HC Deb 03 July 1908 vol 191 cc1126-43

As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.


said he wished to add a clause which was entirely non-controversial, and which would be of great administrative convenience. It did not touch the question of elementary education at all, but only dealt with the powers in regard to higher education of the authorities mentioned in Part II. of the Act of 1902. It had been found that there were so many cases in which the authorities found it convenient to join together in the administration of a school or college that there were many places in which it was done, but express legal sanction to do so would be a great advantage. At present in such cases difficulties arose with regard to the auditing of accounts, and when those difficulties arose difficulties also arose in regard to the payment of grants. The matter was not one on which there was likely to be any difference of opinion, and he hoped the House would assent to the clause which he ventured to move.

New Clause— To add the following clause: 'For the purpose of establishing or maintaining any school or college which any council have power to establish or maintain under Part II. of the Education Act, 1902, the council may agree to unite with any other council having powers under that Part of that Act, upon such terms as to payment, the appointment of a joint body of managers, and otherwise, as may be thought proper.'"—(Mr.McKinnon Wood.)

Brought up, and read a first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed' "That the Clause be read a second time."


said that, as the hon. Gentleman had said, the clause he had moved was wholly alien to the Bill before the House.


I did not make that statement; I think it is very germane to the purposes of this Bill.


said the Bill before the House was the delegation clause of the Bill of 1906. It was called the delegation clause in the marginal note, and it dealt solely with elementary education, and the promoter of this Bill had followed that clause scrupulously, not changing a single word in the introduction, except two or three things necessary owing to the Bill being dealt with in isolation. In his Memorandum he stated specifically that the Bill applied to elementary education alone, and now the Government came forward and introduced what seemed to be rather an objectionable thing, viz., an Amendment of the main Act of 1902 dealing with secondary education, training colleges, and so on, which was wholly distinct from the Bill of 1906, which in itself was no doubt a virtual repeal of the Act of 1902. He had no particular objection to the clause. Anybody at all acquainted with local education authorities knew perfectly well that what was proposed in this clause had already been carried into effect in certain places. He did not know what counties had difficulties about their audits, but the whole question of joint audits was settled by the clause dealing with coordination and co-operation in the Act of 1902. If the hon. Gentleman assured him that some question of audit had arisen which had produced an impasse between two local authorities maintaining jointly a hostel, training college, or teachers' centre, he would bow to his statement, but he would point out with all respect that it was not the fault of the Act of 1902 that such a condition had arisen, but the fault of one or both of the local education authorities in not having taken the trouble in drawing up a scheme of joint working to determine the ordinary business lines on which their accounts should be kept. He would point out another inconvenience. The Bill did not affect London, and county boroughs also were excluded. Between Lancashire and Yorkshire, where two county boroughs existed close to the borders, it might well be convenient that those two county boroughs should be entitled to work their pupil teachers' centre together just as much as the counties of Suffolk and Norfolk should be allowed to do so. Under this Bill the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education was only by his new clause giving power to establish joint bodies under Part II. of the old Act. If he wanted to enlarge the co-ordination portion of the Act of 1902 he should do it in a comprehensive way, and make it apply all round, and not, by incorporating it with the present Bill, limit it to two counties, and even then to counties with a certain population. Under this clause it would be impossible for Huntingdon, for instance, to take advantage of the scheme. He thought the Parliamentary Secretary would agree with him that if there was any county which required a statutory right to establish joint bodies, it was of all others one like Huntingdon, which had an insignificant population, and might find great difficulty in regard to capital expenditure necessary for erecting a hostel. He did not propose to oppose the Bill, but he would point out that this clause was not germane to it and was in some ways inconsistent with it, and the fact of its being tacked on to a delegation Bill only dealing with counties did not allow the clause to be carried quite as far as under other conditions it might be made to apply.

MR. WALKER (Leicestershire, Melton)

on behalf of the promoters accepted the clause. He pointed out that the Memorandum to which the noble Lord had referred should not have been reprinted, because the Bill was largely amended in Committee, and the Memorandum was not now quite accurate in many respects.


said the object of the new clause seemed to him perfectly right, but the question he would like to ask was why it should be necessary. They all knew that at the present time there were working arrangements between counties and their neighbours, or between county boroughs within their area, with regard to the working of secondary schools. There was every sort of arrangement in existence, and so far as he knew they were working more or less satisfactorily; but the Parliamentary Secretary had told them there were difficulties with regard to the audits. He had no acquaintance with those difficulties, but he assumed the Board had had cases sent up to them in which there had been such difficulties. He would have imagined, without further information, that those difficulties arose from the arrangements made between neighbouring counties or a county and a county borough being defective, and that if the schemes had been properly drawn, or were even now amended, there would be no difficulty of that sort. Why was there need of this clause in view of Clause 20 of the Education Act of 1902, where it said that an authority might make arrangements with the council of a county borough, district, or parish for the exercise by the council, on such terms and subject to such conditions as might be agreed on, of any of the powers of the authority in respect to the management of any school or college within the area of the council. Very wide powers were given under that clause as to management, the proportion of managers or governors to be appointed by each authority, the financial relationships between the two, and the class of schools to be dealt with. That being so, and it being a matter of general knowledge that there were these agreements all over the country, which had been very satisfactory in most cases, he would like to ask the hon. Gentleman why it became necessary to put this new clause in. Though the clause was more or less connected with the Bill it did not deal with the same questions, and it seemed somewhat undesirable that, in these rather complicated questions of administration, which were apt to give rise to a good deal of trouble between authorities and cause much expense, the Government should tack a clause on to a private Bill which had been through so many vicissitudes, and which had been so fundamentally altered upstairs that its parents could hardly recognise it as their original Bill.

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

said he did not know himself why the cases which arose between county councils and county borough councils were not fairly capable of settlement under the old condition of things. He presumed that the hon. Gentleman had reasons for putting down this clause, He had known of arrangements, and worse still of the lack of arrangements, between county councils and comity boroughs which caused a considerable amount of inconvenience and expense, but he gathered that his hon. friend's proposal did not cover such cases. When he was dealing with the matter why should he not deal with the whole situation? The common case to be dealt with was that of the children of a village which was under the administration of the county council, and where there was not as a rule a very good school existing. His hon. friend did not seem to enable the county councils under this clause to come to an arrangement with the county boroughs. He did not know what his hon. friend meant by the words "what s thought proper." Did that mean that the County Council or borough council was to determine what was "thought proper," or whether the Government Department was to have a voice as to what was "thought proper?" No doubt two great local authorities could settle between themselves, but what was to become of the poor villager who might easily fall between the two stools of the great big county council and the most powerful county borough, when they settled their quarrel, and came to terms of agreement? It might be that some poor villagers would be compelled to send their children to one school or another without their consent. He knew many villages where the parents had desired to send their children to school in the neighbouring county borough, but the county council had stepped in and said "No," and had compelled the parents to send their children to some much smaller school which they had established on their own account rather than pay a few pounds extra to allow them to attend a large school in the neighbouring county borough. It was not only in the interest of the county but in the interest of the neighbouring village, if his hon. friend was going to enable the county authority to come to some arrangement, that it should only be done under the supervision of the Department, and everybody should be considered—not merely the two authorities, who could look after themselves, but also the parents and their children.


thought the Government were ill-advised in drawing up this clause, at any rate, in its present form. There was no use, as far as he could see, in further complicating the law in regard to education. It seemed to him that, in the conditions under which the county councils worked, it was already sufficiently complicated. If anything was desired to improve that machinery, it ought to be done by an amendment of the existing machinery, rather than by superimposing upon it yet another method of combination which he ventured to say had not been sufficiently thought out. His noble friend had referred to Clause 20 of the Act of 1902, but there was another clause which seemed even more directly in point, and with which the hon. Gentleman no doubt was familiar, Clause 17. The House would remember that by the first subsection the Council was given powers to make a scheme for the appointment of an education committee. By sub-section (3) provision was made for the constitution of a separate education committee for any area within the county, or for a joint education committee for any area formed of a combination of county boroughs or county districts. There was in the appendix to that Act a code of Regulations to regulate the proceedings of that joint committee. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in saying that financial difficulties had arisen with reference to the work of these joint committees, because the Act did not specifically, and in so many words, provide an arrangement by which the expense of the various councils could be apportioned. But that difficulty was by no means insuperable, and could be got over in several instances by an agreement between the two. They had the scheme under the Act, and then they had the agreement with the provision at the end of it that if the agreement was not carried out then the scheme was to come to an end. There was no difficulty about that. He believed himself that there was no real practical difficulty in establishing that joint committee now, but at any rate if there was any amendment of the law it should be by way of amending Clause 17. If they included in this clause a new method of combination they would have, as far as he could see, no machinery for carrying that method of combination into effect. He did not see any provision in the clause as to giving any powers at all to that joint committee. All that they could do was to agree to unite upon such terms as might be thought proper. That was merely an agreement, and he did not see that it gave power to the joint committee of an executive character or even for carrying on its own proceedings. It might be that there was a practical difficulty under the Act of 1902 in delegating any executive powers to the joint committee. He did not pretend to know enough of the detailed work to say, but that might be a matter for amendment, and in that case it would be right to deal with it. But this clause did not deal with it; it merely proposed a new method of combination.

MR. STANLEY WILSON (Yorkshire, E.R., Holderness)

said he had come to the House with an open mind in regard to this clause, but after listening to the speeches of the two noble Lords on those benches he could not see the necessity of it at all. As far as he could see it was entirely contrary to the principle of the Bill as it originally stood. He quite agreed with the noble Lord the Member for South Birmingham that the change which had been made in this Bill in Committee upstairs was the most remarkable he had ever seen take place in any measure. He could not help thinking that the hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill, and who acted as Chairman of the Committee, must have very great difficulty in recognising his own offspring when he looked at it. The Bill dealt with secondary education only, but he found included in it powers far wider than anything which they had discussed in that House. He could not help thinking, therefore, that it would be wiser if the Government reconsidered their determination, and if his hon. friend went to a division he should certainly support him.


said there seemed to be some misapprehension in regard to the Amendment, There had been about fifty cases in which difficulties had arisen. It was therefore a matter of importance to the Board of Education. The clauses referred to in the Education Act of 1902—Clauses 17 and 20—did not deal with the particular cases with which this clause was intended to deal. The clause was intended to deal with cases where there was a school or college used by two areas and in regard to which it was advisable that the two areas should take part in its management and jointly contribute towards its maintenance.


asked if the hon. Member said that it was impossible at the present time for two county councils to appoint a joint body of governors say of a secondary school.


said he did not think it was impossible. He had mentioned that the thing had been done a good many times, but the noble Lord would remember the case of Millom in Cumberland in which some difficulty arose. The case which the clause was intended to meet was not at all met by the clauses referred to by the hon. Member. This was a case in which they had a committee of both authorities dealing with a particular institution, and it was a mere question of administration and of accounts. There were many cases in which it was desirable to have power jointly to control and maintain a school or college, and it was so convenient that it had been done, but difficulties had arisen in consequence of questions raised with regard to the audit of the Committee's accounts. This clause, therefore, was not a question of complicating the Education Act of 1902; it was a question of simplification. It would enable two authorities interested in an institution to form a committee to deal with it without having any technical difficulties raised with regard to the audit or to the grant. Clause 17 of the Act of 1902 was, of course, more appropriate to large administrative areas. This clause dealt with particular institutions—schools and colleges.


said he understood the hon. Gentleman to say that this clause had been brought forward, not because it had been impossible in the past to carry out the object the clause desired to promote, but because there had been technical difficulties raised with regard to the question of audit and grant. The clause, therefore, he said ought to be passed. He was rather inclined to think that on the face of it it was not a bad clause. He was in favour of economy, and he was inclined to think the clause might tend in that direction, and at first he was disposed to support it; but, on further consideration, he had come to the conclusion that the clause was not as innocent as it looked and ought not at the present moment to be supported. The title of the measure was "Education (Local Authorities) Bill," and under that it would be perfectly in order to alter the whole of the Education Act of 1902, and alter it by means of a private Member's Bill. He did not think that was a right thing to do. The Memorandum said that the Bill reproduced the language of the delegation clause of the Education Bill of 1906 in the final form in which it received the assent of the House of Lords. It was rather curious of hon. Gentlemen opposite to advocate a Bill because it had received the assent of the House of Lords. He was glad they had come round and that, instead of moving Resolutions to abolish that place, they were putting on the Memorandum of their Bill that it ought to be supported because it was the form in which it had received the assent of the House of Lords. The real object of the Bill was delegation, and delegation alone; and, therefore, unless the title had been widely drawn, the clause would not have been in order. He was inclined to think there must have been some arrangement between the promoters and the Government to bring in a Bill with a wide title so that the Secretary to the Board of Education might bring forward a new clause, which would, without going through all the safeguards imposed on a Government measure, alter the law. That was a very dangerous practice. He would have opposed it even if it had been adopted by his hon. friends, and he would have no hesitation in opposing this attempt on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The clause had really nothing to do with the Bill.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

thought it was rather extraordinary that a private Bill should be sent upstairs in one form, and then, when it came down to the House again, they should have added a clause which had really nothing to do with the original measure. He did not see why, if the Education Department had already allowed what strictly ought not to be, they could not continue to do so until legislation could be brought in in the proper way. He would be inclined to vote against the clause now because he did not think it was a proper thing to propose to add it to a private Member's Bill in a thin House late on a Friday afternoon.


submitted that the explanatory Memorandum of objects and reasons had nothing whatever to do with the contents of the Bill. The measure was in no way governed by it, and so far as it was concerned anything might be imported into the Bill without its being in the least degree out of order. He did not pretend to compete with the hon. Baronet in destructive criticism, but he did contend that it was not sound criticism to say that the clause should not be moved because the subject with which it dealt was not mentioned in the Memorandum. Although he was present he did not hear the speech of the hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench, and he did not quite understand why the House was dealing with the fragment of a lost Bill. An Education Bill was coming forward, and he could not see why there should be any hurry in this matter. It might be included in the Bill. There might be some good reason for the procedure followed, but he did not hear the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and he continued in ignorance. Although there were some twelve Members backing the Bill, not many of them were present. It appeared that the Bill would create new minor education authorities, lead to fresh expenses, and increase the maze of legislation in which local authorities now wandered and were often lost. Unless it was urgently called for, there was a strong prima facie case against passing any new fragmentary Act which created a new authority. In his own county there were a great many public men who spent their time in working the provisions of these Acts, and he believed every fresh Act which was not absolutely necessary was anything but a benefit to official bodies. He did not know why this could not come into the Education Bill and he would be glad if the hon. Gentleman would, for the benefit of one of his supporters, kindly explain this matter.

MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W.R., Barkston Ash)

said the Bill had been spoken of as though it were going to effect an enormous reform, but he would point out that as it emerged from the Committee it was a shell and a sham and gave no powers which did not already exist. He wished to add his humble protest to the extraordinary procedure of asking the House to accept a new clause which dealt with a phase of the Bill which was never contemplated by the hon. Gentleman who brought it in, or presumably by those who supported him by putting their names on the Bill. Already those hon. Members had gone on the most extraordinary lines emasculating their own Bill or at any rate looking on whilst others carried on the process, and now, having completely altered and changed the form of the measure, in its very modified and weakened state, they asked the House to tack on to it a clause dealing with an entirely new phase of the question. Anybody who looked at the old form in which the Bill existed would see that the question of secondary education was expressly exempted. There were many Members who believed that a certain amount of delegation might be a good thing. Personally, he believed that in large areas such as the West Riding of Yorkshire a system of elementary delegation, where immense detail was involved, would be most advisable, but he never for an instant believed the Government would support such delegation of secondary education to small bodies in small areas. He protested against the system of doing things in Committee of which the House as a whole was more or less ignorant, and then trying to improve upon the procedure of Committee on the Report stage. That was an absolutely unprecedented proceeding, and he hoped the House would not give a Second Reading to the clause.

MR. ADKINS (Lancashire, Middleton)

said that when introduced the Bill had a compulsory element. It now practically only allowed county councils to try certain experiments, and in that form it had the support of the County Councils Association, and at the wish of the association it had been extended to cover education other than elementary. The hon. Member who spoke last would, he was certain, be only too willing to trust the vast majority of the county councils of the country in trying an experiment in delegation in secondary as well as elementary education, which anybody who was familiar with educational work in the country knew might well be tried in some places. In regard to this particular clause, which had been described with every variety of inaccuracy, all that it did was to make it perfectly clear that county councils might combine to assist secondary schools on their borders, and when they did so, to provide that there should be no delay in having their accounts audited and in their getting the Government grants to which they were entitled. It was purely a permissive clause, entirely non-contentious in its nature, merely to facilitate an existing practice and to remove difficulties which no one desired, and which had arisen merely because the existing Act was not perfectly clear in detail. If a clause like that could not be accepted by the promoters without their being accused of illegitimately extending their Bill it would be surely very difficult for Parliament, however it might wish to promote smooth administration, to do so with these details which could be so conveniently dealt with in this way. They all knew how very important it was that local authorities should combine with regard to secondary schools on their boundary. It had happened in all parts of the country. They combined at present, but the fact that there were technical difficulties delayed their getting proper Government grants promptly. Whatever differences there might be in that House on other aspects of education, surely the House could agree to facilitate the receipt by local bodies of these Government grants, and to get them promptly, in order to prevent the waste of time, trouble, and temper upon educational administration. Therefore, he hoped that Members would allow this exceedingly small but practical and useful new clause to be adopted, because it was not altering procedure but merely avoiding friction which no-one had a real interest in continuing.


said he would like to know who had the drafting of the clause. It was said to be but an alteration. Why was it that no agreement was sanctioned between a county council and the council of an ordinary borough of over 10,000 population? At present it was done more or less, it was true, possibly not absolutely legally, but it was done illegally, and this new clause limited the power. It simply authorised agreements between county councils and county councils, but not with boroughs which were not counties in themselves, such as Cambridge. That being the construction of the clause, why was it done? Was it done through inadvertence or bad drafting, or was it not intended, and, if it was not intended, why were they to bring in this wonderful Amendment which was only to apply to county councils, precluding any arrangement being made with the council of a borough of over 10,000.


said he could assure the hon. and learned Member that it did not exclude them. It included any council which had powers under Part II. of the Act.


said that if the hon. Gentleman looked at Part II. he would find that boroughs of the nature he had indicated had no powers under Part II. of the Act.


said they had.


that was a most extraordinary statement to make. The clause excluded arrangements with the vast majority of boroughs, and he asked whether that was intentional or whether it was a mistake. This power was given to unite "upon such terms as may be thought proper." Thought proper by whom? The question had been asked before, but no answer had been given. In drafting a clause of this kind it ought to be made clear as to who was meant. If it was meant to be the contracting councils, they had only to put in the words. Apart from the drafting of the clause, he protested as well against the Government putting in Amendments on a Friday afternoon in this way. He had protested against it once already, and was assured that the Government might do this sort of thing, and make it in no way a Government clause. They knew the result of that on the last occasion when many Members who took part in the division did not know what they were voting for. He supposed the same would happen again. When the Government supported a clause of this kind it got about among their followers and it was made a party question. He agreed that it applied to all sections of the House, and he dared say that their front bench would do exactly the same, but the back benches should protest against it. He hoped the House would not only object to the clause but would object to the system.


said he was very sorry to intervene again, but the hon. Member had appealed to him so very strongly that perhaps he would allow him to point out that Part II. of the Education Act included non-county boroughs and urban districts as well as county councils, and the clause now proposed included all the authorities that had power under Part II.


said they had been debating the clause for an hour, and he thought the Government might have followed the course of submitting it to the Standing Committee, of which he was a member. If that had been done probably five or ten minutes would have sufficed for the debate, and the matter would have been ended. He did not think it was treating Committees quite respectfully or fairly, after they had fully considered a Bill of this kind, suddenly to hurl at their heads a new clause introduced by the Government.

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

said he wished as a member of the County Councils Association to state why he proposed to vote for the clause. Though he felt as his hon. friends did with regard to the Amendment being introduced so suddenly at this stage of the proceedings, he recognised that the clause might be, to a certain extent, required for the purposes of audit. He protested however against the way in which it had been brought before the House. The hon. Member who had just sat down spoke as an admirer of the system of Standing Committees, and he spoke as just the reverse, but they had both arrived at the same conclusion, that it was very inconvenient that on the Report stage of a Bill like this a clause should be suddenly sprung upon the House which had not hitherto been considered. It certainly seemed to him when his hon. friend was speaking that the representative of the Board of Education did not seem to know whether it applied to certain urban councils or not.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 153; Noes,40. (Division List No.165).

Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.) Hobart, Sir Robert Power, Patrick Joseph
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Hodge, John Reddy, M.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Hogan, Michael Rees, J. D.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Hooper, A. G. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Horniman, Emslie John Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Barnard, E. B. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Barnes, G. N. Hudson, Walter Roe, Sir Thomas
Barran, Rowland Hirst Hyde, Clarendon Rogers, F. E. Newman
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone. N.) Idris, T. H. W. Rowlands, J.
Benn, W. (Tw'rHamlets, S. Geo. Illingworth, Percy H. Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Berridge, T. H. D. Jackson, R. S. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Boland, John Jones, Leif (Appleby) Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Branch, James Joyce, Michael Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne
Bright, J. A. Kavanagh, Walter M. Seaverns, J. H.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) Kekewich, Sir George Seddon, J.
Cawley, Sir Frederick Laidlaw, Robert Shaw. Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Cheetham, John Frederick Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Sheehy, David
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis Silcock, Thomas Ball
Cleland, J. W. Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Clough, William Lewis, John Herbert Sloan, Thomas Henry
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Lundon, W. Snowden, P.
Cooper, G. J. Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Crean, Eugene Macpherson, J. T. Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Cremer, Sir William Randal MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Crooks, William MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Cuilinan, J. M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. Maddison, Frederick Thorne. G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Dillon, John Marnham, F. J. Ure, Alexander
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Meagher, Michael Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Esslemont, George Birnie Menzies, Walter Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Evans, Sir Samuel T. Murnaghan, George White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Everett, R. Lacey Murphy, John (Kerry, East) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Ffrench, Peter Myer, Horatio White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Findlay, Alexander Nannetti, Joseph P. Whitehead, Rowland
Flavin, Michael Joseph Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Gill, A. H. Norton, Capt. Cecil William Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Wiles, Thomas
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Nussey, Thomas Willans Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Williamson, A.
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Halpin, J. O'Doherty, Philip Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Harrington, Timothy O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Yoxall, James Henry
Haworth, Arthur A. O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Hazel, Dr. A. E. Parker, James (Halifax) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Hazleton, Richard Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Healy, Timothy Michael Perks, Sir Robert William
Helmsley, Viscount Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Higham, John Sharp Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Balcarres, Lord Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) Ridsdale, E. A.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gretton, John Sandys, Lieut. -Col. Thos. Myles
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Guinness, Walter Edward Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Harris, Frederick Leverton Stanier, Beville
Bowles, G. Stewart Hunt, Rowland Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Valentia, Viscount
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Lane-Fox, G. R. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) M'Arthur, Charles Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) M'Calmont, Colonel James Younger, George
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Moore, William TELLERS FOR THE NOES,—Mr.
Fell, Arthur Morpeth, Viscount Godfrey Baring and Mr.Stanley Wilson.
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Morrison-Bell, Captain
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Clause read a second time.


said that some objection had been taken by the hon. Member for Morley to the words "as may be thought proper." The words were very obscure and they would like to know who was to think these arrangements proper, whether the two local authorities or the Board of Education, and in order to render that quite clear he moved to amend the clause by leaving out at the end "and otherwise as may be thought proper," and inserting "that may be sanctioned by the Board of Education."


said he wanted to move at an earlier point a verbal Amendment which he thought should be accepted. It was to insert after "payment," the words "and audit." He understood it was the audit and not the payment on account which caused the difficulty, and he thought it advisable that the specific statement should be inserted.

Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause— In line 4, after the word 'payment' to insert the words 'and audit.'"—(Lord Balcarres.)

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


said he was very sorry he could not accept the Amendment, because the effect would be to give the local authorities power to decide what sort of audit they would have. This was a Bill enabling local authorities to combine together in certain ways, and for certain purposes. It did not give them powers in regard to audit, which must remain under the control of the Local Government Board and not of the authority.

And, it being Five of the Clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Wednesday next.