with the difficulty of how the body should be constituted and what powers should be delegated to it. Would it be a body electedad hoc?Was it to be a nominated body and were the county councils to choose the members? He doubted if that would meet the views of hon. Members on the Ministerial side who desired the localities to have a voice in the matter. Could they not devise a body by grouping existing local authorities and giving them power of co-option? He fully realised the importance of adding a number of women to serve on those bodies, but when hon. Members complained of the dearth of women they forgot that it was entirely the fault of the county councils that they had not co-opted women in larger numbers on to education, committees, and there really was no obstacle to placing women on boards of managers. But whilst this matter was still in abeyance—and it must be some time before any scheme of delegation could come into effect—was there not existing machinery which could be used? It had been said that it was impossible for the members of the education committee in some counties to cover the whole area and attend to all their duties owing to the configuration of the country. He thought that was an argument, for breaking up the area under Section 17 of the Act of 1902. It was said that the education committee was troubled with trifling matters which ought not to be brought before their notice. The local education committee under the schedule to the Act of 1902 could appoint as many sub-committees as it liked to deal with these small matters and thus relieve itself. That had been done with great success in several well organised counties. He agreed that the law should be strengthened so that the Board of Education might allow local authorities to adapt their constitution to the circumstances and requirements of their respective areas. Then there was the question of the work to be delegated and he thought that it would not be at all impossible to allow these smaller bodies to frame a budget every year and submit it to the local authority and they could then accept the responsibility of keeping within their proper expenditure. They might, assist the local authority in the choice of a teacher. It was most important that the people on the spot should be interested in the choice of teachers and have a voice in it. They might also advise the local authority as to the curriculum. If they got the local people personally interested in the schools they could do a good. deal to assist the teacher to take an interest in the children and in their homes and help to raise the standard of the school.


said that after the sympathetic speech of the Minister for Education he desired to withdraw his Amendment.


asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give them some assurance that in the new clause or in some other way means would be given to secure the delegation of rating as well as other powers. It was a question of considerable interest in the West Riding of Yorkshire. The inequalities alluded to by the hon. Member for Thirsk were nothing like so great as those in his part of the county,

e would not enter into details, but he would mention the circumstances. In the rural parts of the West Riding they were paying a rate of 11d. in the £, whilst just across the river, in the East end in the North Riding, they were paying a rate of 6d. Practically and to all intents and purposes the same value in education was being received. He considered some means ought to be found by which rural districts which were not getting the same educational advantages as the urban districts paid for what they actually received. He did not say that in the urban districts full value might not be received; and a great deal of the increased expenditure was due to the great congestion to which reference had been made. The machinery of the West Riding had absolutely broken down under the centralisation effected. What he asked the right hon. Gentlemen to consider was whether it was not possible that this serious grievance might, to some extent, be relieved, because at the present time what made education so unpopular in his part of Yorkshire was the feeling that it was so expensive. They would never get the people in the rural parts of the West Riding interested in education unless they were assured that they got full value for the rate levied. He was perfectly convinced that that assurance would make it far more easy for the problem to be solved and would create interest in education in the, rural districts.

MR. WINFREY (Norfolk, S.W.)

believed that if they gave the people a directly elected body they would meet what was most desired in all districts, and it might be done, so far as he could see, without the addition of a direct election. They might elect their delegated educational authority with the same ballot paper as was used in the election of the parish and rural district councils, and he thought this course was well worth the attention of the Minister for Education. In 1894 he was a returning officer for a considerable district at the first election of parish councils, and he had no difficulty in getting the electors to elect their parish council and rural district council on the same ballot paper. This course would, he urged, solve all difficulties about women, because they would only have to say that every man and woman in that area was eligible as a candidate.

MR. VERNEY (Buckinghamshire, N.)

said he agreed with the previous speaker that very much would depend on the nature of the election of the local bodies to which duties in regard to education were to be delegated. If they had direct power given to them by the people for whom they acted they would exercise their responsibility and authority in a much more natural and effective manner than if they were indirectly appointed. The Leader of the Opposition had expressed very serious doubt as to what powers should be given to the local bodies, but a gentleman of great experience had stated that almost all the powers which he doubted could be safely given to the local authorities were actually being used by the local authorities under the existing law. With regard to the bodies themselves he thought nothing would be more likely to secure the services of thoroughly good men than the giving of the same kind of powers, saving financial powers, as were actually exercised by the late school boards—he did not say all but nearly all of them. They had over thirty years experience on which to go. Some of the school boards had been great failures, but it was well-known that others, even in country districts, had been great successes. They ought to level up and not level down in any new legislation which might be passed. He sympathised with his hon. friend the Member for Staly-bridge in expressing the fear lest new legislation should be in the nature of a limitation rather than an extension of the powers which were now freely and rightly exercised. At a thoroughly represent tive meeting held the other day the National Education Association passed a resolution declaring that no system could be satisfactory where the schools were not effectually under the control of the local ratepayers and parents. He thought that expression of opinion was worthy of the attention of the Committee.

MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

joined in advocating a return to the ad hoc authority which would enable them again to have the presence of women at the meetings of the educational bodies. He sincerely hoped that when the Government brought forward their clause it would contain no statutory provision limiting the powers of the county councils to delegate. The smaller the area receiving the delegated power the better, because then the parents took more interest in the authority which governed the schools. Nothing could be sadder to an educationist than to hear what had been said by the Minister for Education about the lack of interest in education. That he was afraid showed the failure of educational effort during the last thirty-six years. The great point was to cultivate the interest of the community in education, and if they separated the education of the children from their parents and the small parishes in which they lived they would deprive the community of the best educational institution in the world, and then they would have the catastrophe of lack of interest in education. Once there was that lack of interest then good-bye to education of any kind worth having. He hoped power would be given to the local authorities to arrange the curriculum. Why was there such a terrible objection to giving them powers to make by-laws and to arrange the hours of school attendance? Some father might want to take his child away from book-learning to teach him gardening or agriculture— something that would be of real use during the remainder of its life. Certainly i it was much better to make a good gardener or a good carpenter than a bad clerk.

SIR PHILIP MAGNUS (London University)

said it was very satisfactory to see the amount of unanimity that prevailed in the Committee on the question of devolution. He joined with the other Members who had expressed their opinion in favour of devolving certain powers on the smaller bodies representing smaller areas. It had been generally recognised in educational matters that he administration of elementary education might be entrusted to small areas, while it was advisable that the administration of secondary and higher education should be confined to much larger areas, and for that reason he welcomed the announcement made by the President of the Board of Education that Clause 25 of the Bill had been withdrawn. While they were all unanimous with regard to the matter of devolution, he thought they were all equally agreed as to the difficulties the Minister for Education had to face in framing a scheme which would give effect to the views expressed by different Members of the House. The hon. Member for the Sleaford Division was in favour of a certain kind of education only, and did not approve of book learning. In many respects he sympathised with him, and for that reason he would be very glad indeed that the smaller bodies should have the opportunity of making suggestions with regard to the curriculum that was to be pursued in many of the elementary schools. At the same time he appreciated very fully the difficulties which had been referred to with regard to the question of differential rating. He feared very much that if differential rating were introduced in the rural districts it would not be the richer but the poorer areas that would thereby suffer. Certainly that would be the case in Surrey where, as a member of the education committee of the county council he had some experience. There the effect of any differentiation of the rate would be that parishes with a large rateable value and a comparatively small working population would suffer at the expense of other parishes. It had been suggested on the other side that it would be advisable, if it could be done, to introduce the old school board arrangement. The suggestion was made largely because the interest in education had not been maintained under the 1902 Act. His own experience was exactly in the opposite direction. He certainly believed that by entrusting the arrangements of education to the municipal bodies and county councils they had increased to a very large extent the interest of the people in education, and he should not be at all disposed to see any return to the school board system. It had been suggested by, he thought, the Minister for Education that it might be advisable that the bodies to whom the devolved powers were to be entrusted should be elected ad hoc. He deprecated any increase in the number of ad hoc elections, but he should not be altogether opposed to certain members of those bodies being popularly elected. He sincerely trusted that the Minister for Education in considering what should be the constitution of the new bodies would take into account the desirableness of introducing into the constitution some system of co-option. The Minister for Education very much objected to the word co-optative. He himself should be very glad to substitute the word "added," but it was most important, even if these bodies consisted largely of persons popularly elected, that there should at the same time be persons added to the bodies who would not he willing to undergo the trouble of popular election, but who, nevertheless, were deeply interested in educational matters and would be very glad to serve on such bodies. He would like to see a number of women appointed on these bodies. He fully agreed with every word which had fallen from the Minister for Education and other Members as to the very great importance of interesting people in their own local schools. For his part he did not attach so much importance to the character of the duties which were likely to be assigned to these bodies. The most important thing, in his opinion, was to interest the people in their own schools and to allow the members of the delegations to make suggestions in regard to the curriculum, and to add to those bodies persons who could, even in an advisory capacity, render valuable service. On all these grounds he was strongly in favour of the principle of devolution, and he hoped that it would not be beyond the powers of the Minister for Education to bring up a clause which would meet these views.


said he did not want to deal again with this important subject, and he only rose to warn the Committee that though there had been a great amount of unanimity of opinion-as to the desirability of dealing with this subject, nevertheless it was not the kind of unanimity which indicated the rapid passage of any measure designed to carry out the general wish. True, they were all in favour of some measure of devolution; but every Gentleman had his own fad, as the debate had shown, and underlying the general agreement there was a very wide divergence of opinion representing not Party, but the natural division of opinion among men who approached from different points of view a complicated and difficult problem. He did not think that this debate should come to an end now. And he was strengthened in that opinion by the fact that when the new clause came to be considered other clauses which must demand a certain amount of consideration would have to be dealt with on the same day. He submitted that it was impossible to deal satisfactorily with this problem under the present severe limitations of time, and that it must be dealt with in a separate Bill. He was sorry to appear to be a gloomy critic, but he did not see how they could mix this question up with the other controversial matters which must occupy so much of their time. They would have less than a week to consider it. He doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman would be able to put his proposal on the Paper before the end of the week or Monday; and he therefore suggested, in a friendly spirit, whether it would not be desirable to embody the proposal in a separate Bill, so that full opportunity should be given to everybody concerned, whether the local authorities or Members of the House, to consider the problem in all its aspects. He was sure that what they were now trying to do they would not be able to do in the brief time that was available.


said that, while recognising the friendly spirit of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not really think that the problem presented very great difficulty, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. He did not feel that there was anything in the proposed new clause which need alarm hon. Gentlemen or lead them to suppose that if it became law it would be dangerous or interfere with the future development of devolution. Admitting that the drafting of the clause would be a somewhat difficult task and that it would not confer upon the smaller areas all the powers which they might some day, he hoped a not distant day, have entrusted to them, it would still be a step in the right direction. He would give the matter most careful consideration, and he was not without hope that a clause might be introduced, and discussed both in Committee and on Report, which might be regarded as a minimum clause, and as such receive general support.

COLONEL WILLIAMS (Dorsetshire, W.)

said that in his own county they had tried hard to delegate matters to the school managers, but had found that if purchasing powers were included it would involve a separate audit for each school, and it would result in putting an additional burden on the county of something like £500 a year. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to adopt the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to bringing in a new Bill. As to the matter of rating, anybody who knew the country districts knew that chaos reigned. For the last three or four years and since the Report of the Rating Commission they had been hoping for reform. This new provision as to delegation and devolution would, however, make things worse. If once a wrong beginning was made, of course they went in a wrong direction, and it was better to make a right beginning however tentative. He did not think that the clause contained all the provisions which were necessary to ensure justice. Therefore he thought they had better put off the consideration of the matter for a time. The debate however was a most encouraging sign, as it showed both interest and knowledge of the subject. It could not have taken place five years ago, but it showed that although knowledge on this subject had crystallised, it had not done so in any particular form, and at the present moment the House was not ready to bring about devolution. They could wait for six months for a better considered scheme; therefore he thought the question had better be deferred and that they should not cumber their discussions with it.

LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)

said he had been asked by the Lancashire County Council to lay their views before the Committee. He had listened to this debate with great care, and the more he had listened to it the more he was convinced that hon. Members, although they were agreed upon an ideal, were most hopelessly divided as to the method by which that ideal could be attained. The clause of the hon. Member for Middleton would hardly; survive the criticism of the hon. Member for North Camberwell. The President of the Board of Education had said that he was most anxious that they should agree about this subject and that the Government proposed to bring in a new clause. But he had given no indication whatever as to what his new clause was going to contain. Would it give the local bodies powers in regard to the salary and dismissal of teachers? He was confident, that it would not give the delegated body any power to make by-laws as to attendance, which was really the important point, or to deal with the curriculum. Capital charges and rent were also to be excluded, and he wanted to know what powers were to be given. A very interesting speech had been made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge, in the course of which he said —" For goodness sake, whatever you do in your new clause, do not interfere with our system in Cheshire, which is working admirably." He did not know what was done under that scheme, but he knew that the experience of the Lancashire County Council led them to condemn the idea of devolution very strongly indeed from various points of view. He did not say that he agreed with them in everything they said, but he wished to lay before the Committee the views of the Lancashire Education Committee, who represented the Lancashire education authority. They had issued a criticism of the clause and they said it would increase the difficulties of administration. That was a very serious thing to say. They pointed out that it would introduce a system of dual control, complicate the keeping of accounts, increase the assessments of particular parishes, and inevitably increase expenditure in consequence of the division of responsibility. Finally they said that in the interests of the county the clause should be opposed. He did not go so far as that himself, but he wished to state their view.


said the Report of the full Educational Committee of the County Council showed that they only approved of the Report of the sub-committee as regarded Clause 26 with a proviso that they would be prepared to delegate some of their powers including school management to smaller local authorities.


said he was aware of that, but objection was taken to the divided responsibility and the increased expenditure which would arise under Clause 26. These were subjects which would require the most careful consideration of the Government. The Amendments of the Government would be placed upon the Paper at the latest possible moment, and he could not believe from the speech made by the Minister for Education that he had any idea of what his new clause was going to contain. He did not suppose that they should see it for two or three days, and what he wanted to know was whether if the House had no time to consider it the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw it and deal with the matter in a separate Bill at some later period. For his part he would prefer to see the consideration of the clause postponed to a more fitting period, as the subject was fraught with great complexity.


said that those hon. Members who were interested in the administration of education were entitled to have sufficient time to discuss a matter of this kind in all its bearings, and it was quite obvious that when this new clause was brought forward there would not be time for discussing the question fully. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not assume that either the House or the county councils were unanimous upon the question. The County Council of Lancashire felt very strongly against Clause 26 as it stood at present. There was a great objection to the multiplication of machinery, and as the Bill now stood machinery was piled upon machinery. There was not sufficient work to be divided amongst these different authorities or bodies. In Lancashire they already had under the present Act a system of devolution and district committees set up for this purpose, and the universal complaint there was that there was not sufficient work for these committees to do. Under this Bill similar committees were to be set up in all the other counties of England. It was for that reason that the matter was of such vital importance to those who had to deal with the question in the counties. Those who had to deal with it said that they should be allowed sufficient time to consider these questions and that they should not be squeezed into ten minutes at the end of the day.

Amendment negatived.

MR, YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)

said he had an Amendment to leave out the words in the second line of the clause " or of any parish," in order to insert " having a population of not less than thirty thousand." He understood the right hon. Gentleman had given an undertaking to extend these powers to parish councils. To that lie himself was quite opposed, and it was for that reason he moved this Amendment in order to give the Committee an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. While he was thoroughly in sympathy with the idea of delegation there was no reason why it should go too far in that direction; there was no virtue in the word " delegation," and the virtue of the system remained only so long as the principle was properly applied. He did not gather from his right hon. friend that he proposed to exempt a single parish from the provisions of this new clause. Of course if the right hon. Member did propose to exempt the smaller parishes, and would give an assurance to that effect, he would withdraw the Amendment. The effect of the Amendment would be to limit the power for application for delegated powers to authorities in districts with a population of 30,000 and over.


said he did not propose to grant an extension of this clause so as to give the power of initiation to any particular parish. That was one objection to the clause, and in the new clause he should adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Middleton and leave it entirely for the local authority to say what the delegation area should be. It might very well be that the local authority might consider some of these parish councils were proper authorities to whom to delegate these powers, but that he could not say. As the clause was not going to stand part of the Bill it seemed to him hardly necessary to move the Amendment.


said that as he understood from the right hon. Gentleman that in the clause proposed there was no compulsion on the county councils to extend these powers to single parishes, he would not move the Amendment.


said he thought this matter should be discussed, and he would therefore move the Amendment pro forma.

Amendment proposed— In page 16, line 17, to leave out the words ' or of any parish.' "—(Lord Balcarres.)


suggested it was hardly necessary to proceed with the discussion of an Amendment of a clause which was not going to remain part of the Bill. The subject had already been fully discussed and he thought it was undesirable to continue this verbal criticism.


said he quite understood the desire not to debate questions that might arise again hereafter, but as he had pointed out with regard to a previous Amendment it was not only possible, but it was quite conceivable, that they might not have an opportunity of discussing this new clause when it came before the Committee. It was not the right hon. Gentleman's fault, but he knew that the operation of the closure would prevent any but the briefest discussion. He thought there ought to be an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that in drafting his clause, steps would be taken to make it clear that there would only be delegation where there was a population of a certain size.


did not think county councils were at all likely to select imperfectly equipped, unsuitable parishes for their experiments in delegation, and therefore it did not seem necessary to have this safeguard, but he would give the matter careful consideration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause disagreed to.

Clause 27:—


said the existing local authorities had already compulsory powers to purchase land, but none to purchase it by agreement; his object was to insert words to make it possible to purchase land either compulsorily or by agreement: he begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 16, line 38, to leave out the word ' compulsory.' "—(Sir James Woodhouse.)

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


said that this was a technical clause which he supposed the Committee would like to have explained. The first subsection gave the educational authorities the same power to acquire land compulsorily for the purpose of higher education as they had now for the purpose of elementary education. The county council already possessed this power under a section of the Local Government Act of 1888. The result of this section was to put county boroughs on terms of equality with county councils in this respect. There seemed to be some doubt whether they had the power to acquire land by agreement for the purpose of secondary education. He did not think there was any doubt, but as doubt was entertained, they might as well get rid of it, and he agreed that the words in the subsection should read " for the purchase of land either compulsorily or by agreement."

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed— '' In page 16, line 38, to insert the words ' either compulsorily or by agreement.' " —(Sir James Woodhouse.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted "


pointed out that the law affecting the purchase of land by compulsion was contained in a great many statutes and was a somewhat complicated question. He should like some assurance as to the exact effect of what was now proposed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 17, line 22, to leave out the words ' Board of Education ' and to insert the words local education authority.' "—(Lord Balcarres.)

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


said he would look into the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That Clause 27, as amended, stand part of the Bill."


asked the President of the Board of Education whether he would be prepared before the Report stage of the Bill to consider the extension of the principle of the clause. The clause permitted for the first time an education authority which had acquired land for one educational purpose to apply it to another educational purpose. Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to allow land purchased by a local authority, which was also the educational authority, for other local purposes to be utilised for educational purposes and vice versa? It was quite obvious that there should be some safeguard. For instance, if land intended for a public garden was to be used for a school, there might be some objection. and a local inquiry might be necessary to safeguard the interests of those concerned.

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

said he regarded the proposal which had been made with some apprehension, and he hoped the Government would not accept the suggestion of the hon. Member. The accounts of local authorities were already exceedingly complicated, and confusion of the most serious character might easily arise if this power were given. The hon. Member for Sunderland suggested that land purchased for a public garden and sanctioned by the Local Government Board should be applied to educational purposes, when really the loan for that purpose ought to be sanctioned by the Board of Education under this clause. Under those circumstances it would be impossible for the Local Government Board to know whether the loan had been properly applied, and confusion of the most serious character might arise which would complicate the accounts of the local committees still more than they were at present. He desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was meant by the words in sub-section (3)— The Board of Education shall order such equitable adjustment thereof to be made as they think right under the circumstances. The only meaning that occurred to him was that where land had been bought for an elementary school and was used for a secondary school, the secondary school would benefit a larger area, and therefore there must be a readjustment. He thought that would be a very complicated and difficult measure to carry out, and might give rise to considerable local feeling. He did not see in the clause any machinery for a local inquiry.


said the meaning of the words referred to was exactly what the noble Lord stated. A certain portion of the expense of building an elementary school was thrown on the parish on the ground that it served the purposes of that parish only; but if a secondary school was substituted a larger area was served, and in that case a readjustment would be necessary to secure justice. The noble Lord said he did not see the machinery. The Board of Education would, of course, satisfy itself by local inquiry or otherwise with regard to the facts. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland, that was really a local government question. He did not know that he could object to the appropriation to educational purposes of land acquired for some other purpose. He would consider that, but he could not see his way to take the converse case into consideration. He did not see that any hardship would be done by land acquired for one purpose being devoted to an educational purpose, although he should object to land acquired for educational purposes being devoted to any other purpose.


said he thought the Minister for Education would find that it was not merely a question of land acquired for local government purposes being used for educational purposes. These powers were more likely to be used for speculative purposes. He thought Parliament ought to discourage, in the interests of the ratepayers, the speculative purchase of land, upon which local authorities were so often urged to enter. As to the criticism which bad been made by his noble friend, he thought the President of the Board of Education would be well advised to transfer jurisdiction in this matter from the Board of Education to the. Local Government Board, which was already accustomed to discharge similar tasks.


said it would be a dangerous thing to enable local authorities to acquire land which might be used for speculative purposes, and which would entail a great increase in the rates; but local authorities often possessed land which, acquired for a special purpose, was no longer of use for that purpose, and to debar it from using it because there was no machinery to enable it to do so, seemed to him to be absurd. It might be subject to any special permission of the Local Government Board, but to continue to refuse to sanction the use of it was only what one might expect from an extreme Tory. We had recently had a visit from the German municipalities, and one of the most remarkable circumstances which they had brought to our knowledge was that in a large number of towns in Germany they were almost free from rates, because they had: had the prudence to acquire, through the medium of their municipalities, large areas of land round their towns which they had been able to turn to the advantage of the communities. Whenever he heard alarm expressed that municipalities were not to be entrusted with powers to make these acquisitions, he could only say it was very inconsistent with entrusting them with the powers which this House was constantly conferring upon them.


said his own experience of the accounts of local authorities did not lead him to take so roseate a view. He would like to know if the Board of Trade had any power to direct an inquiry. The powers of the Local Government Board in this matter were much more general.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 28:—

MR. ARMITAGE (Leeds, Central)

moved an Amendment extending the period for the repayment of loans to eighty years. He thought we might be sure the school buildings would last for that length of time, and we had almost reached, if not quite reached, the period of their final development, so that there was not much risk that they would soon be out of date. He was aware that objections were entertained to granting long periods of repayment to local authorities, but he thought there was a great deal to be said in favour of this Amendment in reference to the school buildings. As a rule the sites for these schools were chosen in the midst of large centres of population, and instead of decreasing would be almost sure to increase in value. If hon. Members could see the new schools which were being put up in a city like Leeds, they would know the kind of development that was going on. It had been said that in some cases losses had been made by local authorities, but that had occurred mostly in cases where the money had been spent upon trading concerns which had not reached their final stage of development, such as the machinery for gasworks and electric lighting works. In such speculations as those a shorter period of repayment was absolutely necessary. In a case like this, where there was no machinery, he felt sure that there could be no risk in giving to the local authorities powers to repay over the period of eighty years. The nearer they got to theoretical perfection in these buildings the longer should be the term over which repayment of loans could be legitimately spread. The cost of the repayment of the loans was very heavy on the local authorities. The education rates in this country, raised by the local authorities, had been growing in a much larger ratio than the contributions from the Imperial Exchequer. The figures for the last three years showed that while the contributions from the Imperial Exchequer had averaged less than an increase of 7 per cent., the increase in the money that had had to be raised by the local authorities was upwards of 21 per cent, each year. The rates were a great burden on large and growing communities, and a great service would be done to them if under proper regulations the period for the repayment of loans could be somewhat extended. Although the term for cities was sixty years it was almost impossible to get a loan for that period. In the city of Leeds there was only one site of a school in connection with which the repayment was sixty years. That was a site for a school for cripple children, and the amount was only £1,408. The loans for all the other sites were repayable within fifty years. If the repayment of loans for school sites could be spread over eighty years, as in the case of cottages for the working classes, there would be a great saving on the repayments. That saving would greatly benefit the education committees in the work they were undertaking. If it was right to allow repayment over eighty years in the case of cottages for the housing of the working classes, surely it might be claimed that loans on the schools attended by their children might be repaid over a similar period.

Amendment proposed— In page 17, line 31, to leave out the word ' sixty ' and insert the word ' eighty.'"—(Mr. Armitage.)

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


said the clause itself extended the period for repayment of loans from thirty to sixty years, which was a very substantial extension. His hon. friend now wished further to extend the time for repayment from sixty to eighty years. In the clause the Government had given the extreme period. He really thought that none of the arguments submitted in support of the Amendment ought to convince the Committee that the period should be extended further. His hon. friend might think it was a counsel of perfection to say that a locality would do better if it did not borrow at all. There would be no relief given to the ratepayers by long borrowing. In the long run the localities would have to pay nearly twice as much. The value of sites in towns did not always increase. Sites which were valuable and costly might in twenty years lose a great deal of their value. There was no security whatever that schools put up now: would in eighty years time be at all suitable for the requirements of that day.


said he had some experience of local loans and he was sure it was wisest for Parliament to discourage these loans for long periods. They were financially bad. No one could tell what would be the requirements of education in thirty years time. There had been great and revolutionary changes in the past, and he believed there would be changes of no less importance in the near future. As trustees for the next generation they would act unwisely if they put on them a burden of which we ourselves were unwilling to bear a share.

MR. J. F. MASON (Windsor)

, in opposing the Amendment, said the question of the period of repayment of loans of this kind was equivalent to the question of depreciation of plant in industrial concerns. The period of sixty years was equivalent to something under 1966¾ per cent, of depreciation. The depreciation of plant was usually, and ought always to be, fixed by the consideration of how long the plant would actually take to wear out or how long it would be before it was obsolete. He thought school buildings came under the second heading. It was quite evident that the time must come when the buildings which were put up to-day would be as unfit for the purposes for which they were built as other buildings in the past were unfit for the purposes of to-day. Of the schools built between 1870 and 1875 there were exceedingly few which now remained in their original condition. If they existed at all, large sums had been spent in altering them and bringing them up to the requirements of the period. It was not fair to draw an analogy between schools and dwelling houses with relation to the question of the repayment of loans. Dwelling houses were not subject, as schools were, to the demands of fashion, theadvancing demands of science, and the variation of opinions of successive inspectors. It was absolutely unreasonable to suppose that the schools which were put up to-day would suffice for the requirements of more than one generation. If that was so, it would be most unfair and unwise to burden two generations with their cost. It would make it exceedingly difficult for our grandchildren to face the necessary requirements of their own age. Besides it was demoralising to our own age to encourage extravagance at the expense of future ratepayers.


asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


moved an Amendment that repayment of loans for building schools should be under the Education Act, 1902. He explained that he moved the Amendment in order to give the Minister for Education an opportunity of stating what the intention was with regard to loans raised under the old system since the passing of the Act of 1902. When the Act of 1870 was passed the universal term allowed by the Education Department for the repayment of loans was fifty years, and when in 1893 their powers of regulating loans were transferred to the Local Government Board that period was cut down to thirty years. Now the Education Department very properly proposed to extend the period to sixty years; but if that was right, it was also right that those local education authorities who had been compelled to conform to the Act of 1902 and borrow at the limit of thirty years should have the same facilities extended to them which would be enjoyed by other bodies. It was with that object that he proposed to make the Act retrospective.

Amendment proposed— In page 17, line 38, at the end, to add the words,' and the Local Government Board may extend, to a period not exceeding sixty years from the date of the original loan, the period within which any loan raised by a local education authority for the purposes of the Education Acts after the passing of the Education Act, 1902, shall be repaid.'"—(Sir James Woodhouse.)

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


said that the effect of the Amendment would be to make the clause retrospective, and this would be impracticable. The lender who had agreed to a loan on the understanding that it would be repaid at the end of thirty years could not be made to extend the period without his consent. The clause dealt as favourably as possible with the circumstances of the case. It would cover any existing loan that could be reborrowed with the consent of both parties. He hoped, therefore, his hon. friend would be satisfied with having raised the question. The Amendment was one which the Government could not possibly accept.


said that it was a hardship on certain necessitous areas that the per 0d for the repayment of the loan should have been curtailed by the Act of 1902. There was no reason why the period should not be extended with the consent of a willing lender and a willing borrower; and he hoped the matter would receive the serious consideration of the Government.

MR. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.)

said he thought that a few words might be put into the clause by which an extension of the period of repayment of the loan might be granted when the lender and the borrower both desired it. He could not see why a penalty should be imposed on the most energetic authorities who had borrowed between 1902 and 1905, while the authorities which had lagged behind were to get the advantage of a repayment extending over sixty years.


said he wanted to make the Act retrospective only to 1902. He believed it would be impossible for the parties to come to an arrangement, because the Local Government Board had not the power to consent to such an arrangement.


said that the Bill used the word " reborrowings." The hon. Member did not wish the existing annuity on an existing loan to be paid over a longer period of years. He wanted a smaller annuity to be made for a larger number of years. When that was agreed to between the parties, it constituted a fresh loan. If the hon. Member read the clause carefully he would see that it secured his object in the best way.


said he thought that those authorities who had borrowed for a period of thirty years were in a far better position than those who had borrowed for a period of sixty years. If local bodies incurred two loans at different dates it would be a most extravagant mode of municipal finance. He hoped that nothing would be done to accentuate the already difficult position in regard to rating.

SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)

said he was in favour of the view taken by the Secretary of the Board of Education with regard to reborrowings. He thought the view which the hon. Gentleman had expressed was a very sound one.


said he was willing to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. J. F. MASON (Windsor)

moved to reduce the period from sixty to thirty-five years. He agreed with the argument of the Lancashire Education Committee that the length and period, although convenient to the spending authority, was bad for future ratepayers, and that the accumulations of municipal debts were largely due to the facilities for borrowing which had been afforded. He was encouraged to think that the Government were disposed to adopt this Amendment through the statement of the Secretary to the Board of Education to the effect that we had no proof that a building would be useful for school purposes after eighty years had elapsed. He thought this or a similar Amendment ought to be accepted.

Amendment proposed— In page 17, line 31, to leave out the word 'sixty' and insert the words 'thirty-five.'"— {Mr. J. F. Mason.)

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


, with complete sympathy with the economic reasoning for the Amendment, justified the period of sixty years on the ground that it was now allowed to local authorities. He pointed out that it did not follow that money would be borrowed for sixty years; that was simply the limit of the period.

MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster)

considered that the first speech of the Secretary to the Board of Education was the strongest argument for the Amendment, because he said that the local authority should raise such credit as it could upon the cash of the year. That was stated by the hon. Gentleman to be an ideal position, and the question now was whether the Government were not going to the other extreme by putting in a period of sixty years instead of the more legitimate and wise period of thirty-five years. His hon. friend the Member for Windsor had stated that schools built since 1870 had had to be almost re-built. That was quite true; but more remained. In London, since 1903, the new education authority had insisted on further large and costly changes. There was no such finality in school building and equipment as would justify involving the ratepayers for sixty years in the present expenditure. Not only would new requirements constantly arise, but new inventions were always appearing which had to be utilised. It was common knowledge that new and cheaper methods of building, just as permanent as now, were being adopted. In thirty-five years it might be possible to build a better school for half the present cost. But the ratepayers would then find themselves loaded for another twenty-five years with the cost of the old ones, under the present clause. There was another point which he submitted it was legitimate to make, and of great importance. The history of such loans was one of constantly falling interest. Who could say that in another thirty-five years money would not be obtainable for such purposes at a lower rate of interest, than now? But for twenty-five years after that, if this Amendment was rejected, the ratepayers would have to pay the existing rate. The only argument advanced in favour of sixty years was that other bodies now had power to borrow for that period, but to his mind, because a bad example had been set, that was no argument in favour of its being followed. He thought that the whole position of ratepayers at the present time was one which should make them very careful about increasing their present heavy burdens. Prudence, economy, and consideration for ratepayers all demanded that local authorities should not be tempted by the long period to borrow to an extravagant extent.


was doubtful whether the system of supervision over proposed new schools as exercised by the Board of Education and the Local Government Board provided adequate security that the money was properly expended or that the ratepayers got the worth of their money. He was not quite sure that the dual control which was proposed would produce the admirable result which had been suggested. The Board of Education said that the plans of the school would meet their requirements and the Local Government Board said that the financial condition of the local authority was such that they were able to bear the burden, and between the two the ratepayers had no option. The Committee must bear in mind that the ratepayers had what was called a wasting security. In the ordinary course of things these buildings decayed and needed repair and might in time cease to be required. New board schools were often exceedingly costly in their construction, and conditions might change and a building cease to serve its purpose while the ratepayers were still groaning under the burden of the charge for its erection. Having regard to all these circumstances, the great cost of the building, the doubtful nature of the supervision exercised over the cost between two Government Departments, each efficient, who did not bring concentrated opinion to bear upon the precise worth of the return for the money which the local authority were beginning to expend on a school; having regard to the fact that conditions might change in twenty-five years, while the ratepayers might go on paying for sixty years; having regard to the fact that the rate of interest might fall and that the ratepayers as time went on might be paying a rate of interest in excess of the rate of the day—having regard to all these circumstances he confessed that fifty years which was the period allowed for repayment of school loans before the Act of 1902 was passed seemed to him a full if not excessive period for which a loan should run. The Board of Education should consider this matter very carefully before they encouraged the local authorities in their very natural desire to come up to the ideal of efficiency set up by the educational views or fancies of the day and so to spend more money than they ought. He thought greater economy might be exercised without in any way affecting the comfort or efficiency of the schools. The Board of Education ought to think seriously before they gave this additional stimulant to the natural tendency of our municipal bodies to be magnificent in their dealings with money at the expense of posterity.


desired to say one word of protest against the extension of the period to sixty years. The reasons given for it were quite inadequate. They did not know who asked for the change or whether it was really required. His view was that the Government well knew that the £1,000,000 provided in Clause 12 of the Bill would be wholly insufficient to meet the great burdens placed on the local authority by this measure. If they adopted this measure of bad finance what was the burden on the education authority? The Lancashire Education Committee, which took no objection to this clause on educational grounds, took the very greatest objection to it on the ground that it was economically unsound. The hon. Member who opened the debate had suggested eighty years instead of sixty. That was manifestly impossible, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education a few minutes previously had drawn attention to the fact that the words of the Act were not " sixty years," but " not exceeding sixty years," and he appealed to his right hon. friend beside him as a guarantee against extravagance. He hoped that there were other Members of the Treasury Bench besides the President of the Local Government Board who would protest against extravagance. Did school buildings last for sixty years? Was there one building put up sixty years ago which could be said to be up to modern requirements? He denied it most emphatically, and the best illustration he could give was London. There were schools built in London in 1870–1871, but not one of those buildings existed now in its primitive condition. In view of that state of things how was it reasonable to urge that the period of extension for the repayment of loans for these buildings should be

extended from thirty-five years to sixty? He submitted that no adequate reason could be urged for making this long extension. From an economic point of view these proposals were thoroughly bad. No one had been stronger against this policy of loans than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had abandoned in one Department the practice of having loans altogether, yet through another public Department in which loans were far less necessary than loans for naval and military works, the Government came down and extended the system in a manner which was most grave and dangerous.

MR. SUMMERBELL (Sunderland)

hoped the Government would adhere to their clause. Municipal authorities had for twenty years been asking for an extension of the time for such repayment. It was said it would lead to municipal extravagance. He considered that municipal extravagance would compare very favourably with national extravagance. He denied that the extension of time would lead to extravagance. There was such a thing as starvation in regard to the matter, and by the extension borough councils and county councils would be able to carry out the work of education with more efficiency and economy, whereas now they were crippled by the short period allowed. As one who had taken part in the agitation he was pleased with the change proposed, and hoped the Government would adhere to the sixty instead of the thirty years.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 309; Noes, 66. (Division List No. 213.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Barnard, E. B. Billson, Alfred
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Barran, Rowland Hirst Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine
Adkins. W. Ryland D. Beauchamp, E. Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff.)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Beck, A. Cecil Blake, Edward
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Bell, Richard Boland, John
Armitage, R. Bellairs, Carlyon Bolton. T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.)
Astbury, John Meir Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonport) Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.) Brace, William
Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.) Bennett, E. N. Bramsdon, T. A.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Bertram, Julius Branch, James
Barker, John Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford) Brigg, John
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Brocklehurst, W. B.
Brodie, H. C. Halpin, J. Micklem, Nathaniel
Brooke, Stopford Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis Mond, A.
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh) Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Money, L. G. Chiozza
Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire) Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Montagu, E. S.
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) Hart-Davies, T. Montgomery, H. G.
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Morley, Rt. Hon. John
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Hayden, John Patrick Morse, L. L.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Hazel, Dr. A. E. Murphy, John
Byles, William Pollard Hazleton, Richard Murray, James
Cameron, Robert Helme, Norval Watson Myer, Horatio
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Napier, T. B.
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.) Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)
Chance, Frederick William Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Nicholls, George
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Higham, John Sharp Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)
Clancy, John Joseph Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Nolan, Joseph
Clarke, C. Goddard Hodge, John Norman, Henry
Cleland, J. W. Hogan, Michael Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Clough, W. Holden, E. Hopkinson Nuttall, Harry
Clynes, J. R. Hooper, A. G. O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)
Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.) Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N) O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Cogan, Denis J. Horniman, Emslie John O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Horridge, Thomas Gardner O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Hyde, Clarendon O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Corbett, C.H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd) Illingworth, Percy H. O'Grady, J.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Jackson, R. S. O'Hare, Patrick
Cowan, W. H. Jacoby, James Alfred O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo N.)
Crean, Eugene Jenkins, J. O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)
Cremer, William Randal Johnson, John (Gateshead) O'Malley, William
Crooks, William Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Crossley, William J. Jones, Leif (Appleby) O'Shee, James John
Cullinan, J. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Parker, James (Halifax)
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Jowett, F. W. Partington, Oswald
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Kearley, Hudson E. Paul, Herbert
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Kekewich, Sir George Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Kennedy, Vincent Paul Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Delany, William Kilbride, Denis Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway) Kincaid-Smith, Captain Perks, Robert William
Dobson, Thomas W. Laidlaw, Robert Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke)
Dolan, Charles Joseph Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Donelan, Captain A. Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Power, Patrick Joseph
Duffy, William J. Lambert, George Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)
Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness) Lamont, Norman Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) Raphael, Herbert H.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington) Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro')
Elibank, Master of Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Erskine, David C. Levy, Maurice Redmond, William (Clare)
Essex, R. W. Lough, Thomas Rees, J. D.
Eve, Harry Trelawney Lundon, W. Rendall, Athelstan
Everett, R. Lacey Lupton, Arnold Renton, Major Leslie
Faber, G. H. (Boston) Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)
Fenwick, Charles Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)
Ferens, T. R. Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs.) Richardson, A.
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Rickett, J. Compton
Flavin, Michael Joseph Macpherson, J. T. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Flynn, James Christopher MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Fuller, John Michael F. M'Kean, John Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Fullerton, Hugh M'Killop, W. Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Gibb, James (Harrow) M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)
Gill, A. H. M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Ginnell, L. M'Micking, Major G. Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Mallet, Charles E. Robinson, S.
Glendinning, R. G. Manfield, Harry (Northants) Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Goddard, Daniel Ford Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) Runciman, Walter
Gooch, George Peabody Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Russell, T. W.
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Marnham, F. J. Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Griffith, Ellis J. Massie, J. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Meagher, Michael Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Hall, Frederick Meehan, Patrick A. Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester) Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Sears, J. E. Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset E) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Seaverns, J. H. Tillett, Louis John Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Seddon, J. Torrance, Sir A. M. Williamson, A.
Shackleton, David James Toulmin, George Wills, Arthur Walters
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Trevelyan, Charles Philips Wilson, Hon. C.H.W.(Hull, W.)
Shipman, Dr. John G. Vivian, Henry Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Silcock, Thomas Ball Walker, H. Do K. (Leicester) Wilson, J. \V. (Worcestersh. N.)
Simon, John Allsebrook Walters, John Tudor Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) Winfrey, R.
Snowden, P. Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) Wodehouse. Lord (Norfolk, Mid)
Spicer, Sir Albert Wardle, George J. Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Woodhouse, Sir ,J.T. (Hudd'rsfi'd)
Strachey, Sir Edward Waterlow, D. S. Yoxall, James Henry
Straus, B. S. (Mile End) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Stuart, James (Sunderland) White, Luke (York, E.R.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Sullivan, Donal White, Patrick (Meath, North) Whileley and .Mr. Herbert
Summerbell, T. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) Lewis.
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) Wiles, Thomas
Acland-Hood. Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F. Duncan. Robert (Lanark, Govan) Remnant, James Farquharson
Anson, Sir William Reynell Fell, Arthur Ropner. Colonel Sir Robert
Anstruther-Gray, Major Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Rutherford. John (Lancashire)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Forster, Henry William Salter, Arthur Clavell
Balcarres, Lord Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Starkey, John R.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Haddock, George R. Stewart. Halley (Greenock)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Hamilton, Marquess of Stone, Sir Benjamin
Bowles, G. Stewart Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.)
Brotherton, Edward Allen Helmsley, Viscount Thomson, W. .Mitchell (Lanark)
Bull, Sir William James Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S. Edmonds) Thornton, Percy M.
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Valentia, Viscount
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hills, J. W. Walrond. Hon. Lionel
Castlereagh, Viscount Houston, Robot Paterson Warde. Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Cave, George Hunt, Rowland Whitehead. Rowland
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W. Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Williams. Co!. R. (Dorset, W.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Lane-Fox, G. R. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joiccy- Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Younger, George
Cecil, Lord R, (Marylebone, E.) Magnus, Sir Philip
Coates, E. Feetham (Lowisham) Marks, H. H. (Kent) TELLERS FOIS THE NOES—Sir
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Frederick Ban bury and Mr.
Courthope, G. Loyd Morpeth, Viscount James Mason.
Cox, Harold Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Motion made, and Question " That Clause 28 stand part of the Bill," put.

The Committee divided:— Ayes, 309; Noes, 72 (Division List No. 214.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Barran, Rowland Hirst Black, Alexander Win, (Banff)
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Beauchamp, E. Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) Blake, Edward
Ainsworth, John Stirling Beck, A. Cecil Boland, John
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Bell, Richard Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Bellairs, Carlyon Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)
Armitage, R. Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonport) Brace, William
Astbury, John Meir Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.) Bramsdon, T. A.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Bennett, E. N. Branch, James
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Bertram, Julius Brigg, John
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford) Brocklehurst. W. B.
Barker, John Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Brodie, H. C.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Billson, Alfred Brooke, Stopford
Barnard, E. B. Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Brunner, J.F. L.(Lancs., Leigh)
Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire) Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore r) Mond, A.
Bryce. J. A. (Inverness Burghs) Hart-Davies, T. Money, L. G. Chiozza
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Montagu, E. S.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Haslani, Lewis (Monmouth) Montgomery, H. G.
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Hayden, John Patrick Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Hazel, Dr. A. E. Morley, Rt. Hon. John
Byles, William Pollard Hazleton, Richard Morse, L. L.
Cameron, Robert Helme, Norval Watson Murphy, John
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Murray. James
Causton, Rt. Hn. Pichard Knight Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.) Myer, Horatio
Chance, Frederick William Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Napier, T. B.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R, Higham, John Sharp Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)
Clancy, John Joseph Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Nicholls, George
Clarke, C. Goddard Hodge, John Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncaster)
Cleland, J. W. Hogan, Michael Nolan, Joseph
Clough, W. Holden, E. Hopkinson Norman, Henry
Clynes, J. R. Hooper, A. G. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) Hope, John Dreams (Fife, West) Nuttall. Harry
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N) O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid)
Cogan, Denis J. Horniman, Emslie John O'Brien. Patrick (Kilkenny)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Horridge Thomas Gardner O'Connor. James (Wicklow, W.)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Hyde, Clarendon O'Connor. John (Kildare, N.)
Corbett, C.H. (Sussex, E. Grinstd) Illingworth, Percy H. O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Jackson, R. S. O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Cowan, W. H. Jacoby, James Alfred O'Grady, J.
Crean, Eugene Jenkins, J. O'Hare, Patrick
Cremer, William Randal Johnson, John (Gateshead) O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Crooks, William Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)
Crossley, William J. Jones, Leif (Appleby) O'Malley, William
Cullinan, J. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Jowett, F. W. O'Shee, James John
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Kearley, Hudson E. Parker, James (Halifax)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Kekewich, Sir George Partington, Oswald
Delany, William Kennedy, Vincent Paul Paul, Herbert
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway) Kilbride, Denis Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Dickinson, W.H. (St. Pancras, N.) Kincaid-Smith, Captain Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Dobson, Thomas W. Laidlaw. Robert. Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)
Dolan, Charles Joseph Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke)
Donelan, Captain A. Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Piekersgill, Edward Hare
Duffy, William J. Lambert, George Power, Patrick Joseph
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Lamont, Norman Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Law. Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Leese. Sir Joseph F.(Accrington) Raphael, Herbert H.
Edwards, Prank (Radnor) Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Elibank, Master of Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Erskine, David C. Levy, Maurice Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Essex, R. W. Lough. Thomas Redmond, William (Clare)
Eve, Harry Trelawney Lundon, W. Rees, J. D.
Everett, B. Lacey Lupton, Arnold Rendall, Athelstan
Faber, G. H. (Boston) Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Renton, Major Leslie
Fenwick, Charles Lyell, Charles Henry Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)
Ferens, T. R. Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs) Richardson, A.
Flavin, Michael Joseph Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Rickett, J. Compton
Flynn, James Christopher Macpherson, J. T. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Fuller, John Michael F. MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Fullerton, Hugh M'Arthur, William Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Gibb, James (Harrow) M'Kean. John Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Gill, A. H. M'Killop, W. Robertson, Rt. Hn. (Dundee)
Ginnell, L. M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John M'Laren. H. O. (Stafford, W.) Robertson, J. M. (Tynesdie)
Glendinning, R. G. M'Micking, Major G. Robinson, S.
Goddard, Daniel Ford Mallet, Charles E. Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Gooch, George Peabody Manfield, Harry (Northants) Runciman, Walter
Greenwood, (!. (Peterborough) Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) Russell, T. W.
Griffith, Ellis J. Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Marnham, F. J. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Hall, Frederick Massie, J. Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Halpin, J. Meagher, Michael Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Meehan, Patrick A. Schwann, Sir C. E. (.Manchester
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Micklem, Nathaniel Sears, J. E.
Seaverns, J. H. Tillett, Louis John Williams, J. Glamorgan
Shackleton, David James Torrance, Sir A. M. Williams,Llewelyn Carmarth'n.
Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford) Toulmin, George Williams. Osmond (Merioneth).
Shipman, Dr. John G. Trevelyan, Charles Philips Williamson. A.
Silcock, Thomas Ball Vivian, Henry Wills, Arthur Walters
Simon, John Allsebrook Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) Wilson,Hon.C.H.W.(Hull, W.)
Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Walters, John Tudor Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Snowden, P. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh,N.)
Spicer, Sir Albert Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) Wardle, George J. Winfrey, R.
Strachey, Sir Edward Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney) Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk, Mid).
Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Waterlow, D. S. Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Stuart, James (Sunderland) White, George (Norfolk) Yoxall, James Henry
Sullivan, Donal White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Summerbell, T. White, Luke (York, E.R.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) White, Patrick (Meath, North) Whiteley and Mr. Herbert
Tennant, SirEdward (Salisbury Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) Lewis.
Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr) Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Thompson, J.W. H. (Somerset, E Wiles, Thomas
Acland-Hood, Rt.Hn.SirAlexF. Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan) Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington
Anson, Sir William Reynell Fell, Arthur Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Remnant, James Farquharson
Ashley, W. W. Forster, Henry William Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Aubrey-Fletcher.Rt. Hn. Sir H. Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Balcarres, Lord Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Salter, Arthur Clavell
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Haddock, George R. Smith, F.E.(Liverpool,Walton).
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) Hamilton, Marquess of Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks Hardy, Laurcnce(Kent,Ashford Starkey, John R.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Helmsley, Viscount Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds Stone, Sir Benjamin
Bowles, G. Stewart Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.
Brotherton, Edward Allen Hills, J. W. Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)
Bull, Sir William James Houston, Robert Paterson Thornton, Percy M.
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hunt, Rowland Valentia, Viscount
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnH Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Castlereagh, Viscount Lane-Fox, G. R. Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Cavendish, Rt.Hn. Victor C. W. Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Whitehead, Rowland
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Dublin,S. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Cecil, Lord K, (Marylebone, E.) Magnus, Sir Philip Wilson, A.Stanley(York, E.R.)
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham Marks, H. H. (Ken Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Mason, James F. (Win sor) Younger, George
Courthope, G. Loyd Meysey-Thompson, E. O.
Cox, Harold Morpeth, Viscount TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Douglas, Bt. Hon. A. Akers- Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield Evelyn Cecil and Mr. Cave.

Clause 29:—

MR. HAROLD COX (Preston)

moved an Amendment providing that before any increase was made in the existing rate for the purposes of secondary education the question should be referred to the ratepayers. His object was to prevent county councils committing themselves to expenditure for secondary education without first consulting the ratepayers, whose money they were going to spend. It was a perfectly well accepted principle in legislation, and it was obviously one which ought to be applied by a Party which professed its belief in democracy. If they did not accept this Amendment it would show that they were unwilling to trust the people, and that their boasted belief in democracy had no real meaning. Personally he would in some ways prefer that the county council should not spend more money on secondary education, because he did not believe that secondary education was one of those things that ought to be entrusted either to county councils or to municipal authorities; they had quite enough to do with elementary education. But he quite realised that in some areas there was an insufficiency of appliances for secondary education, and in such cases it was desirable that where the people wanted it further provision should be made. Therefore he put down this Amendment so as to give the ratepayers the opportunity of desiding the matter. They knew perfectly well that if they withdrew the limit on the amount which might be raised an increase of expenditure would be always indulged in, for that was the way with the municipal authorities. One great reason for objecting to the clause as it stood was the injustice it would inflict upon those people who had already established private schools and in many cases were giving really excellent education which was paid for by the people who wanted it. They were now proposing to tax these people in order to subsidise their competitors. The county council first taxed the private school and then put beside it another school to compete with it, charging lower fees in order to increase the competition. He admitted there were private schools which were not efficient, and that there were special cases in which there should be competition, but his Amendment provided for that. He desired on more general grounds to protest against this proposal to place the whole education of the country in the hands of county councils and municipal bodies. He considered that a most disastrous step was taken in 1902 when the late Government prepared the way for the destruction of voluntary schools. He believed more was done to destroy the voluntary schools of this country by the late Administration than by any other Government. They placed those schools on the rates and by that means necessarily destroyed their voluntary character. He contended that there was no general deficiency of schools for secondary education. On the contrary, we had on the whole a better system of secondary education than any country in the world. During the two years he spent in India he enjoyed the friendship of a distinguished Indian gentleman, Sir Syed Ahmad, who did great service to this country during the Mutiny. After the Mutiny, Syed Ahmad asked himself, " How is it that England has conquered my country instead of India conquering England? " and he decided that he would come to England in order to solve the problem. He came to England and in the course of his travels here he asked a great many questions which led him to the conclusion that the secret of the success of England throughout the world was her public school system. He returned to India, and founded a school and college there on the model of the English public schools and colleges. With all this State education we were risking our public school system which had been built up by private benevolence and enterprise. Much of the advice now coming from the Education Department was very good, but it was still manned by men who had obtained their education under the voluntary system in our great public schools and Universities, which happily were not under the control of the State. But when every man in that Department had begun his career in a board school our whole educational system would be enclosed in a circle and get no ideas from outside. That was the condition to which we must inevitably tend if we destroyed voluntary and private education. He asked the Committee to accept the Amendment, which would give the ratepayers a chance of considering the matter themselves instead of accepting the dictation of their local officials, for that was what really happened in practice. In the central as well as local government officialism was becoming the curse of the country. We talked, of public control, but in practice it meant control by some second-class clerk who sat in a back office with a roll of red tape and ruled the kingdom. The chief glory of this country in the past had been its devotion to liberty. We should lose that honour and our rank among the nations of the world if we became the slaves of permanent officials.

Amendment proposed— In page 17, line 42, at the end, to add the words ' but before any increase is made in the existing rate, nr any loan is raised for the purposes of education, other than elementary, in any county, county borough, borough or district, it shall be ascertained by a poll of the ratepayers within the said county, county borough, borough, or district, that a majority of such ratepayers are in favour of the increase."—(Mr. Harold Cox.)

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


said he had listened to the hon. Member as to a voice from the grave. He reminded his hon. friend that they were discussing the 2d. limit, and they could not say the honour and glory of this country were involved in that question. The county boroughs were not restricted in this way. The object of the clause was to remove the restriction from county councils. When the hon. Gentleman told them that secondary education in this country was in the most perfect condition, and better than that of any other country in the world, he heard him with amazement. He was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman speak of the public schools of this country as if they were entirely the result of voluntary enterprise. He thought they were sheltered by ancient traditions and ancient endowments. The last thing any public school man would admit was that he was at a private school. What was desired was that we should have a complete system of education in this country beginning in the elementary schools at the age of five and terminating at twelve, thirteen or fourteen, and then for those boys and girls who had faculty for learning proceeding through the secondary schools to the Universities. There was nothing we could be more proud of in regard to our system of education than the fact that the highest honours of our ancient Universities had been won by boys from the elementary schools. It showed that our system of elementary education, supported by a proper system of secondary education, placed the highest rewards of learning at the disposal of the children of all classes of the country. In regard to the 2d. limit, he did not see why the county councils should not enjoy that which the county boroughs enjoyed. The proposal of his hon. friend was to submit the question to the whole of the ratepayers. He could understand a referendum on the general principle if the House chose to abdicate its functions, but it was absurd to say that there should be a poll every time that it was proposed to exceed the 2d. limit.


said he did not think anyone would disagree with the general remarks made by the President of the Board of Education in regard to the provision to be made for education in its various grades for the children of the country. But if that was the policy of the House and of the country, the country should provide the cost and not leave other people to pay for it in their special localities where they did not derive the benefit of it. The right hon. Gentleman told them truly that the county boroughs were not exposed to this difficulty and the county council areas were. Did not any man who had had any experience of this education question as a part of local government know perfectly well that the conditions in a county borough were entirely and fundamentally different from those in a county? In a county borough what was wanted by part of it was wanted by the whole of it. But the county council had to govern an area which was extraordinarily different in its component parts. There were urban parts where the need for education was severely felt and the benefits arising from it were appreciated and made use of. The result was that the county council was tempted to make special educational provision in the urban parts of their areas which was paid for by the whole area including the rural parts. It was perfectly true that we wanted to link up our different systems of education, so that children in the elementary schools might have a fair chance of completing their education I through its various grades. But if that was what Parliament wanted, why did it not do it itself? The hon. Member for Preston made the only proposal which was open for anyone to make on this Bill. They could not propose that the expense of secondary education beyond a fair and reasonable limit should be borne by the State. That could only be done by a Member of the Government. Therefore the hon. Member made the only practical proposal that could be made. The Minister for Education had made the objection that the county council repeatedly appealed to the ratepayers now, and that if they exceeded a fair limit for secondary education, they could be turned out. That was perfectly true, but it was a poor satisfaction to the ratepayers who had to foot the bill. The right hon. Gentleman had dealt with this question as if it did not involve the question of the incidence of the rates. He believed, however, that there was a majority in the House who held that the rates as compared with Imperial taxes bore a larger share of the country's expenditure than they ought to do, and rates were growing all over the country. Everybody preached economy, and that the expenditure ought to be reduced; but on occasions of this kind the majority of the House were prepared to allow an increase of expenditure, because they conceived that they had excellent ideas as regards education. He would rather have seen the additional 2d. contributed out of the Imperial Exchequer. That could not be done at present, and therefore they were forced to adopt a less drastic scheme. An hon. Gentleman opposite had misrepresented him, unintentionally no doubt, by saying that he was afraid of popularly elected authorities. What he had said was that it was folly in the interests of the country to multiply popularly elected bodies; but, on the whole, popularly elected bodies were the most capable of looking after their own affairs. What was the proposal of the hon. Gentleman? It was that if the local authorities wanted to exceed that limit, they must appeal to the people who had elected them. Surely that was a theory which should appeal to the hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Ironical MINISTERIAL laughter.] He was astounded to hear that hon. Gentlemen opposite repudiated the idea that before spending the people's money the people were to be consulted. He believed in doing everything possible in the interests of education, and to arouse the interest of the people in education; but if they imposed on the ratepayers a burden greater than they could bear more would be done by that means than by any other; to make education unpopular. The principle to be laid down was that a certain proportion of the burden of education should be borne locally, and the rest Imperially.

MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS (Merionethshire)

said that the debate had given him more satisfaction than any which he had heard during the present session, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education would stick to this clause through thick and thin. He considered it the best part of the Bill. In his own constituency, and in other parts of Wales, they had been paralysed more than once by the 2d. limit, and had it not been for the kind assistance they obtained from the Secretary to the Local Government Board they would have been in great difficulties. He was surprised that the working classes in England had not insisted on this matter of higher education as they had done in Wales. It was not the children of gentlemen they were thinking of, but the children of the poor, for whom they desired to provide the educational ladder by which they might go clear of expense from the elementary schools to the secondary schools and finally to the Universities. When they looked at the history of the Colonies and the great Dependencies of the Empire, they found that the majority of the men who had risen to eminence both in the political and the industrial spheres had been Scotsmen. He was quite prepared to make every allowance for the particular characteristics of his Scottish friends, but the real reason for this phenomenon was that for hundreds of years the sons of Scotland had been able to receive not only elementary but higher education; the Scottish Universities were truly national institutions to which the poorest of poor might resort. The English people ought to learn the lesson that education uplifted and enlarged the national life, and roused ambition to rise above the dead level of existence. They in Wales had felt this sixteen or seventeen years ago, and now they were beginning to realise its unmistakable value, and to reap the first fruits of the higher education which now formed part of the atmosphere which they breathed. England was still slumbering over this education question, and the great Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were, he believed, little known and hardly-thought of by the common people. The truth was that the governing classes in England had never shown a real desire to support higher education, and the consequence was that successive Governments reflected the indifference of the classes from which they sprung in regard to the higher education of the people.

SIR PHILIP MUNTZ (Warwickshire, Tamworth)

appealed to his right hon. friend to accept the Amendment which would make for economy of administration. Surely it was necessary and right that if an increase of the expenditure and consequent increase of the rates was contemplated the county council should appeal to the ratepayers in order to ascertain whether they approved of the step about to be taken. The ratepayer had to pay the increased rate and he ought to be consulted.

MR. PAUL (Northampton)

said he had been so demoralised by the debates on this Bill that he found it difficult to take any interest in anything except religion. The local authorities should be free to spend in the sense that this House was. They were responsible to their constituents and Parliament ought to be careful not to diminish the responsibility felt by these local authorities to the persons who elected them. That sense of responsibility would restrain them from wasting money far more effectively than any statute.


supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston. No one who had had experience of the working of the Education Act in rural counties could fail to be aware that the rate pressed so heavily on purely rural districts as to incline their representatives to look askance at the whole subject of education.

SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)

said it appeared from the remarks of the hon. Member for Merionethshire that Wales for the last sixteen or seventeen years had enjoyed certain privileges, and the result was that Scotland had come to the front. [" Oh!"] Well, he was in the recollection of the House. On these matters opinions might change. An electorate to-day might think 2d. was a sufficient rate, but an electorate in the future might be of a different opinion, and therefore he thought the Amendment o the hon. Gentleman was right and that this matter should be dealt with by the electorate. It was because hon. Gentlemen opposite did not trust the electorate that they would not agree to this Amendment. The Amendment did not say what rate was to be paid, but that the electorate should decide it. While he believed with the hon. Baronet that this Bill would make the Party opposite unpopular in the country, he did not share the hon. Baronet's desire to avert that catastrophe; for that reason he supported the Amendment.


said they had heard a good educational speech from the hon. Gentleman opposite, but he did not think the terrors he depicted were so great as those of some hon. Gentlemen behind him. The actual fact of the limit was extremely valuable and was so regarded by the ratepayers in the counties. The accuracy of that was shown in the debate on Clause 26 when Member after Member pointed out the extreme difficulty of the rural districts making their voices heard on the county councils. It was really the voices of the urban districts which decided these matters, and that made it very undesirable that this limit should he taken away. The said limit would have been amply sufficient to fulfil the needs of the counties so ar as secondary education was concerned, had it not been diverted to another purpose. A great deal of the money raised for secondary education was now absorbed by the teaching and training of teachers, and was not given to the real work of building up a secondary system of education so as to enable a child of merit to rise from the elementary to higher schools. It was the expense of training the teachers which was felt in the rural districts, and if this limit was taken off it would be felt to be a great hardship. At the present time county councils were training teachers, at great expense, whose services they had no right to demand or to retain, and if the intention of the Government was to throw this charge on the county councils, to enable them to

raise a larger rate, some clause on the lines of Clause 34 was necessary, so that they should have power to retain the teachers. So far as this particular clause was concerned there was a strong mandate from the ratepayers that the cost of secondary education should fall not upon the rates, but that it should be an Imperial charge. He would prefer to see the clause omitted altogether, as he was convinced the opinion of all ratepayers was against it, but he was prepared to support the Amendment rather than there should be no Amendment at all.

And, it being half-past Ten of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 18th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, " That those words be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 90; Noes, 389. (Division List No. 215.)

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn.SirAlex F. Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kennaway.Rt.Hon.Sir John H.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn.Col.W.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Keswick, William
Arkwright, John Stanhope Coates, E.Feetham(Lewisham) Lane-Fox, G. R.
Arnold- Forster, Rt.Hn. HughO. Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Law, Andrew Bonar(Dulwich)
Ashley, W. W. Courthope, G. Loyd Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn.SirH. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lockwood, Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.
Balcarres, Lord Faber, George Denison (York) Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Dublin,S.)
Balfour, Rt.Hn.A.J.(City Lond. Fell, Arthur Lowe, Sir Francis William
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Banner, John S. Harmood- Forster, Henry William MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) Gardner, Ernest (Berks. East) Macpherson, J. T.
Beach, Hn.Michael HughHicks Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Magnus, Sir Philip
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Haddock, George R. Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Hamilton, Marquess of Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Bowles, G. Stewart Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Brotherton, Edward Allen Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Nicholson, Win. G.(Petersfield)
Bull, Sir William James Hay, Hon. Claude George Nield, Herbert
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlington
Carson, Rt. Hon Sir Edw. H. Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Ratecliff, Major R. F.
Castlereagh, Viscount Hills, J. W. Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Cave, George Houston, Robert Paterson Remnant, James Farquharson
Cavendish, Rt.Hn.Victor C.W. Hunt, Rowland Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall
Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv. Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Salter, Arthur Clavell Thornton, Percy M. Younger, George
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Valentia, Viscount
Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Walker, Col.W.H.(Lancashire) TELLERS TOR THE AYES—Mr.
Smith, F.E. (Liverpool,Walton) Walrond, Hon. Lionel Harold Cox and Sir Philip
Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) Muntz.
Starkey, John R. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Stone, Sir Benjamin Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Carr-Gomm, H. W. Faber, G. H. (Boston)
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight Fenwick, Charles
Acland, Francis Dyke Cawley, Frederick Ferens, T. R.
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Chance, Frederick William Ferguson, R. G. Munro
Ainsworth, John Stirling Cheetham, John Frederick Fiennes, Hon. Eustace
Allen, A.Acland(Christchurch) Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Findlay, Alexander
Allen, Charles P (Stroud) Churchill, Winston Spencer Flavin, Michael Joseph
Armitage, R. Clancy, John Joseph Flynn, James Christopher
Ashton, Thomas Gair Clarke, C. Goddard Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Astbury, John Meir Cleland, J. W. Fuller, John Michael F.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Clough, W. Fullerton, Hugh
Baker, JosephE.(Finsbury, E.) Clynes, J. R. Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford,S.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Coats, SirT.Glen(Renfrew, W.) Gibb, James (Harrow)
Barker, John Cobbold, Felix Thornley Gill, A. H.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Cogan, Denis J. Ginnell, L.
Barnard, E. B. Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn.
Barnes, G. N. Collins, SirWm.J.(S.PancrasW. Glendinning, R. G.
Barran, Rowland Hirst Condon, Thomas Joseph Goddard, Daniel Ford
Beale, W. P. Cooper, G. J. Gooch, George Peabody
Beauchamp. E. Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) Corbctt.C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Greenwood, Hamar (York)
Beck, A. Cecil Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Griffith, Ellis J.
Bell, Richard Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Gulland, John W.
Bellairs, Carlyon Cowan, W. H. Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Benn, SirJ.Williams(Devonp'rt Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Hall, Frederick
Benn,W.(Twr Hamlets,S.Geo.) Crean, Eugene Halpin, J.
Bennett, E. N. Cremer, William Randal Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis
Berridge, T. H. D. Crombie, John William Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil).
Bertram, Julius Crooks, William Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford) Crosfield, A. H. Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r),
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Crossley, William J. Hart-Davies, T.
Billson, Alfred Cullinan, J. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Dalziel, James Henry Harwood, George
Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff) Davies, David (MontgomeryCo Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Blake, Edward Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Hayden, John Patrick
Boland, John Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E Delany, William Hazleton, Richard
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway) Hedges, A. Paget
Brace, William Dewar, John A. (Invernses-sh.) Helme, Norval Watson
Bramsdon, T. A. Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N. Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Branch, James Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.
Brigg, John Dobson, Thomas W. Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)
Brignt, J. A. Dolan, Charles Joseph Herbert, T. Arn ld (Wycombe)
Brocklehurst, W. B. Donelan, aptain A. Higham, John Sharp
Brodie, H. C. Duffy, William J. Hobart, Sir Robert
Brooke, Stopford Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lanes.,Leigh) Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Hodge, John
Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire) Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Hogan, Michael
Bryce, Rt.Hn.James (Aberdeen Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall Holden, K. Hopkinson
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Hooper, A. G.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn) Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset,N
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Elibank, Master of Horniman, Emslie John
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Horridge, Thomas Gardner
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Erskine, David C. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Buxton, R . Hn. Sydney Chas. Essex, R. W. Hyde, Clarendon
Byles, William Pollard Eve, Harry Trelawney Illingworth, Percy H,
Cameron, Robert Everett, R. Lacey Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Jackson, R. S. Nolan, Joseph Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.
Jacoby, James Alfred Norman, Henry Shipman, Dr. John G.
Jenkins, J. Norton, Capt. Cecil William Silcock, Thomas Ball
Johnson, John (Gateshead) Nuttall, Harry Simon, John Allsebrook
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Jones, Leif (Appleby) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Snowden, P.
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire O'Connor, James (Wicklow.W. Spicer, Sir Albert
Jowett, F. W. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N. Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.).
Kearley, Hudson E. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Kekewich, Sir George O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Kelley, George D. O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Strachey, Sir Edward
Kennedy, Vincent Paul O'Grady, J. Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Kilbride, Denis O'Hare, Patrick Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Kincaid-Smith, Captain O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Stuart, James (Sunderland)
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N Sullivan, Donal
Kitson, Sir Jamps O'Malley, William Summerbell, T.
Laidlaw, Robert O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster O'Shee, James John Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Parker, James (Halifax) Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Lambert, George Partington, Oswald Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Lamont, Norman Paul, Herbert Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Law, Hugh A .(Donegal, W.) Paulton, James Mellor Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset E.
Lea, HughCecil(St.Pancras, E.) Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Tillett, Louis John
Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington) Pearce, William (Limehouse) Tomkinson, James
Lever, A. Levy(Essex,Harwich Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye Torrance, Sir A. M.
Lever, W.H. (Cheshire,Wirral) Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton Toulmin, George
Levy, Maurice Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lewis, John Herbert Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Ure, Alexander
Lough, Thomas Pickersgill, Edward Hare Verney, F. W.
Lundon, W. Pollard, Dr. Vivian, Henry
Lupton, Arnold Power, Patrick Joseph Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Luttrell, Hugh Fowner Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) Wallace, Robert
Lyell, Charles Henry Price, Robert John(Norfolk,E.) Walters, John Tudor
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs Prestley, W.E.B. (Bradford,E. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Radford, G. H. Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. Rainy, A. Rolland Ward, W. Dudley(Southamptn
M'Arthur, William Raphael, Herbert H. Wardle, George J.
M'Callum, John M. Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
M'Crae, George Rea, WalterRussell (Scarboro' Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
M'Kean, John Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney
M'Killop, W. Redmond, William (Clare) Waterlow, D. S.
M'Laren, Sir C. B. Leicester) Rees, J. D. Wedgwood, Josiah C.
M'Larcn, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Rendall, Athelstan Whitbread, Howard
M'Micking, Major G. Renton, Major Leslie White, George (Norfolk)
Mallet, Charles E. Richards, Thos. W. (Monm'th) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) Richardson, A. White, Patrick (Meath, North
Marks, G. Cruydon(Launceston Rickett, J. Compton Whitehead, Rowland
Marnham, F. J. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Massie, J. Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Whittaker, Sir ThomasPalmer
Meagher, Michael Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Wiles, Thomas
Meehan, Patrick A. Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Micklem, Nathaniel Robertson, Sir G.Scott(Bradf'd Williams, Llewellyan(Carmarth
Molteno, Percy Alport Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Mond, A. Robinson, S. Williamson, A.
Money, L. G. Chiozza Robson, Sir William Snowdon Wills, Arthur Walters
Montagu, E. S. Roe, Sir Thomas Wilson, Hon.C.H.W. (Hull,W.)
Montgomery, H. C. Rose, Charles Day Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Mooney, J. J. Runciman, Walter Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Russell, T. W. Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh,N.)
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Morley, Rt. Hon. John Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Winfrey, R.
Morse, L. L. Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk,Mid)
Murphy, John Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Murray, James Schwann, SirC.E. (Manchester) Woodhouse, SirJT.(Huddersf'd
Myer, Horatio Sears, J. E. Young, Samuel
Napier, T. B. Seaverns, J. H. Yoxall, Jamse Henry
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Seddon, J.
Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) Seely, Major J. B. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Nicholls, George Shackleton, David James Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Pease.

then proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of June 18th, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of Clauses 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34, and of any Amendments

there to proposed by the Government, of which notice had been given.

Question put, " That Clause 29 stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 391, Noes, 91. (Division List No. 216).

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Byles, William Pollard Erskine, David C.
Acland, Francis Dyke Cameron, Robert Essex, R. W.
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Carr-Gomm, H. W. Eve, Harry Trelawney
Ainsworth, John Stirling Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight Everett, R. Laccy
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Cawley, Frederick Faber, G. H. (Boston)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Chance, Frederick William Fenwick, Charles
Armitage, R. Cheetham, John Frederick Ferens, T. R.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Ferguson, R. C. Munro
Asquith, Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry Churchill, Winston Spencer Fiennes, Hon. Eustace
Astbury, John Meir Clancy, John Joseph Findlay, Alexander
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Clarke, C. Goddard Flavin, Michael Joseph
Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.) Cleland, J. W. Flynn, James Christopher
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Clough, W. Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Barker, John Clynes, J. R. Fuller, John Michael F.
Barlow, Percv (Bedford) Coats, Sir T.Glen(Renfrew, W.) Fullerton, Hugh
Barnard, E. B. Cobbold, Felix Thornley Gibb, James (Harrow)
Barnes, G. N. Cogan, Denis J. Gill, A. H.
Barran, Rowland Hirst Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Ginnell, L.
Beale, W. P. Collins, SirWm.J.S.(Pancras,W. Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert John
Beauchamp, E. Condon, Thomas Joseph Glendinning, R. G.
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) Cooper, G. J. Goddard, Daniel Ford
Beck, A. Cecil Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Gooch, George Peabody
Bell, Richard Corbett, C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Bellairs, Carlyon Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Greenwood, Hamar (York)
Benn, SirJ. Williams (Devonp'rt Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Griffith Ellis J.
Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo. Cowan, W. H. Gulland, John W.
Bennett, E. N. Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Berridge, T. H. D. Crean, Eugene Hall, Frederick
Bertram, Julius Cremer, William Randal Halpin, J.
Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford) Crombie, John William Harcourt, Rt. Hon.Lewis
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Crooks, William Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil
Billson, Alfred Crosfield, A. H. Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Crossley, William J. Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff) Cullinan, J. Hart-Davies. T.
Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire) Dalziel, James Henry Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Blake, Edward Davies, David (Montgomery Co. Harwood, George
Boland, John Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E. Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hayden, John Patrick
Brace, William Delany, William Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Bramsdon, T. A. Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Hazleton, Richard
Branch, James Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Hedges, A. Paget
Brigg, John Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N. Helme, Norval Watson
Bright, J. A. Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Brocklehurst, W. B. Dobson, Thomas W. Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)
Brodie, H. C. Dolan, Charles Joseph Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)
Brooke, Stopford Donelan, Captain A. Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs.,Leigh) Duffy, William J. Higham, John Sharp
Brunner, Sir John T. (Ch sh.) Duncan, C. Barrow-in-Furness) Hobart, Sir Robert
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(A berdeen Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Bryce,J.A. (Inverness Burghs) Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Hodge, John
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall Hogan, Michael
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Holden, E. Hopkinson
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Hooper, A. G.
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Elibank, Master of Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.
Horniman, Emslie John Morse, L. L. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Horridge, Thomas Gardner Murphy, John Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Murray, James Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Hyde, Clarendon Myer, Horatio Schwann, Sir E. (Manchester)
Illingworth, Percy H. Napier, T. B. Sears, J. E.
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Seaverns, J. H.
Jackson, R. S. Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) Seddon, J.
Jacoby, James Alfred Nicholls, George Seely, Major J. B.
Jenkins, J. Nicholson,Chas. N. (Doncaster) Shackleton, David James
Johnson, John (Gateshead) Nolan, Joseph Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Norman, Henry Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawiek B.)
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Norton, Capt. Cecil William Shipman, Dr. John G.
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Nuttall, Harry Silcock, Thomas Ball
Jowett, F. W. O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid Simon, John Allsebrook
Kearley, Hudson E. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Kekewich, Sir George O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Snowden, P.
Kelley, George D. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Spicer, Sir Albert
Kennedy, Vincent Paul O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.
Kilbride, Denis O'Donnell. C. J. (Walworth) Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Kincaid-Smith, Captain O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) O'Grady, J. Strachey, Sir Edward
Kitson, Sir James O'Hare, Patrick Strauss, B. S. (Mile End)
Laidlaw, Robert. O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Straus, E. A. (Abingdon)
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster O'Kelly, James (Roscommon.N. Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) O'Malley, William Sullivan, Donal
Lambert, George O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Summerbell, T.
Lamont, Norman O'Shee, James John Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Parker, James (Halifax) Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbnry)
Lea,Hugh Cecil(St.Pancras, E.) Partington, Oswald Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Aecrington Paul, Herbert Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Lever, A.Levy (Essex, Harwich Paulton, James Mellor Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)
Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Thompson, J.W.H. (Somerset E.
Levy, Maurice Pearce, William (Limehouse) Tomkinson, James
Lewis, John Herbert Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) Torrance, Sir A. M.
Lough, Thomas Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton Toulmin, George
Lundon, W. Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lupton, Arnold Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Ure, Alexander
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Pickersgill, Edward Hare Verney, F. W.
Lyell, Charles Henry Pollard, Dr. Vivian, Henry
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Power, Patrick Joseph Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central) Wallace, Robert
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Price, RobertJohn (Norfolk,E.) Walters, John Tudor
Macpherson, J. T. Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
M'Arthur, William Radford, G. H. Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent
M'Callum, John M. Rainy, A. Rolland Ward,W. Dudley (Southamp'tn
M'Crac, George Raphael, Herbert H. Wardle, George J.
M'Kean, John Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
M'Kenna, Reginald Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
M'Killop, W. Redmond, John E. (Waterford Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Rdemond, William (Clare) Waterlow, D. S.
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Hues, J. D. Wedgwood, Josiah C.
M'Micking, Major G. Rendall, Athelstan Whitbread, Howard
Mallet, Charles E. Renton, Major Leslie White, George (Norfolk)
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt' White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston) Richardson, A. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Marnham, F. J. Rickett, J. Compton Whitehead, Rowland
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Massie, J. Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Meagher, Michael Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Wiles, Thomas
Meehan, Patrick A. Robertson, Rt.Hn.E.(Dundee) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Micklem, Nathaniel Robertson, Sir G.Scott(Bradfrd Williams, Llowelyn(Carmarth'n
Molteno, Percy Alport Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Mond, A. Robinson, S. Williamson, A.
Money, L. G. Chiozza Robson, Sir William Snowdon Wills, Arthur Walters
Montagu, E. S. Roe, Sir Thomas Wilson,Hon. C. H. W. (Hull.W.
Montgomery, H. G. Rose, Charles Day Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Mooney, J. J. Runciman, Walter Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Morgan, G. Kay (Cornwall) Russell, T. W. Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.
M rgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Morley, Rt. Hon. John
Winfrey, E. Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid) Young, Samuel Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Wood, T. M'Kinnon Yoxall, James Henry Pease.
Acland-Hood, Rt.Hn.SirAlexF. Faber, George Denison (York) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Anson, Sir William Reynell Fell, Arthur Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Anatruther-Gray, Major Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Forster, Henry William Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO. Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Remnant, James Farquharson
Ashley, W. W. Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Roberts, S. (Sheffield,Ecelesall)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirH. Haddock, George R. Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Balcarres, Lord Hamilton, Marquess of Salter, Arthur Clavcll
Balfour, Rt.Hn.A.J.(CityLond) Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Banner, John S. Harmood- Hay, Hon. Claude George Smith.F. E. (Liverpool,Walton
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) Hervey, F.W.F. (BuryS.Edm'ds Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Stanley,Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Hills, J. W. Starkey, John R.
Bignold, Sir Arthur Houston, Robert Paterson Stone, Sir Benjamin
Bowles, G. Stewart Hunt, Rowland Talbot, Rt. Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.
Brotherton, Edward Allen Kennaway, Jit. Hn. SirJohn H. Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark
Bull, Sir William James Kenyon-Slaney,Rt, Hn. Col.W. Thornton, Percy M.
Burdett-Coutts, W. Keswick, William Valentia, Viscount
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Lane-Fox, G. R. Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire)
Castlereagh, Viscount. Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cave, George Lee,Arthur H.(Hants.,Fareh'm Warde, Col. C. K. (Kent, Mid)
Cavendish,Rt. Hn. Victor C.W. Lockwood, Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston .Manor) Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Dublin, S. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Lowe, Sir Francis William Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham MacIver, David (Liverpool) Younger, George
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. M'Iver,Sir Lewis (Edinburgh,W
Conrthope, G. Loyd Marks, H. H. (Kent) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Cox, Harold Meysey-Thompson, E. C. James Mason and Mr. John
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Muntz, Sir Philip A. Rutherford.
Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Govan Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Clause 30 amended, and agreed to.

Clause 31 amended, and agreed to.

Clause 32 agreed to.

Clause 33: —

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Barnes, G. N. Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)
Abraham, Willaim (Rhondda) Barran, Rowland Hirst Black, ArthurW. (Bedfordshire
Acland, Francis Dyke Beale, W. P. Blake, Edward
Adkins, W. Rylands D. Beauchamp, E. Boland, John
Ainsworth, John Stirling Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) Bolton, T. D. Derbyshire, N. E.
Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch) Beck, A. Cecil Boulton. A. C. F. (Ramsey)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Bell, Richard Brace, William
Armitage, R. Bellairs, Carlyon Bramsdon, T. A.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Bonn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp't Branch, James
Asquith, Rt. H. Herbert Henry Benn, W.(T'wrHamlets, S.Geo. Brigg, John
Astbury, John Meir Bennett, E. N. Bright, J. A. ,
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Berridge, T. H. D. Brocklehurst, W. B.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.) Bertram, Julius Brodie, H. C.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford) Brooke, Stoptdrd
Barker, John Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs., Leigh
Barlow. Perey (Bedford) Billson, Alfred Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)
Barnard, E. B. Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Bryce, Rt.Hn.James(Aberdeen

Question put, " That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 389); Noes, 91. (Division List No. 217).

Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs) Flavin, Michael Joseph Lamont, Norman
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Flynn, James Christopher Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Lea, Hugh Cecil(St.Pancras,E.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Fuller, John Michael F. Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Fullerton, Hugh Lever, A. Levy(Essex,Harwich
Hurt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Gardner, Col.Alan(Hereford. S.) Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)
Buxton, Rt.Hn. SydneyCharles Gibb, James (Harrow) Levy, Maurice
Byles, William pollard Gill, A. H. Lewis, John Herbert
Cameron, Robert Ginnell, L. Lough, Thomas
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Lundon, W.
Causton, Rt.Hn.Richard Knight Glendinning, H. G. Lupton, Arnold
Cawley, Frederick Goddard, Daniel Ford Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Chance, Frederick William Gooch, George Pea body Lyell, Charles Henry
Cheetham, John Frederick Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Greenwood, Hamar (York) Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk Bghs
Churchill, Winston Spencer Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Kdward Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Clancy, John Joseph Griffith, Ellis J. Macpherson, ,T. T.
Clarke, C. Goddard Gulland, John W. MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.
Cleland, J. W. Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton M'Arthur, William
Clough, W. Hall, Frederick MCallum, John M.
Clynes, J. R. Halpin, J. M'Crae, George
Coats, Sir T.Glen(Renfrew, W.) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis M'Kean, John
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil) M'Kenna, Reginald
Cogan, Denis J. Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) M'Killop, W.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r' M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)
Collins, SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W Hart-Davies, T. M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Harwood, George M'Micking, Major G.
Cooper, G. J. Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Mallet, Charles E.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Corbett,C. H. (Sussex E.Grinst'd Hayden, John Patrick Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hazel, Dr. A. E. Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Hazleton, Richard Marnham, F. J.
Cowan, W. H. Hedges, A. Paget Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Cox, Harold Helme, Norval Watson Massie, J.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Meagher, Michael
Crean, Eugene Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W. Meehan, Patrick A.
Cremer, William Randal Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) Micklem, Nathaniel
Crombie, John William Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Molteno, Percy Alport
Crooks, William Higham, John Sharp Money, L. G. Chiozza
Crosfield, A. H. Horbart, Sir Robert Montagu, E. S.
Crossley, William J. Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Montgomery, H. G.
Cullinan, J. Hodge, John Mooney, J. J.
Dalziel, James Henry Hogan, Michael Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Davies, David(MontgomeryCo.) Holden, E. Hopkinson Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Hooper, A. G. Morse, L. L
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Murphy, John
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset,N Murray, James
Delany, William Horniman, Emslie John Myer, Horatio
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galwav Horridge, Thomas Gardner Napier, T. H.
Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Hyde, Clarendon Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)
Dobson, Thomas W. Illingworth, Percy H. Nicholls, George
Dolan, Charles Joseph Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r
Donelan, Captain A. Jackson, R. S. Nolan, Joseph
Duffy, William J. Jacoby, James Alfred Norman, Henry
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Jenkins, J. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Johnson, John (Gateshead) Nuttall, Harry
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid)
Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Wralsall Jones, Leif (Appleby) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Jones,William (Carnarvonshire O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Jowett, F. W. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Kearley, Hudson E. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Elibank, Master of Kekewich, Sir George O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Kelley, George D. O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Erskine, David C. Kennedy, Vincent Paul O'Grady, J.
Essex, R. W. Kilbride, Denis O'Hare, Patrick
Eve, Harry Tielawney Kincaid-Smith, Captain O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Everett, R. Lacey King, Alfred John (Knutsford) O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.
Fenwick, Charles Kitson, Sir James O'Malley, William
Ferens, T. R. Laidlaw, Robert O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Ferguson, R. C. Munro Lamb, Edmund G, Leominster) Parker, James (Halifax)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Partington, Oswald
Findlay, Alexander Lambert, George Paul, Herbert
Paulton, James Mellor Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland Wallace, Robert
Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Walters, John Tudor
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye) Schwann, SirC.E.(Manchester) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton Sears, J. E. Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Philipps, J.Wynford (Pembroke Seaverns, J. H. Ward, W.Duelley(Southampton
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Seddon, J. Wardle, George J.
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Seely, Major B. Warner, Thomas Courtcnay T.
Pollard, Dr. Shackleton, David James Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Power, Patrick Joseph Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) Waterlow, D. S.
Price, Robert John (Norfolk.E. Shipman, Dr. John G. Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Silcock, Thomas Ball Whitbread, Howard
Priestley, W. E. B.(Bradford,E.) Simon, John Allsebrook White, George (Norfolk)
Radford, G. H. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Rainy, A, Rolland Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Raphael, Herbert H. Snowden, P. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Spicer, Sir Albert Whitehead, Rowland
Rea, Walter Rusesll (Scarboro' Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Redmond, William (Clare) Stewart-Smith, D, (Kendal) Wiles, Thomas
Rees, J. D. Strachey, Sir Edward Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Rendall, Athelstan Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthn
Renton, Major Leslie Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th.) Stuart, James (Sunderland) Williamson, A.
Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn Sullivan, Donal Wills, Arthur Walters
Richardson, A. Summerbell, T. Wilson, HonC.H.W. (Hull, W.)
Rickett, J. Compton Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E. Wilson, W. T. (Wcsthoughton)
Robertson, Rt.Hn.E.(Dundee) Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr Winfrey, R.
Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradfrd Thompson, J. W. H.(Somerset) Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Tomkinson, James Wood, T. M. Kinnon
Robinson, S. Torrance, Sir A. M. Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd
Robson, Sir William Snowdon Toulmin, George Young, Samuel
Roe, Sir Thomas Trevelyan, Charles Philips Yoxall, James Henry
Rose, Charles Day Ure, Alexander
Runciman, Walter Verney, F. W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Russell, T. W. Vivian, Henry Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Rutherford, V. H. Brentford) Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) Pease.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hamilton, Marquess of
Anstruther-Gray, Major Castlereagh, Viscount Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford
Arkwright, John Stanhope Cave, George Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.
Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.Hugh O. Cavendish, Rt. Hn. VictorC.W. Hay, Hon. Claude George
Ashley, W. W. Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor Hervey, F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds
Aubrey-Fletchcr, Rt. Hn. Sir H Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)
Balcarres, Lord Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Hills, J. W.
Balfour, Rt.Hn.A.J.(CityLond.) Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Houston, Robert Paterson
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Courthope, G. Loyd Hunt, Rowland
Banner, John S. Harmood- Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Kennaway. Rt.Hn.SirJohn H.
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. C'ol.W
Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks Faber, George Denison (York) Keswick, William
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Fell, Arthur Lane-Fox, G. R.
Bignold, Sir Arthur Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
Bowles, G. Stewart Forster, Henry William Lee, ArthurH.(Hants., Fareh'm
Brotherton, Edward Allen Gardner, Ernest (Burks, East) Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt. -Col. A. R.
Bull, Sir William James Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin,S.
Burdett-Coutts, W. Haddock, George R. Lowe, Sir Francis William
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Rawlinson, John Frederick P. Thornton, Percy M.
MacIver, David (Liverpool) Remnant, James Farquharson Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Magnus, Sir Philip Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Marks, H. H. (Kent) Butherfrod, John (Lancashire) Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.
Mason, James F. (Windsor) Salter, Arthur Clavell Wilson, A.Stanley(York, E. R.)
Meysey-Thompson, K, C. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Mildmay, Francis Bingham Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Morpeth, Viscount Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Younger, George
Muntz, Sir Philip A. Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Starkey, John K. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Pease, HerbertPive (Darlington Stone, Sir Benjamin Alexander Acland-Hood and
Powell, SirFrancis Sharp Talbot, Rt. Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Univ. Viscount Valontia.
Ratcliff, Major R. F. Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

Clause 34 disagreed to.

And, it being after Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress: to sit again upon Monday next.