Sitting of 14 July 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Brighton Corporation Bill [Lords]; South Staffordshire Tramways Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  Grindleford, Baslow, and Bakewell Railway Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Cardiff Railway Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Croydon and District Electric Tramways Bill. Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  Scottish American Mortgage Company, Limited, Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Didcot, Newbury, and Southampton Railway Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; Bill to be read the third time.
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Gosport and Fareham Tramways Bill [Lords]; Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords]; South Eastern and London, Chatham and Dover Railways Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Castleblaney, Keady, and Armagh Railway (Extension of Time) Bill. Ordered, That, in the case of the Castleblaney, Keady, and Armagh Railway (Extension of Time) Bill, Standing Orders. 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and

  563
  that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos, 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
  Aston Manor Improvement Bill [Lords] [by Order]. Verbal Amendments made; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Hastings Harbour District Railway Bill [Lords] [by Order]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government Provisional Order (No. 16) Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill, without Amendment.
  Metropolitan District Railway (Various Powers) Bill; Great Northern Railway Bill; Midland and Belfast and Northern Counties Bailways Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to Hexham Gas [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petition from Haggerston, against; to lie upon the Table.
  GARRARD, CHARLES EAGLE.
  Petition of Charles Eagle Garrard, for inquiry into his case; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL.
  Petition from Little Hulton, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL AND LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Two Petitions from South Shields, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petition from Little Hulton, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PATRIOTIC FUND.
  Copy presented, of Forty-first Report of the Royal Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (STATEMENT OF EXCESSES) 1901–2.
  Copy presented, of Statement of the Sum required to be voted in order to make good Excesses of Army Expenditure beyond the Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1902 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 255.]
  EAST INDIA (ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES, 1903–4).
  Copy presented, of Explanatory Memorandum by the Secretary of State for India [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  "Hyacinth" and "Minerva"—Repairs and Trials.
  COLONEL DENNY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what amount of time has been incurred in overhauls on the "Hyacinth" and "Minerva" respectively since the date of handing over of former by builders; how much of the time spent in these overhauls has been expended during the financial year ending 31st March, 1903; and what has been

  565
  the mileage run on trials and commissions respectively by these ships since date of intimation to Boiler Committee that these vessels were ready for comparative trials.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) I am afraid I must ask my hon. friend to defer this Question for a few days longer. It is hoped that the information will be available by the beginning of next week, and I shall then be glad to give him a reply.

  Workmen's Dwellings—Persons Dishoused by Ground Landlords.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of extending to ground landlords who dishouse workers and refuse to grant sites for workers' dwellings the arrangement compelling railway companies to provide dwellings for workers who are dishoused owing to improvements or extensions.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) A railway company who acquire houses occupied by persons of the labouring class are only required to make provision of the kind referred to in the Question where the houses are acquired in the exercise of Parliamentary powers conferred on them. The requirement is regarded as part of the Parliamentary bargain under which the power to acquire the houses is given. The case of the ground landlord does not appear to be analogous, and I am not prepared to propose the alteration in the law suggested.

  Income Tax Returns.
  MR. TANKERVILLE CHAMBER-LAYNE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that forms are being issued by the Inland Revenue Office to landowners and others requiring them to state what their incomes from all sources amount to; and, if so, will he say whether it is compulsory for them to make this Return; and whether he will consider the advisability of dispensing with this Return in the case of landowners
  566
  whose tenants pay the income tax and deduct it from their rent.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The forms of Return issued to landowners for the purpose of the quinquennial re-assessment of land and houses contain a form of claim for exemption or abatement of income tax, whereon any intending claimant is required to state the amount of his income from all sources, and it is to this, presumably, that the hon. Member refers. There is, however, no obligation to fill up this form, which is added merely in order to enable any person entitled to exemption or abatement to prefer his claim at the same time that he returns the particulars of the lands or houses in his occupation.

  Public Holidays—Allowances to Officials on Piece-work.
  SIR ANDREW AGNEW: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the practice when Government offices are closed on occasions of public rejoicing, and the salaried clerks allowed a holiday on full pay, for an allowance to be made to the engrossing clerks and others who are paid for their work by results; and, if not, whether he will consider if such allowance can be made in future, so that such clerks shall not be losers through being forced to take a holiday.
  (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) In special recognition of the Coronation holidays of last year, an allowance was made to engrossing clerks paid by piecework in various public Departments. It is not, however, the rule that clerks employed on piece-work which does not occupy them throughout the year shall receive payment in respect of any particular day on which no work is done.

  Value of Iron and Steel Exports.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the weight and value of manufactured and partly manufactured steel and iron, and of pig iron exported from the United Kingdom from

  567
  1st January to 30th June this year and in the four previous half years.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The following are the figures required by the hon. Member:—
  Iron and steel and manufactures thereof (including pig iron) of British produce exported from the United Kingdom in:—

  Quantity.

  Value.

  Six months ending—

  Tons.

  £

  June, 1901

  1,404,000

  12,617,000

  December, 1901

  1,494,000

  12,666,000

  June, 1902

  1,517,000

  13,351,000

  December, 1902

  2,063,000

  15,871,000

  June, 1903

  1,874,000

  15,590,000

  The corresponding figures for pig iron alone are:—

  Quantity.

  Value.

  Six months ending—

  Tons.

  £

  June, 1901

  447,000

  1,408,000

  December, 1901

  392,000

  1,222,000

  June, 1902

  378,000

  1,181,000

  December, 1902

  725,000

  2,389,000

  June, 1903

  595,000

  1,928,000

  Value of Imports into British Colonies and Possessions from Foreign Countries.
  MR. PARTINGTON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the Return [C. 1638], stating the value of the trade of the various British colonies and possessions with the United Kingdom, other British possessions, and foreign countries during the year 1901, can he state the value of manufactured goods, raw material, and food stuffs respectively, imported into our colonies and possessions from foreign countries during that year.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) This information cannot be given without notice.

  Imports of Wheat from and Exports of Manufactures to the Colonies from 1832 to 1845.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the extent of the preference given to colonial over foreign wheat in the Customs tariffs of this country from 1832 to 1845; and whether he has any official information showing how far the increase in the centesimal proportion of the declared value of British manufactures
  568
  exported to our colonies, from 27·82 in 1832 to 28 04 in 1845, was a consequence of the preference shown by the mother country; and if he can state the percentage increase or decrease in the exports to the colonies of our total exports since the abandonment of any preferential Customs treatment.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The information asked for in the first and last parts of this Question cannot be supplied without notice. The answer to the second part is in the negative.

  Value of Coal Exports.
  MR. MANSFIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, will he state the total value of coal exported from this country during 1902, and state approximately how much of that amount represents labour and carnage, and how much represents the value of the coal in the pit.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The value of coal exported from the United Kingdom in 1902 was £26,307,351, exclusive of bunker coal. The last part of the Question is of a speculative character, and cannot be answered from official statistics.

  Beaumaris County School—Financial Difficulties.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the financial difficulties experienced by the Governors of the Beaumaris County School, owing to inadequate provisions in the Anglesey county scheme under The Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889, the Board of Education intend to take steps to remedy the defect, either by means of the powers conferred upon them by the Education Act, 1902, or by some other method.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board have given the most careful consideration to the financial condition of this school, and have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the case cannot be satisfactorily dealt with until Part II, of the Education Act of last year has come into force in Anglesey.

  Reductions in the Basket Shop Staff at Mount Pleasant Factory.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what is the reason for the recent discharges at the basket shop at the Mount Pleasant Factory; and if it is the intention in future to have the baskets repaired by private firms instead of employing the men direct, as at present.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) It has recently been decided to do more of the repairing of parcel baskets by contract at local centres, and this change has involved a reduction in the number of repairers employed at the Mount Pleasant Factory.

  Sale of Fewston (Yorkshire) Glebe Lands.
  MR. DUNCAN: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if the approval of the Land Commissioners has been given, or will be given, to the sale of the Fewston, Yorkshire, Glebe Lands; if Section 1 of Clause 8 of The Glebe Lands Act, 1888, has been complied with; what steps were taken to inquire if the sanitary authority for the district desired a portion to be set apart for the purposes of the Allotments Act; and what evidence was taken to discover if the price for the glebe land would be injuriously affected by its division.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) We were satisfied, after inquiry, that the proposed sale of glebe land would be for the permanent benefit of the benefice of Fewston, and the formal approval of the Board to the sale is therefore about to be given. The requirements of Section 8 (1) of The Glebe Lands Act, 1888, have been satisfied. The Board ascertained by direct inquiry of the sanitary authority that no portion of the land was required for the purposes of the Allotments Acts, and they also ascertained by special inquiry in the parish that there was no demand for the glebe in small parcels by cottagers, labourers, and others.

  Increase in the Number of Metropolitan Magistrates.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the representations of magistrates and
  570
  Reports of Departmental Committees extending back for many years as to the necessity for increasing the number of metropolitan magistrates, His Majesty's Government intend to take steps to enable additional appointments to be made.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) This question has been, as the hon. Member indicates, the subject of several representations and has engaged the attention of successive Secretaries of State. It is true that difficulties occasionally arise with the present number of magistrates, especially when one of the magistrates attached to a Police Court is absent on leave and the other is unable, e.g., by reason of sudden illness, to attend; but in view of the normal amount of work in the Courts my predecessors have felt great difficulty in pressing on the Treasury the appointment of additional magistrates. I do not, however, think that the matter has been considered as finally settled, and it shall have my consideration.

  Irish Firms and the King's Visit.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the Irish Local Government Board did not afford to Irish firms the opportunity of tendering for the work at Dublin Castle arising from the King's visit, and why workmen and materials were imported; and whether he can state the amount of money to be so expended.
  (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) The erection of a temporary building at Dublin Castle was entrusted to a London firm for reasons of urgency, as constant reference has to be made to the authorities at Buckingham Palace. The whole of the timber required for the building is supplied by a Dublin firm, and many Irish workmen are employed. Where reasons of urgency do not apply, the work in connection with the King's visit has been given to Irish contractors. I am unable to say the exact sum which will be so expended.

  Return of Ranges in the United Kingdom.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will give a Return of

  571
  the number of ranges in the United Kingdom, giving the situation, range, and number of available targets for each range; also the number of Government ranges that have been closed during the last year, and the number that have been opened; also the number and description of ranges being constructed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Return will be given if the hon. Member will move for it.

  "Pass School" Certificates for Militia and Volunteer Officers.
  MR. PARTINGTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if it is possible for Militia and Volunteer officers to get pass school certificates without going through the course at a London barracks.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Militia and Volunteer officers can obtain a pass school certificate at schools other than that at Chelsea Barracks. There are schools for Infantry officers at Glasgow and Edinburgh, and others will be formed as required. Artillery officers can obtain certificates at the schools of instruction at Leith, Golden Hill, Sheerness, and Plymouth, and Engineers at the School of Military Engineering, Chatham.

  Canadian Government Railways—British and Foreign Tenders for Locomotives.
  MR. LEVY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the contract for locomotives recently given by Canada to a Glasgow firm, he will inquire from the Canadian Government and inform the House the difference in price between the accepted tender and the lowest tender of a foreign firm, and state the percentage of preference given by the tariff to the Glasgow firm as against the lowest tender from a foreign nation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The locomotives were bought by the Canadian Pacific Railway, not by the Canadian Government, and it would be unusual to ask them to disclose either the amount of the successful tender or that of the lowest foreign tender. I am
  572
  informed that the preference given to the British firm amounts in the case of each locomotive to fully £500.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  South African War Medals.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that large numbers of men in the Army or recently discharged have not yet received South African war medals to which they are entitled, he will say whether this delay is caused by undue centralisation at Woolwich; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of despatching the medals to officers commanding units, making them responsible for the engraving and distribution of the medals.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): As I have already explained to the House, considerable time is required for checking the rolls which in many cases were not correct. Up to the 30th June 390,261 medals and 982,070 clasps had been issued. Commanding officers are now responsible for the distribution, but to make them responsible for the engraving would hardly appear expeditious. The greatest possible efforts have been made to expedite production both at the Mint and Woolwich.

  Damaged Tinned Rations.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the Report with reference to damaged tinned meats, he will ascertain whether such damage has been caused by bad meat being tinned, defective tinning, or inferior tin, and also state the amount of tinned meat that is held by the War Office in stock; and whether periodical examinations will be ordered in the future.
  *LORD STANLEY: There is no reason to suppose that the damage was due to bad meat being tinned, defective tinning, or inferior tin, but inquiries are being made on the two latter points. The analyses made at home by the Government Analyst, Somerset House, of

  573
  samples of the rations before they left England were all satisfactory. The stock of preserved meat maintained is 2,000,000 lbs. It is examined periodically according to the regulations.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: How often does "periodically" mean—once a month or once a year?
  *LORD STANLEY: I do not remember exactly, but I should imagine certainly once a year. Of course, only a percentage is taken.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not the fact that an inquiry is taking place in reference to the damaged stores in South Africa which had to be destroyed?
  *LORD STANLEY: Certainly.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: And, in view of the enormous quantity of rations that had to be destroyed, will steps be taken not to employ the same contractors again?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is the subject of another Question.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes acting upon the recommendation of the Report of the Board of Officers, which inquired into the destruction of meat and vegetable rations at Pretoria, and recover from the contractors the cost of the rations destroyed; which of the firms named, if any, of those who supplied these rations are to be struck off the War Office list; and whether rations supplied during the war by any of the firms named in the Report were condemned; and, if so, were the rations so condemned destroyed or returned to the contractor.
  *LORD STANLEY: Until the full liability of the contractors is ascertained from South Africa it will not be possible to consider the question of recovery of cost. Very few complaints have been received as regards the various brands of meat and vegetable rations; it is understood that they gave general satisfaction. Contractors, when responsible for condemned
  574
  rations, have to make good the loss either in money or in kind.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Were any of the rations returned to the contractors?
  *LORD STANLEY: No, they were destroyed.
  MR. DILLON: Who is responsible for passing these contracts, and what action are the Government going to take?
  *LORD STANLEY: We are making further inquiries before we take any further action. With regard to who the contractors were and what proportion of what each contractor supplied was examined, I hope the House will excuse me at the present moment from saying what our course of action will be; but if we find that the contractors are liable the House may rest assured that we shall act fully up to our contract.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will fuller information be in the hands of Members by Thursday when the War Office Vote comes on for discussion?
  *LORD STANLEY: I hope so. We cabled for particulars on Thursday or Friday in last week.
  MR. DILLON: The noble Lord has not stated whether he will also give information as to who were the responsible advisers of the War Office in accepting these rations?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Employment of Retired Officers.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that every officer on retired pay from the British Army has to make a declaration, before receiving his allowance, that during the previous quarter he has not held any place of employment or profit, civil or military, in the British colonies or possessions beyond the seas; and whether, seeing that officers who have been retired from the British Army and given their services to a colony enjoying responsible Government thereby do not in any way injure or impair the efficiency

  575
  of the British Army or involve any charge upon the taxpayer, and that retired officers are allowed to become company directors, and that in two cases the colonies have been deprived of the services of matured Army officers, who would have been punished by being deprived of their half pay or pensions if they had taken service under the Australian Government, he will state the date of the Order referred to, and whether it was based on the Report of a Commission; and whether he can see his way to abolish the Order.
  LORD STANLEY: The answer to the first sentence of the Question is "Yes." As regards the second the regulation is based on the military ground that the colonies would, as a ride, obtain better military service from officers on the active list, and that retired pay should not be drawn concurrently with full pay. The rule dates from the 16th September, 1887; it was not based on the Report of a Commission. Officers on retired pay are bound to serve again up to the age of fifty if retired as lieutenant or captain; fifty-five if retired in other ranks below that of general officer, and sixty-seven if retired as general officer, if called upon, and it would seem inequitable that retired officers employed by a colony should be treated more favourably than those employed under the Imperial Government.

  Quick Firing Gun Trials.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a pattern of quick-firing gun, for issue to the Royal Horse and Field Artillery, has been decided upon; and, if so, when the manufacture of the guns will be commenced and when they will be issued.
  LORD STANLEY: Trials of Horse and Field Artillery Guns are being carried out but a final decision has not been arrived at.

  Fiji.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the allegations made against the administration in Fiji, he will appoint an independent Commission
  576
  to report on the same, or refer the said allegations to a Committee of this House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): No, Sir. The recently appointed Governor is fully competent to conduct the inquiry, upon which he is actively engaged.

  Egyptian Finance.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken or are proposed to be taken to remove the financial difficulties imposed upon Egypt by the Laws of Liquidation referred to by Lord Cromer in several of his annual reports.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): The present arrangements must in any case remain in force till 1905. I hope, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will not press me to make any statement on this subject at present.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Why must it remain in force?
  LORD CRANBORNE: Because it is the law.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It is not a matter of Convention then? Is it the law of England?
  LORD CRANBORNE: I must ask for notice.

  Egyptian Judicial System.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that inconvenience, delay, and undue expense are caused in regard to the administration of justice in Egypt by the existence of divers jurisdictions; and whether any steps are being taken to simplify and unify the judicial system of Egypt; and, if not, will he state whether he will take any action in that direction.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The system of mixed tribunals in Egypt is an International

  577
  arrangement, and the consent of the Powers would be necessary before any change could be introduced. His Majesty's Government are not prepared at this moment to take any initiative in the direction indicated.

  The Assouan Dam.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the increased area of land which has been brought into cultivation by means of the Assouan Dam; and whether it is proposed to make any alteration in the dam or reservoir such as will admit of a greater storage of water.
  LORD CRANBORNE: As the Assouan Dam was only opened at the end of last year any attempt to obtain statistics as to the increased area of land under cultivation would at present be premature and none have yet been received. I understand that it is not proposed at present to make any alterations in the dam.

  Provision for the Destitute in Egypt.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what provision is made by the Government in Egypt for the housing and care of orphan children and destitute poor.
  LORD CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Government have not received any definite information, but Lord Cromer will be asked to report on the subject.

  Anglo-Egyptian Convention.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having regard to the fact that the assent of Turkey, the Suzerain Power of Egypt, was not obtained to the Anglo-Egyptian Convention of 19th January, 1899, relative to the Soudan, and that by virtue of Lord Granville's despatch of 3rd January, 1884, the Egyptian Government could not withhold its assent, will he say whether the Convention is valid.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The answer is in the affirmative.

  Corn Prices Return.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will grant the Return of Corn Prices, notice of which stands on to-day's Paper.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I regret that I cannot grant this Return. The matter has been carefully considered in consultation with the Board of Agriculture, and it is found that part of the information desired cannot be supplied, and that the compilation of the remainder would involve great labour without yielding a satisfactory result.
  Appended is the Return referred to:—
  Return of (1) the average monthly price for each month of the years 1875 to 1903 of wheat, maize, barley, oats, and rye, at the following producing places, specifying in the case of wheat the accompanying standards: New York, No. 2 red winter wheat; Chicago, No. 2 red winter, wheat; Montreal, No. 1 hard Manitoban wheat; Buenos Ayres, Standard Plate wheat; Bombay, No. 1 Bombay wheat; Calcutta, No. 2 Club Calcutta; and at the following consuming places, specifying the above standards in the case of wheat: Liverpool, London, Hull, Havre, Marseilles, Paris, Hamburg, Berlin, Barcelona, Madrid, Amsterdam, and Antwerp; the prices to be calculated per 112 lbs. English, and to be the market price, and not the official values; the taxed and untaxed returns to be given at ports where both are mentioned; and (2) the tariff in operation at each period in each place.

  Post Office and Trustee Savings Bank.
  MR. LUNDON: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the present number of post office savings banks and also the present number of savings bank depositors in England and Ireland respectively, the present number of trustee savings banks and also the present number of trustee savings bank depositors in England and Ireland respectively and whether greater facilities

  579
  exist in England than in Ireland for trustee savings bank depositors.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT,): The number of post offices at which savings bank business is transacted is in England and Wales, 11,626, with 8,469,000 depositors, in Ireland, 1,269, with 433,000 depositors. The number of trustee savings banks is in England and Wales, 157, with 1,076,000 depositors, in Ireland, 13, with 52,000 depositors. The Statute Law is the same for all trustee savings banks, whether in England or in Ireland; and if there are greater facilities in England than in Ireland for the more frequent deposit or withdrawal of money, this is due to the arrangements made by the banks themselves.

  Religious Instruction in Elementary Schools.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether it would be competent, in connection with the new model by-laws affecting attendance at religious instruction in the elementary schools, for local authorities to enact that religious instruction shall be given at the close of a school session; and whether such a course would be competent both in respect of non-provided schools as well as provided schools.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): The time or times at which religious or other instruction should be given in a school should be regulated in the time table. The power to make by-laws is limited to the purposes specified in Section 74 of the Act of 1870. The time or times for religious instruction are prescribed in Section 7 (2) of that Act; and under Section 7 (1) (a) of the Act of last year the directions as to secular instruction which may be given by a local authority to the managers of a voluntary school must not be such as to interfere with reasonable facilities for religious instruction during school hours.

  Mayo Piers and Harbours.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of the report of the county surveyor for Mayo regarding the usefulness of certain piers and harbours along the coast of Mayo, notably those at Clare Island, Louisburgh, and Mallaranny; and whether he will see that the improvements mentioned in the report are carried out; and can he state when the proposed works at Innishlyre and Tonragee will be commenced.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): My right hon. friend has received from the hon. Member a copy of the report in question. It suggests improvements in a number of piers and harbours in South Mayo which are the property of the County Council. It is not proposed to expend any of the funds provided by the Marine Works Act on these works. It is competent to the County Council to undertake them at the expense of the county. In reply to the concluding inquiry my right hon. friend stated yesterday † that he is engaged in negotiations with the Midland Great Western Railway Company and that no conclusion has yet been arrived at.

  Foreign Trawlers in Dingle Bay.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any action has been taken on the conduct of foreign steam trawlers in Dingle Lay on the night of 15th June; whether, seeing that they not only fished within the line but chased and tried to run down a local sailing fishing smack, and that a statement was made to the coastguards giving the numbers on the boats, steps will at once be taken to punish the owners of these trawlers.
  MR. ATKINSON: The occurrences in question have been carefully investigated by the new Department but no evidence is forthcoming sufficient to sustain a prosecution for illegal trawling within the prohibited area.
  † See page 410.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Seeing that the lives of fishermen were endangered and that the numbers on the boats were given cannot further inquiry be made?
  MR. ATKINSON: The matter has been investigated by the Department of Agriculture, but the evidence of the fishermen is not sufficiently definite.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for years, along the west coast of Kerry—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.
  MR. FLAVIN: Then arising out of the Question—
  MR. SPEAKER: That does not make it any better.
  MR. FLAVIN: I want to know what steps the Government are going to take to protect the fishermen on the west coast? Cannot they spare a gunboat?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can bring that matter up on the Estimates.

  Portarlington Post Office—Case of Maria Blanc.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Miss Maria Blanc, assistant in Portarlington Post Office for the past twenty-eight and a half years, has been called upon to retire without gratuity or pension; and, if so, whether, in view of her long service and conduct, he will state upon what grounds this official has been retired, and why she has been refused either pension or gratuity.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): Miss Blanc's retirement was carried out because she was reported to be no longer capable of discharging her duties efficiently. The conditions of her employment were not such as to render her eligible for either pension or gratuity on retirement.
  MR. DELANY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it to be in the public interest that an employee, after twenty-eight years faithful service, should be discharged without a pension?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The award of a pension or gratuity is regulated by statute, and I have no power whatever to vary the regulations.

  Irish Post Office Savings Bank.
  MR. LUNDON: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what number of savings bank depositors in the United Kingdom in the year 1902, with Irish, Scotch, or English deposit books, made deposits or received withdrawals outside of Ireland, Scotland, or England respectively; and whether it is more economical and convenient to keep Irish Savings Bank accounts in London for the convenience of such depositors than to give Ireland greater facilities for Post Office Savings Bank business by having the accounts kept in Dublin.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the present number of officials employed on the Irish Savings Bank accounts in London would be sufficient to deal with such accounts if they were kept in Dublin; and, if so, in what way would it cost more to deal with Irish Savings Bank accounts by a special staff at Dublin if such accounts were kept there instead of in London.
  MR. ELLIOT: I will answer these Questions at the same time. I regret that I am unable to give the figures asked for in the hon. Member's first Question. I do not think it would be right to diminish the facilities which the depositors to whom he refers now enjoy, and the transfer of the accounts to Dublin would not afford any increased facilities to Irish depositors. The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's other Question is in the negative. If the Irish Savings Bank accounts were kept in Dublin, additional controlling force would be necessary, and

  583
  extra staff would be necessary to deal with the extra work which decentralisation would involve.

  Kells Railway Station.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the railway station at Kells, County Kerry, is inconveniently placed for the needs of the district; and whether he will make representations to the railway company with a view to having flag stations constructed at Dooneen and Mount Foley.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No complaints appear to have been received by the Board of Trade with regard to the position of this station, but a copy of the hon. Member's Question has been communicated to the railway company concerned. The company have replied that the station at Kells is not, in their opinion, inconveniently placed for the needs of the district, and that there is no prospect of sufficient traffic to justify the creation of flag stations at the places mentioned.

  The Fiscal Inquiry.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will give the particulars of the inquiry into the fiscal policy of this country, stating the various headings under which information is required, and what the Government wish to ascertain by the grand inquest of the nation.
  The HON. MEMBER also had the following Questions on the Paper:—
  To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is prepared to consider the necessity of instituting legislation to secure a minimum wage with other matters relating to the proposed changes in the fiscal policy of the country.
  To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now state whether it is the intention of the Government to establish a fiscal union between this country and the self-governing colonies; what colonies would be included within the union; the terms on which they would enter; and the method by which the fiscal arrangements of the union, and of individual countries within the union, would be controlled.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): With regard to all these Questions I have only a negative answer to give.
  MR. BRYCE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, considering that the House has been invited to join in the inquiry which the Government is making, he does not intend to give the House any information whatever with regard to the nature, method, topics, and time when the result of the inquiry will be announced.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not asked that Question, but I am perfectly ready to answer it. Of course, we shall be ready, in due time, to give the House and the country all the information at our disposal.
  MR. BRYCE: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "due time."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly aware that to prepare tables of statistics is not a thing which can be done in twenty-four hours, or even forty-eight hours.
  MR. BRYCE: Then is there reason to expect that we shall have some result of the inquiry before the end of the present session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, I should think that there is reason to hope that.
  MR. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what fresh statistics are being prepared which do not exist?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member will have every means of gratifying his curiosity when the Papers are laid.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the fact that the food imports of the country have increased during the last half-century from £35,813,613 to £162,776,280, and also that during the same time there has been a decrease in the cultivation of land, measures will be taken

  585
  by the Government to prohibit land from being held in extensive areas for purposes of amusement.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no opportunity of testing the accuracy of the statistics which the hon. Gentleman has put in his Question, but I do not think it would be desirable to propose any legislation for restricting the area devoted to public amusement.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has understood my Question. I refer to land hold for private amusement.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know what land the hon. Gentleman refers to.
  MR. WEIR: Deer forests.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I confess that was the first interpretation I put on the Question, but it occurred to me afterwards that the two Gentlemen who knew the Highlands so well were probably aware that deer forests are not very well suited for growing wheat.
  MR. WEIR: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that they are suitable for cattle breeding and sheep?
  [No answer was returned.]
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of a possible change in the fiscal policy of the country, and the consequent necessity for raising in the United Kingdom as large a food supply as possible, will the Government make such arrangements as may be necessary to enable the people of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland to settle on the lands which have been scheduled in the Report of the Deer Forests Commission as suitable for occupation by the people.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I have already indicated to the hon. Gentleman, I see no connection between legislation for doer forests and fiscal reform. I have already answered Questions several times on the subject of deer forests, and I have nothing to add.
  MR. WEIR: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that they will support cattle and sheep?
  AN HON. MEMBER: And men.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not see the relevancy.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in connection with the Colonial Secretary's proposals for revision of our fiscal system, the Cabinet is inquiring into the expediency of establishing an Imperial Council on which the colonies as well as the mother country may be represented.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. Any such inquiry is evidently extremely premature, and it would be foolish to attempt to ask for statistical information on this subject from any Government Department.
  MR. BLACK: Then do I understand that the Government contemplate interfering with the fiscal arrangements of the colonies without even considering the question of allowing them representation in the councils of the mother country?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know on what the hon. Member bases his theory that we are going to interfere with the fiscal arrangements of the colonies.
  MR. BLACK: Is it not implied in the proposals of the Colonial Secretary?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order!

  Housing of the Working Classes.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now fix the date for the introduction of the Bill to deal with certain matters affecting the housing of the working classes.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the day will be an early one. I will give the hon. Gentleman full notice.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts

  587
  of Justice, and Legal Procedure: Mr. Samuel Roberts; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Lees Knowles.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILL.
  NAVAL WORKS (PORTSMOUTH BARRACKS SITE) BILL.
  "For vesting in the Admiralty certain lands at Portsmouth with the church and buildings thereon for the purpose of, or in connection with, the erection of barracks and for other matters incidental thereto," presented by Mr. Pretyman; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 22nd July, and to be printed. [Bill 276.]

  LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he thought it well to make a short statement as to several of the proposed new clauses. The body of the Bill applied the Act of 1902 to London and proposed to make certain provisions as regarded the management of schools by the London boroughs, and anything in the way of Amendment to, or modification of, the Act of 1902 as applied to London was put into a schedule. The whole of the new clauses, with the exception of one or two, which were down on the Paper would be out of order as new clauses and should be brought up as Amendments to the schedule, possibly in a somewhat altered form. There were some, however, to which that remark did not apply—for instance, the second, standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Camberwell, which would involve an increase of rates. The same observation applied to the clause dealing with compensation to teachers of voluntary schools, and also to the two last clauses in the names of the hon. Members for Haggerston and West Islington. Proposals involving rate expenditure could not, as the hon. Members knew, be made on the Report stage.
  DR. MACNAMARA: When will it be possible to raise the question embodied in the first new clause, as to the right of the public to inspect official documents?
  MR. SPEAKER: By moving an Amendment to the schedule. As the
  588
  hon. Member knows, in the Act of 1902 there is provision made for keeping Minutes, and it would be perfectly in order on that to move that they be open to inspection.
  MR. BRYCE: May I inquire whether the effect of your ruling is that the points embodied in the new clauses will have to be handed in as Amendments to the schedule?
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that many things dealt with in the new clauses are already provided for in the Act of 1902.
  MR. BRYCE: Would it be in order for me on that point to address a few observations to the Government and to the House with regard to the difficulty, owing to your ruling, of proceeding with the Bill at this moment?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think that had better be done when the Amendments are called on.
  MR. LOUGH: May I call attention to the new clause providing that the Act shall not apply to the City of London? Is that affected by your ruling?
  MR. SPEAKER: I omitted to mention that. It should come on as an Amendment to Clause 1.
  MR. BRYCEmoved to omit Clause 1 (Application of the Act of 1902 to London), to give the House an opportunity of repeating by a division its protest against the application to London of the Act of 1902. What had happened since the passing of that Act had not in any way diminished, but rather increased, their objections to it, and it was their duty to register their protest against the application of the principles of the Act to London. He asked the House to re-affirm its condemnation of the Bill of 1902.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "To leave out Clause 1."—(Mr. Bryce.)
  Question proposed, "That the words of Clause 1, to the word 'so,' in line 6, stand part of the Bill."
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said he thought the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman was surely one of the most singular that was ever taken in that House. He was not going to ask the House to come to a decision on the merits of the clause, or even on the merits of this Bill. He was asking the House to come to a decision on the merits of an Act passed into law after several months of hard debating last year. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that anything was to be gained by a protest of course he was at liberty to make it; but he did not understand, he never understood, that their Parliamentary procedure lent itself to the particular interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman had put on his own Amendment, when he moved to leave out a clause, not because he objected to the clause, but because he objected to some other Bill which had already become an Act.
  MR. BRYCE: I object to the application of the principles and rules contained in the Act of last Year to the population of London.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid if the right hon. Gentleman's speech had been confined to that thesis it would have been perfectly within the practice of the House. Of course, it amounted to a Second Reading speech compressed, and he supposed the right hon. Gentleman desired to take a Second Reading division upon it. But, at all events, half the speech he made was not concerned with the clause nor with the Bill at all. His object was to renew the protest which he and his friends made last year. He thought there was not an educationist in the country who did not think the Bill of last year and the Bill of this year were of the greatest educational importance. (OPPOSITION cries of "Oh.") He was not speaking of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but of educationists. He knew the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite because he heard them expressed for seven months, and education was the last topic that they ever discussed. They talked a great deal about voluntary schools and denominational teaching, and other matters indirectly connected
  590
  with the substantial interest of education, but education pure and simple was the last thing they spoke of. (OPPOSITION cries of "Oh," and an HON. MEMBER "Nonsense.") He would qualify his phrase by saying it was the thing about which they spoke least. As to what was in their minds he knew nothing, but their speeches he did hear; and he had an absolute right to say that if the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite were rightly interpreted by their speeches, it was not the educational aspect of the Bill of last year, or the Bill of this year, which chiefly interested them, but certain controversial subjects which unhappily could not be dissociated entirely from any Bill dealing with elementary education in this country. It was on those subjects that they had agitated the country, and topics relating to the really great interest of education they had left severely alone. If the right hon. Gentleman thought he was adding to his fame as an educational authority by the line he had taken on the Bill of last year and the Bill of this year he was, he could assure him, very seriously mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman said he was moving to omit this clause because it extended the Bill of last year to London. He could understand, though he did not sympathise with, those who thought that the Bill of last year, whatever it might have done for education, nevertheless did certain things in other directions to which they objected, and therefore desired that the Bill should not become an Act. But as it had become an Act, he could not understand how any hon. Gentleman could desire that it should not be extended to London. He believed that hon. Gentlemen opposite anticipated that the time would come very shortly when they would be in a position to remodel the Act of last year. When that time came he should wish them joy of their task. He should look forward with great interest to the course which they would then desire to pursue. But the remodelling of the Act of last year would not be rendered more difficult by the fact that it had been extended to London. On the contrary, their task would be easier if the whole of the country were under one principle. They would gain nothing if London was left out of the Bill; and, meanwhile, London would be left as an

  591
  educational derelict. Unless this Bill was passed, London would be deprived of the fund which that House desired to give for educational purposes; not only the voluntary schools, but also the provided schools in London would suffer, and the whole system of educational co-ordination would be left in a condition which no one in that House could view with satisfaction. Was it the policy of the Opposition not merely to modify the Act of last year, but also in the meanwhile to keep London under the old system? Such an idea was absurd, and he could not understand the right hon. Gentleman's lending the authority of his name in educational matters to a proposal which he was certain would be rejected by all London if London had a chance of expressing its opinion. He would not dogmatise by discussing whether London liked or disliked the general principle
  underlying the Bill. The Opposition might be right in saying that the country disliked the line on which the Government had proceeded. Then let the country alter that line. But meanwhile it was absurd to suppose that education, primary and secondary, was to be co-ordinated in every county and county borough in England, and voluntary and provided schools were to be given much needed assistance, while London alone should be deprived of the benefits of the Act of last year, and the money intended for her should be left in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The amiable intention of the right hon. Gentleman ought to be foiled, and his Amendment ought to be rejected.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 125; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 156.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  O'Malley, William.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Flower, Ernest

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Forster, Henry William

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gilhooly, James

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Balcarres, Lord

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Randles, John S.

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Rasch' Major Federic Carne

  Balfour, Captain C. B. (Hornsey

  Gretton, John

  Redmond, Jn. E. (Waterford)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Groves, James Grimble

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Boland, John

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somers't, E.)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Bond, Edward

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bull, William James

  Hoult, Joseph

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Joyce, Michael

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerr, John

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford East

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Spear, John Ward

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cranborne, Viscount

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

  Sullivan, Donal

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Delany, William

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Denny, Colonel

  Lundon, W.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Dillon, John

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  William, Rt. Hn. J. Powell- (Birm.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Iver Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W.

  Wilson John (Glasgow)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Doughty, George

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Milvain, Thomas

  Young, Samuel

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

  Mooney, John J.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Murphy, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Myers, William Henry

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway N.

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther

  Fisher, William Hayes

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

  NOES.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Black, Alexander William

  Hope, John Deans (Fife West)

  Russell, T. W.

  Brigg, John

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Burns, John

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Burt, Thomas

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Langley, Batty

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Tomkinson, James

  Cameron, Robert

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Toulmin, George

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leng, Sir John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Levy, Maurice

  Wallace, Robert

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lloyd-George, David

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Lough, Thomas

  Wagon, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  M'Crae, George

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Ellis, John Edward

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh N.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Foster Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Partington, Oswald

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Priestley, Arthur

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Rea, Russell

  and Mr. John Sinclair.

  DR. MACNAMARAhad the following Amendment on the Notice Paper—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after 'shall,' insert 'except as respects non-provided schools.'"
  MR. SPEAKERsaid this Amendment was in the same position as those which he had already ruled out of order.
  DR. MACNAMARAasked whether he would have an opportunity of raising the question on the schedule.
  MR. SPEAKER: I will not give a precise definition now as to whether it will be in order on the schedule or not, but it may be capable of discussion on the schedule.
  DR. MACNAMARAhad also the following Amendment on the Notice Paper—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end, add 'Provided that all public elementary voluntary schools within the area shall be maintained by the local education authority as if they were provided schools, provided that the local education authority shall by agreement rent the school premises from the trustees, free use of the premises being granted to the denominations under whose auspices the schools have hitherto been conducted for purposes of denominational religious teaching outside the ordinary hours of the school time-table to the children of such parents as make written application for the same. If any question arises under this section between the local education authority and the
  594
  managers of a school not provided by the authority in respect to the use and rental of the premises the matter shall be determined by the Board of Education.'"
  MR. SPEAKERsaid this Amendment was also out of order.
  MR. ALBAN GIBBSmoved an Amendment with the object of excluding the City of London from the scope of the Bill. He did not know whether he should have the approval of the Government in reference to this proposal, but he really thought it was one that might be accepted. The City of London had always been an authority by itself. It had always been treated as a county by itself for most purposes. If it was not so treated under the Elementary Education Act it was given a large representation on the School Board—he thought it was one-twelfth of the whole—to compensate for its not being separately treated. At present there was no special representation of the City of London provided for on the Committee. He appealed to the Government to consider the question with a view to something being done in the way of giving effect to his proposal. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 7, at end, to add the words, 'and for the purposes of such application the

  595
  City of London shall be a County, and the mayor, aldermen, and commons of that City in common council assembled shall be a County Council.'"—(Mr. Alban Gibbs.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,)said he fully recognised the valuable work that had been done for education by the City of London, and the great position which the City had occupied in the higher education of the country. But he thought the hon. Member would see that there were almost insuperable difficulties in taking the City out of the general purview of this Bill. The City had been one of the School Board areas and it had not been in any way differentiated from other parts of the Metropolis. The same had been the case under the Technical Education Act. It had fallen in with the work of the Technical Instruction Committee of the London County Council and had not asked for different treatment under that Act. He thought the difficulty of taking the City out of the Bill in the matter of elementary education was even more apparent. Under those circumstances to take the City outside the Bill and make it an educational authority by itself would be a new departure, having regard to the Elementary Education Act and the Technical Instruction Act. It would not only be a new departure, but a new departure not justified by the educational situation in the City. The number of children educated in the elementary schools of the City was small, while the great secondary schools in which the City was interested were wholly outside the Act. He hoped his hon. friend would recognise that there was no reason for treating the City in this special manner, and that what was proposed did not arise from any want of appreciation of the educational work done by the City.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he would like to call attention to the remarkable fact that a representative of the City had put down an Amendment of this character. The representatives of the City had supported the Bill throughout, and immediately
  596
  that was done, in order to show the extent to which they appreciated this legislation, they proposed that the City of London should be excepted altogether from the provisions of the Act. This demonstrated clearly that really the Act had no real supporter in any part of the House of Commons. He trusted that the hon. Member would proceed to a division.
  MR. ALBAN GIBBS: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. LOUGHexpressed the hope that the hon. Member would not withdraw the Amendment. The representatives of the City were acting on the unanimous request of the Common Council of the City of London. The Common Council examined the Bill and took exception to its provisions just as hon. Members did on this side of the House. The Amendment was really a very important one, because even hon. Members on this side of the House who did not agree politically with the Common Council knew that every representative body throughout London viewed the Bill with horror and alarm. (Cries of "No, no.") Therefore the hon. Member was only doing his duty in proposing the Amendment. He wished that the hon. Member moved against the Bill from the same righteous motives that animated the opponents of the Bill on this side of the House. The hon. Member did not desire to see it applied to the City of London in order to preserve the autonomy of the City, but he did not object to the Bill itself. He ventured to say that that was a narrow ground on which to claim the exception of the City from the Bill. He himself and others on this side thought the Bill was very bad and unsuited to every part of London. London had got a peculiar system of local government, quite different from other places to which the Bill had been applied. The City, whatever faults it might have, had an honourable educational record, and it had been shamefully treated by the Government in the proposals in this Bill. The City did not come to the Government and say. "Give us representation and control." The Government thrust power and honour on the City Council in the Bill as first introduced, and then suddenly, for no reason that had been explained to the House, the City was

  597
  struck out of that representation. This was a matter very well worth discussing from the standpoint of the Government. The House had had no justification whatever from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education for the new treatment they were giving to the authorities which were to be represented. The precise authority which would be left to the City Council was embodied in Clause 2, and he thought that the humble duties left to them might well give rise to the contempt of hon. Members opposite. Although the Amendment was one which he could not himself support he was a little surprised, that the hon. Member's colleague in the representation of the City of London was not here to support it.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he thought the point his hon. friends behind him had raised was well worthy of the consideration of the House at this stage of the Bill. There were in London two great municipal bodies. One was the Corporation of the City of London and the other the County Council. The Government proposed to municipalise education in London as they had done in the country districts. In the country districts the matter was a comparatively small one. The population there was something like one-tenth of what it was in London, and therefore the question ought to have been treated from a different point of view. What did they find? The County Council was made the central body, though they said they did not see their way to carry out the work. He would ask the hon. Member what he proposed to do supposing the County Council found themselves unable or unwilling to carry out the provisions of the Act. He believed that was a position which would be arrived at before very long. Then the City of London had declared that they did not desire the Bill either, and that they wished to be outside its provisions altogether. He was surprised that his hon. friend representing the City had made such an uncommonly bad case for the City. He thought it was unbecoming the dignity of the City that one of its members should come down here and move an Amendment and then
  598
  allow it to be negatived without a division, and indeed without debate. This Bill was obviously, so far as London was concerned, incompatible with our municipal system. The City of London and the County Council rejected it, and under those circumstances he should have thought that it was the duty of the Government to reconsider their position and withdraw the Bill.
  *DR. MACNAMARAsaid he considered this Bill from the machinery point of view a thoroughly bad Bill. They could not municipalise education in a great area like that of London. Good or bad, however, whatever this new Bill might be, the City of London was not coming out of it. For financial reasons the City of London had got to make a contribution to the education of the children of London as a whole. The City of London had always been wanting to be struck out of the Bill, partly because it had not the representation it wanted, and partly because of finance. The London School Board had memorials from the City, week by week, complaining against the cost of education. What was the position? They had 2,000 working class children and they paid an Education Rate of 1s. in the £, which amounted altogether to £200,000 a year. That was £100 per child. But it did not really cost £100 to educate each child; it cost only £5; and therefore the City paid £95 each for educating nineteen children in Camberwell. The City ought to rejoice in being able to carry out the Apostolic injunction that they should bear one another's burdens. The City had got to pay the unified rate of 1s. in the £, or £95 out of every £100 for the education of children in every part of London—children whose forebears originally lived in the City. What would happen if this proposal were carried? The City of London would have to spend £10,000 a year to educate 2,000 working class children, and even supposing they voted £10,000 additional for secondary education, that would only amount to a rate of ¾d. in the £. He was bound to insist that whatever the machinery of the Bill might finally be the City had got to stay in it.
  *MR. COHENsaid that there was a well-known maxim in the House of Commons, that it was

  599
  better to avoid attributing motives. Was there any reason why that almost sacred maxim against attributing motives, which were sometimes charitable and sometimes less benevolent, should not be respected in the case of the action of his hon. friend in behalf of the City of London. He could assure his hon. friend opposite that though he had not the honour of representing the City he knew something about the City where he was born and had passed the greatest portion of his life, and that the spirit which prompted the Amendment of his hon. friend was as far as possible removed from that which the hon. Gentleman thought ruled it. If there were any part of London where one should have been less disposed to attribute a sordid motive to any proposition that emanated from its representative, it should have been the City of London, which was the fountain of all benevolence. [OPPOSITION ironical laughter.] Hon. Members sneered rather derisively, but they did not abstain from having recourse to the Mansion House when they desired to appeal to the benevolence of the whole Empire. It should be remembered that the City had secured the freedom of Epping Forest and had built the Tower Bridge. Therefore his hon. friend might have been less ready to attribute unworthy motives to this Amendment than he had done. The City of London objected to being included in the operation of this Bill, not at all because of the reasons which were incorrectly, and, he thought, rather unworthily, attributed by his hon. friend opposite, but simply because they carried on education of their own in a most admirable way, which did not involve any expenditure on the part of the ratepayers of the other parts of London, and because they had no representation in the administration of those large funds which they contributed. Therefore, they were abundantly justified in proposing this Amendment, and if his hon. friend went to a division he would most cordially support it.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the habit of attributing motives was one inconsistent with Christian charity, but the counsel of perfection he recommended, if acted upon, would reduce the debates in the House to very slender dimensions
  600
  indeed. He assumed that the motives of the City of London were admirable, and free from all suspicion, but there was another Amendment lower down on the Paper which was to him a wonder, viz.—
  "And for the purpose of such application the City of London shall be a county, and the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of that City in Common Council assembled shall be a County Council."
  He would have thought that if there was a name which the City Corporation would have been unwilling to adopt—a name which had been held in repulsion and in contempt—it would have been that of County Council. But here they had one of the Members for the City coming forth and proposing that the City Corporation, which had an existence of over seven centuries, should be reduced to the level of that mushroom creation known as the County Council! It was his respect for the City, his veneration for the City, his admiration for the glorious traditions of the City, that would prevent him from voting for any such Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that most of the questions which had been raised in regard to the second clause of the Bill which he proposed to omit would be raised again on the schedule. He asked the Government whether they would not get rid of all the difficulties which had arisen by abolishing Clause 2 altogether. He did not believe that any mortal man knew why Clause 2 existed in its present shape. When the Bill was first introduced there was a scheme in the minds of the Government which justified such a clause. The idea then was to give the municipal authorities scattered all over London full control over the education authority that was to be set up. But they got rid of Clause 2 and began to attack Clause 3, which corresponded with the existing Clause 2. Some hon. Gentlemen who might have some veneration for the ancient City Corporation and the other bodies might consider whether Clause 2 should remain. But there was no precedent for it in the Act of 1902. It was simply a fraudulent pretext kept in the Bill by the Government to make these bodies imagine that

  601
  they had got some resemblance of power when it was actually all taken away from them. The Government had in the debates in Committee to give way, and at last they concluded to abandon all the splendid powers which they had given to the Borough Councils of appointing the teachers, the taking of sites, and the vague powers of management. Now they had got a clause which allowed the Borough Councils to appoint managers although they had no duty of management. How could the Borough Councils tell what size the body of managers ought to be, for they had no kind of information on the subject. The present shape of the clause was perfectly ridiculous—so ridiculous that the Government themselves had put down one or two Amendments in regard to it. No good whatever would be obtained by retaining Clause 2. It would be a constant interference with the quiet working of the Act. He begged to move that Clause 2 be omitted from the Bill.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 8, to leave out Clause 2."—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That the words of Clause 2, to the word 'provided' in line 8, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that the House ought to have some sort of statement from the Government as to what was their final intention in regard to this question of management. They had had so many changes on this clause at previous stages of the Bill—and now the Government themselves were about to propose Other Amendments—that really the House ought to have a clear statement whether the Government intended to proceed with this fantastic method of management by the Borough Councils under the County Council. This clause still left to the minor authorities certain powers which were likely to lead to friction with the superior authorities, and he was amazed that the Government should propose that the House should go to a division on this Motion without showing the faintest signs of telling the House whether they had any policy on this matter.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he really thought that it was hardly necessary to
  602
  explain why the Government desired his clause to stand part of the Bill, not wholly in its present form, because an Amendment was accepted in Committee which it would have been somewhat rash to endeavour to put into final shape in the Committee in the circumstances of the debate, and which must therefore be amended now. The Amendment which had been put down by his hon. friend the Member for South Manchester would come up for consideration in due course. The policy of the clause was perfectly clear. From the very first the Government desired to associate Borough Councils with the education of London. It was thought that by giving them powers of management they would be able to excite more local interest in the elementary education of London, and that this would be done without diminishing the efficient working of the machinery which would be dealing with the general education of London. In that way he had confidently hoped that they would do a good deal for elementary education. In the debates which had taken place it became clear that the House did not desire to see statutory powers conferred upon Borough Councils, but nevertheless the Government did desire to see the Borough Councils take some definite part in the elementary education of London, and for that reason they would proceed with this clause. He reminded the House that what was left to the boroughs was to take part and initiate arrangements for the building of schools, to determine the number of managers, and to choose the managers up to a certain number. His hon. friend had various Amendments on the Paper, one of which was an Amendment of substance which, on behalf of the Government, he should be prepared to accept and which would diminish this perpetual fear of friction. It was an Amendment providing that these arrangements should be made after consultation with the local authority. He did not think anything would be lost by bringing together the various local authorities in the common work of the education of the children. On the contrary he believed that great good would come from it, and that under the conditions which this clause laid down these local authorities would work

  603
  together in a friendly manner, and if the boroughs should not take the initiative there would be a residuary power in the County Council to do what was necessary for the management of the schools. He did not wish to go further into the subject, because they would have to discuss this clause upon the various Amendments on the Paper. He wished, however, to impress upon the House that the Government had no intention whatever of departing from the desire with which they originally embarked on this clause, namely, to associate the boroughs with the education of London.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it was very surprising that the hon. Gentleman had not given some information to the House in regard to this matter. This clause had not been remodelled once or twice, but four or five times, and the hon. Baronet had now told them that he was prepared to accept other Amendments which would entirely alter the clause. Surely his hon. friend was entitled to ask for further information. The onus of proof in this matter lay upon the Secretary to the Board of Education when he departed from the Act of last year. This Bill was absolutely irreconcilable with the Bill of last year when it was introduced, but the common sense of the House had licked it into shape on the lines of the Act of last year. The only difference which was left was that if this clause disappeared and the Bill proceeded upon the lines of the Act of last year, the local education authority would have the nomination of four, and the Borough Councils two, managers. The hon. Gentleman proposed that the Borough Councils should have three-fourths and the education authority only one-fourth of the nominations. Therefore, it remained to the Secretary to the Board of Education to prove that that would work better than the proposal of the Act of last year. He should like to know why the Government had altered their mind in regard to this matter? When they were discussing this question in Committee he ventured to quote a paragraph from a speech made by the Prime Minister, who was then in charge of the Bill of last year, in which the right hon. Gentleman gave a totally different idea as to what
  604
  ought to be the rights of the case. It was very important that they should have the Government speaking with one voice upon this question, and he would read the words of the Prime Minister.
  MR. SPEAKER: There will be later on Amendments raising this very point, and therefore I do not think it will be in order to discuss this question upon the Motion before the House.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the hon. Baronet had given them no argument in favour of this proposal. He said the idea was that there should be a link between the Borough Councils and the County Council, but in his opinion this clause would be the one source of friction in the Bill between the local and minor authorities. In order to avoid that they wished to make the Education Committee the supreme authority, and therefore they desired that this remaining shred of authority which was now given to the Borough Councils should disappear. He had no desire to cast any aspersions upon the Borough Councils, but he thought the Government had put them in a most humiliating position. The Government gave the Borough Councils these very large powers which they never asked for and then took them all away. In regard to this particular clause he hoped the Government would reconsider the matter so that they might have the Act of last year applied to this scheme in London from the top to the bottom.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he did not wish to represent this clause as one which would do a great deal of good, but he did not think it would do a great deal of harm. It was a clause which related entirely to provided schools, that was, schools of the education authority, and did not touch on the burning question of voluntary schools. The action of the House of Commons in regard to these schools had throughout been rather strange. One would have thought that the most successful course would have been to have left the local authority to settle the very simple matter of how its schools should be managed, especially as they had before

  605
  them the example of the London School Board, which, whatever its shortcomings might have been in this respect, had established a very good system of management for the schools. The House of Commons, in its wisdom, thought that they should settle how many managers there ought to be for a provided school, and they settled last year that there should be six managers for every provided school all over the country, no more and no less. There was a sort of provision that the number might be varied, but it was fixed at this by the House. In one respect this was better than the Bill of last year because it did allow variety, and it did not require six managers in every school, but the number was to be adapted to the wants and peculiarities of the schools. Then there was a most extraordinary freak—freak he really must call it. Instead of the local education authority determining how many managers there should be it brought in an entirely foreign body which had nothing to do with it, which had to decide the matter, a body which had had no educational experience, which was not elected for the purposes of education, and which had this entirely extraneous and strange duty thrust upon it which it never had before. The Common Council of the City of London was a body for whom he had the most profound veneration, but this House had decided that it should be engaged in the duty of determining how many managers there ought to be for the few elementary schools in the City of London, which were the schools of the London County Council, and which were managed by it and controlled by it in every respect. Therefore it seemed to him that they had chosen the worst body in the world to determine this matter. Practically, although the power was given to the Borough Councils it would be exercised by the consent and approbation of the County Council, therefore this clause, if accepted, would do no harm, because after all the County Council would be supreme over the schools. In order to make the Bill work well they would have to secure that these managers, however fantastic the manner of their appointment was, should be people who really had the confidence and trust of the
  606
  County Council. He believed, however, the managers when they were appointed would work cordially with the local authority for London, and they would have a body responsible to the local authority and in consonance with the local authority.
  *MR. WHITMOREsaid the right hon. Member for the Cambridge University had made a characteristic speech, in which he had used every argument against the vote he intended to give. For himself, he sincerely hoped this Amendment would not be included in the Bill. He held this view although he was most anxious that the education authority should have full powers, and that there should be no just cause of friction between the education authority and the Borough Councils. He did not wish to pledge himself to this proportion of managers being appointed by the education authority and that by the boroughs; but, he asked, would it not tend to the efficiency of the education of London if the Borough Councils had some voice in the appointment of the managers? The total number of managers would be very large, and the appointment of managers for all the districts of London was a delicate and difficult duty to impose on the County Council. He was convinced it would be wise to allow Borough Councils to have a large voice in the appointments, as they would be able to assist the education authority by their own local knowledge. It was a good thing to give some interest to the boroughs, partly for educational and partly for administrative reasons. He had done all in his power to make the County Council the education authority, but he thought it would be a pity if the House accepted the Amendment. He hoped the Government would adhere to the clause.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he did not think there was much in this Amendment, and expressed the opinion that the Borough Councils would not thank the House for taking this course. This was part of an ambitious scheme which the hon. Gentleman was responsible for in the first instance. The very last

  607
  word of the Government was that the Borough Councils were to come in, and then, for some mysterious reason, the hon. Gentleman was compelled to stand up and say, "Very well, we throw them over." He felt very sorry for the hon. Baronet, and equally sorry for the Borough Councils, because the way the Government had treated them in connection with Clause 2 was simply abominable, and if he were a member of a Borough Council he should feel the greatest contempt for the Government in this matter. In Clause 2 the Government first gave the Borough Councils thirty-two seats, then twelve, then eleven, and finally no seats whatever. Then they were to have the appointment of the managers, now they were to have the appointment of three-fourths. He thought such a suggestion was absolutely impracticable and entirely useless. He thought it would be better if Clause 2 were dropped altogether. What would happen in that case? The present boards of managers would go on, and when vacancies occurred the local education authority would be asked to fill them up, and they would no doubt consult the Borough Councils, but it would be left entirely in the hands of the local education authority. That was the only fair course to pursue.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he must express his surprise that the hon. Baronet would not drop this clause. Why should any distinction be drawn between the London County Council and the other County Councils of the country? There were no general or managerial reasons for it. The reasons for it were political. He challenged hon. Gentlemen opposite to point out a single reason that was not political. If experience had taught the hon. Baronet that he could trust the County Councils throughout England and Wales, why should he not trust the London County Council in this matter? It was this sort of sulky distrust of the London County Council which had marred the whole of London government. It was said that they had 2,000 managers to appoint, but even so it was easier to select 2,000 managers in a small area within four miles of the central office than for a country County
  608
  Council to select 1,000 over a wider area. Why should not the London County Council be trusted? Was it really because its political complexion was not such as commended itself to the Government? If so, that was a very poor reason when legislating for all time. Nothing could be worse for the management of education than this divided control. County Councils, Borough Councils, managers and trustees—all had a finger in the pie, but none had supreme authority. The County Council was supposed to control, while the Borough Councils appointed the managers. What was the distinction between control and management? The two bodies would be in constant conflict, to the detriment of London education. The selection of sites might be taken as an example. Owing to a dispute between the Vestry, the Board of Education, and the School Board, Streatham went without a school for years. By this clause the Government would perpetuate difficulties of that kind. It was perfectly ludicrous, when boroughs of 10,000 inhabitants were trusted in this matter, that a council representing 5,000,000 people should be treated with so much suspicion. Nothing was to be gained by the clause; it would not give the Borough Councils either dignity or power; it would simply enable them to interfere and make themselves a nuisance. He hoped that even now the Government would reconsider their decision and drop the clause.
  MR. YOXALLthought the hon. Baronet and the House hardly realised what actually was at issue in this matter. The debate had proceeded on the assumption that the only matter involved was, who should appoint 2,000 private persons to sit in groups and manage, under the London County Council Education Committee, either single schools or small groups of schools, the inference being that such persons would take their instructions from and act according to the will of the County Council. But that did not by any means represent all that was involved. The clause would enable a Borough Council to determine that all the provided schools within its area

  609
  should be managed by one large Committee, upon which it would have three-fourths of the representation, thus setting up a sort of School Board for the whole district. What would then happen? If a sufficient motive were given, a degree of friction amounting to positive warfare would arise between the Management Committee and the Education Committee of the County Council. The motive for refusing to obey the behests of the County Council already existed in the fact that the Borough Councils were not satisfied with the course the Government had taken, so that the danger to which he referred was a very real one. He appealed to the Government to remove the possibility of that danger; the clause satisfied nobody, and he hoped it would be dropped.
  MR. BONDsaid that although he agreed as to the undesirability of retaining this provision he would be unable to vote for the Amendment, because he thought that London stood in a somewhat different position from the County Councils under the Act of 1902, and that special machinery was required to deal adequately with the important question of how the bodies of managers in London should be constituted. There were no minor authorities in the Metropolis similar to those contemplated by the Act of 1902. He thought the better course would be to discuss the clause and see how far it could be modified and made suitable to the needs of London. He hoped the Borough Councils would eventually be eliminated from the clause; otherwise it might be a source of considerable friction.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid that if the hon. Member for West Nottingham was correct in the view he had put forward, this clause involved a danger which had not been anticipated. A large Committee managing all the schools within the area was a very different body from a body of managers concerned with only two or three schools, and if such a body set itself up in opposition to the will of the Council great danger might ensue. If managers found they were to be merely nominal they would not act,
  610
  while if they were to be more than nominal they would in many instances come into collision with the local authority. He would be more content if a majority were appointed by the local authority, as its will might then be carried out, but that was not the case. Nothing gave rise to more disputes than the selection of sites. All sorts of interests were opposed to the educational authority, and he could conceive nothing more dangerous than to allow the Borough Council to have any practical vote, or even a delaying power, in this matter. A variety of objections might be raised to the selection of a particular site; and the members of the Borough Councils might be induced to act in a manner which would cause great friction. Further, the Borough Councils would not know the educational needs of the locality as well as the education authority. Speaking from a lengthened experience as regarded the selection of sites, he thought this power should not be given to the Borough Councils. If it were given to them it would be certain to be a hindrance to the work of education rather than a help.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that he thought it might fairly be said that the balance of opinion and argument was against the Borough Councils having anything to do with the matter. That was strongly felt in Committee, and the large proposals originally made as regarded the Borough Councils had been whittled down until only this power remained. The Government had set an ample feast for the Borough Councils, but one dish after another was whisked away until there were only a few crumbs left. There was no reason to believe that the Borough Councils wanted this power. There had not been, either in Committee or on Report, any possible reason of an educational kind given to show that this work could be better carried out by the Borough Councils than by the education authority. He had heard a great deal about its being interesting to associate the Borough Councils with the work of education. That might be all very well for the Borough Councils, and if this were a Bill to improve the Borough

  611
  Councils he could understand the argument. But it was a Bill for education, and he did not think any argument had been advanced to show that the work of education would be better for the interposition of the Borough Councils. It was not suggested that they possessed any greater knowledge or experience than the School Board now had; and that the local education authority would have in the future. The hon. Member for Chelsea called attention to the magnitude of the task of appointing 2,000 managers. But the School Board now appointed managers all over London, and had their finger on every part of the Metropolis. The local education authority would also have their finger on every part of London through their members, who would be able to suggest suitable managers. It was not suggested that the present managers were inferior. The only criticism ever made on the School Board was that it had not power enough. That, however, was a criticism which could be remedied by the new
  education authority. The onus of proof lay with hon. Members, who proposed that the Borough Councils should be brought into a work for which they were not created, and in which they had no experience. The House had not been given any satisfactory reason why this clause should be passed; and the best way would be to get rid of it altogether. The London County Council was only a County Council in name. It was really the council of a gigantic borough, and the principles of the Act of 1902 were applicable. Therefore, there was not the slightest occasion to bring in any subordinate authority whatever. No argument having been given for introducing the Borough Councils, he felt himself bound to vote with his hon. friend.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 226; Noes, 111. (Division List No. 157.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Forster, Henry William

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Aird, Sir John

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Garfit, William

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gilhooly, James

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Saville

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby- (Salop

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cullinan, J.

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

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Delany, William

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Balcarres, Lord

  Denny, Colonel

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

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

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

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

  Gretton, John

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Groves, James Grimble

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

  Boland, John

  Doughty, George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Bond, Edward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Brassey, Albert

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bull, William James

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

  Heath James (Staffords, N. W.

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Hoult, Joseph

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. (George H.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Howard, J. (Midd. Tottenham)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Mount, William Arthur

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Kenyon-Slanley, Col. W. (Salop

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Kerr, John

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Knowles, Lees

  Myers, William Henry

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Spear, John Ward

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

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

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Lawson, John Grant

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Percy, Earl

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxford

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Purvis, Robert

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Randles, John S.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Lundon, W.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Redmond, Jn. E. (Waterford)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton and Lyne

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis Edinburgh W.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Williams, Rt. Hn. J. Powell-(Birm

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

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

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo North)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas, Thomson

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Worsley Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Young, Samuel

  Mitchell, William (Barnley

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Samuel Harry S. (Limehouse)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  NOES.

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

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick (George

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Foster, Sir Michl. (Lond. Univ

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Black, Alexander William

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Partington, Oswald

  Brigg, John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Burt, Thomas

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Priestley, Arthur

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Rea, Russell

  Caldwell, James

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Cameron, Robert

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Rigg, Richard

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Runciman, Walter

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Russell, T. W.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Langley, Batty

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Crombie, John William

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Crooks, William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Leng, Sir John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lough, Thomas

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Crae, George

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  614

  615

  Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

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

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Tomkinson, James

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Toulmin, George

  Weir, James Galloway

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  White, George (Norfolk)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Wallace, Robert

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  MR. PEELmoved to insert in line 8, after "elementary," the word "schools." He thought it would make it clearer to the House if he read that portion of the clause in the way he wished to amend it. It would run as follows—
  "All public elementary schools provided by the local education authority within the area of any metropolitan borough shall have a body of managers, the number of those managers and the manner in which schools, in cases where it is desirable, should be grouped under one body of managers, or placed under more than one body of managers, shall be determined by the council of each borough after consultation with the local education authority, and subject to the approval of the Board of Education."
  The House would see that this Amendment was the first of two or three Amendments which were of the nature of drafting Amendments. He wanted to make it perfectly clear that in certain cases two or more schools could be grouped under one body of managers; that in other cases—and he had no doubt there were many, because owing to the large number of children in some of these schools it would not be possible to group them—each school would have a separate body of managers; and that in some cases there would be liberty for some schools to have more than one body of managers. The substantial Amendment which he wished to introduce was in the words, "after consultation with the local authority." Under the clause as it stood the duty of settling the number of managers and the way in which the schools were to be grouped was to rest with the Borough Councils. But as the whole duty of education had been cast upon the London County Council he thought it might be better, both with a view to further delegation of authority to managers and the smooth working of the Bill, that the local education authority should be called in for consultation and should have something to say as to the manner in which these schools should be grouped, and the number of managers that should
  616
  be placed on the Board of management. Thus, although the initiative would come from the Borough Councils themselves, he thought it should be possible for the local authority to make any suggestion it might like, and that the constitution of the Board should be arranged between them subject to the approval of the Board of Education. They ought then to be able to arrive at some agreement which would satisfy all parties, and which would not at the same time take away from the Borough Councils the power of having an interest in the education of London. He thought it was essential that the local education authority should have some power under the statute of intervening and saying what its opinion was as to the managing body, the grouping of schools, and the number of managers on these particular boards. That was the only substantial alteration that he wished to make in that portion of the clause, and if he might be allowed to do so he should like to move all those Amendments together. (Cries of "No.")
  MR. SPEAKER: We must take them in the order in which they appear on the Paper.
  MR. PEEL: I beg to move the first Amendment
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 8, after the word 'elementary,' to insert the word 'schools.'"—(Mr. Peel.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'schools' be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he did not know how far the acceptance of this Amendment might commit them to the acceptance of other Amendments. He thought the hon. Baronet representing the Government would have risen now to discuss the main question. He asked whether it was to be discussed on this Amendment or the subsequent ones.
  MR. BRYCEsaid this was a drafting Amendment which was quite independent, and, therefore, by accepting it they were not by any means committed to the further Amendments.
  MR. MANSFIELDmoved to leave out the words "provided schools" in the first line of the clause. This raised the whole broad question whether provided and non-provided schools in the Metropolis should be managed under one management and on the same basis. He knew it would be said that under the Act of last year a distinction was made, but that was a distinction which had not been successful, and the friction in the country had been very largely due to the fact that there had been such a distinction made, and that all the schools under educational authorities had not been put on the same basis. If the Government really wished that Act, as applied to London, to be a success, he thought they would very readily accept his Amendment. Hon. Members on the other side had not been slow to bear tribute to the fact that the County Council had behaved well to the denominational schools in London. If that was so, the denominational schools might well leave themselves in the hands of the County Council in future, and let them have one system of management throughout the whole area, whether relating to one set of schools or another. The education authority was charged with the responsibility for all secular education, and, being so charged, they ought to have the power of management in all the schools. Of course it would be urged that the trust deeds were such that the managers should be appointed by the trust. It would also be urged that the religious atmosphere must be maintained in the schools, and that the schools having been built for all time, the denomination should have the control of the management. As he understood the Prime Minister, that right hon. Gentleman considered that these matters were of very small importance; that they should be considered from an educational standpoint. The Prime Minister also lamented that they on that side of the House had introduced sectarianism into those debates, and that they had
  618
  not approached the subject from a purely educational point of view. The Prime Minister also calmly claimed that there was a monopoly on the Government side of the House in regarding this subject from a purely educational point of view. Well, as the right hon. Gentleman was so anxious to approach this subject from a purely educational point of view — an anxiety shown by his absence from the House — he asked the Government whether it would not be better to have one authority, one management, to have control of the schools under their supervision? During the past week a case had arisen which gave point to his Amendment. In a school which came under the control of the managers so appointed, a curate was giving denominational teaching to the scholars. The time set apart for denominational teaching was finished at half-past nine o'clock and the teacher pointed this out to the curate. The curate continued, and after a time, the teacher again pointed out that the time for denominational instruction had expired. The curate still went on, and when the teacher once more protested against the curate taking up the time for secular instruction, he was reported by the curate to the managers appointed under last year's Act and had since been dismissed. It was understood that the dismissal was on account of the teacher being insolent to the curate; but it would be interesting to know—though it was not known—what the curate said to the teacher and what the teacher said to the curate. A different conclusion might then be arrived at as to who was insolent. One thing was certain, that if there was to be a body of managers set up—two-thirds of whom were elected by the trustees and one-third by the educational authority—there would be eternal friction and trouble all along the line. In the interests of education pure and simple, he asked the Government to accept his Amendment. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 8, leave out the words, 'provided schools.'"—(Mr. Mansfield.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'provided' stand part of the Bill."
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that just now they had been told that the scheme of management which had been settled last year was one which should not be departed from; but now they came to a scheme of management applicable to another sort of school, the conditions of which were discussed at infinitely greater length, and they were asked to upset one of the principal features of the Act of last year by the omission of the word "provided." That was to say, that all the voluntary schools of London were to be under the management of the local education authority. It would be impossible for him to go at length into the struggle of last year or the various considerations brought before the House which determined the relation of the numbers, in these various schemes, of the foundation managers and those appointed by the local education authority. What lay at the root of that settlement was the admission—he thought the general admission—that there was no desire that the schools should be other than denominational—that the voluntary schools—Roman Catholic, Anglican, Wesleyan—should retain their character; and the only question was the method by which this maintenance of character could be secured. The House determined, after long debates, that a two-thirds majority on the board of management was practically the only security for the continuance of teaching of a denominational character, which would retain the denominational origin and nature of the school. From that settlement he was not now prepared to depart. The conditions under which these schools were to be retained were fixed after great debate during the autumn session—that the secular instruction was to be entirely under the local education authority, and the religious instruction under the foundation managers—and were most carefully set forth in Section 7 of last year's Act; and to accept the Amendment would involve an alteration of the whole relation of the voluntary schools to the local education authority. It would be quite impossible to alter the conditions of management and hand over the voluntary schools to the management of the local education authority. He understood that the hon. Member
  620
  thought that great trouble would arise if the system of management adopted last year was preserved in the present Bill. The hon. Gentleman told a story about a teacher who had suffered injustice at the hands of a curate, but if the hon. Gentleman looked at the Act of last year he would see that that sort of injustice could not be perpetrated under the provisions of the 7th Clause.
  MR. MANSFIELDsaid that the injustice was perpetrated quite recently under the provisions of last year's Act.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that, if the case was quite recent, he hoped that they had not yet heard the end of the story. The control of the local education authority was complete as regarded secular instruction, and as regarded religious instruction the teacher could only be dealt with by the managers. He quite admitted that the hon. Member might be right in saying that the arrangement of last year was not universally acted upon, but he was not prepared, at this stage of the Bill, after the short experience they had had of the working of the Act of last year, to depart from the settlement then arrived at after full discussion.
  MR. YOXALLsaid he hoped the House would not deal too strongly with the Act of last year in retaining all its features. The intention in this Bill was to apply the Education Act of 1902 to London "so far as applicable, and subject to the provisions of this Act." It was urged that they should apply a different local management to the non-provided schools where they existed over a scattered area, to that for the provided schools where they did exist. But that could not be applicable to the area of London, where there was a provided school at one end of the street and a non-provided school at the other end. The argument might be true of a rural area, but could not be true of a London area. It was laid down by the Act of last year that a non-provided school which made certain provision of rent-free premises for the use of the local education authority might be a denominational school; and he did not think that the

  621
  Amendment of his hon. friend would alter that provision, although it would make the management wholly public. The denominational instruction, so dear to the hearts of hon. Gentlemen opposite, would not have been in danger if the schools were wholly under public control; while, from the point of view of educational efficiency, the avoidance of friction, and the uniformity of administration, the Amendment of his hon. friend was highly desirable. The ecclesiastical influence, so manifest last year, had profoundly modified the details of the clause in the present Bill. It might be the case that the clergy were not the professional friends of the denominational schools in London, but he could say that the teachers in the denominational schools in London—men who had worked very hard, with very poor remuneration, men who had sacrificed much, and whose privations had made it possible for these schools to go on in the past—were distinctly in favour of the management of the non-provided schools coming under the same management as the provided schools. The non-provided schools were managed very badly indeed as a rule. There would be under this proposal a grouping of schools under some other body of managers, and they would have the London Diocesan Board supervising and controlling the denominational schools of London in a sectarian way, thus promoting friction and difficulties. His hon. friend had introduced a most valuable Amendment, which he should have great pleasure in supporting.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he was extremely obliged to his hon. friend for moving this important Amendment. He should have thought that the Secretary to the Board of Education might have consulted the members of the Government to see whether this suggestion could not be accepted as a happy issue out of the grave difficulties by which the preferential management of non-provided schools would be accompanied. The scheme of four denominational and two public managers was unworkable; it had already come to his notice that the gravest difficulty was felt in many of the large towns. There would, for instance, be great difficulties as to paying the bill
  622
  for structural alterations. He prophesied that the Board of Education would be besieged with repudiations of expenditure from time to time on the part of the four denominational and the two public managers respectively, and all sorts of practical difficulties would arise. But apart from the question of machinery there was the graver question of the injustice involved in this preferential treatment. The Government had never understood why the man in the street, who was not very keen about the form of religious instruction, recognised that this preferential treatment was scandalously unjust. The total maintenance per child was 60s.—to bring it up to the level of the provided school—and how was that made up? The denominationalists, if they took the Government's own Returns, were to find 2s. a year per child, and the value of the building which the public desired to use was 3s. per child, making a total of 5s. per child per year, so that the public found 55s. out of 60s. and the denominationalists 5s. Therefore the man in the street said the public found eleven-twelfths, and the denominationalist one-twelfth. The result was that the public, which was to have eleven-twelfths of the financial obligation, was to have only four-twelfths of the management, while the denominationalists, who had one-twelfth of the financial obligation, were to have eight-twelfths of the management. That was the issue; it was that which had caused the irritation throughout the country, and it was that which would bring about the ultimate breakdown. The public were not going to have that arrangement.
  The London County Council had earnestly protested against being required by law to levy rates to be applied in the maintenance of denominational schools, and had urged the Government to withdraw the Bill, mainly because of this preferential system of denominational management. The Government desired to help voluntary schools and to get rid of the voluntary element, and so did he; but they could not do it in this way. He had no doubt that if the Bill passed, as he supposed it would, they would have a resolution of the London County Council resolutely declining, on this ground, to

  623
  carry the law into effect; and when the County Council election took place next March he had no doubt that an enormous majority would be returned in favour of refusing to spend rates to find eleven-twelfths of the money in return for only four-twelfths of the managers. Some Government, if not this, would have to determine that the local authority responsible for the money should have the entire control of the management. The Government were really doing a very bad day's work for the denominational schools; they would not get the money, and much irritation and controversy would be set up. He did not know whether the Prime Minister had yet heard of the Albert Hall meeting, but that meeting and the Hyde Park demonstration proved conclusively that there was a very powerful volume of feeling in London against the proposal of the Government. He desired to see the voluntary schools adequately financed but they could not do it in this way, and those who were pushing this proposal, irrespective of public opinion, were doing the cause they had at heart a very ill service. The only legitimate ground upon which they could put this scheme was that the public authority must have the whole control. If some denominational schools went by the board because of bad management then they must go and provide their own money, but if those schools were maintained by public money they must be under public control. He thought the Government were ill-advised not to close with an offer of this sort, which would leave the denominational schools just as denominational, but would give them proper finances and place them under proper control.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he thought that some faint signs of grace might be detected in the last words of the Secretary to the Board of Education. He said he was not prepared to alter the arrangement with regard to voluntary schools. He thought perhaps he was already beginning to understand how hopelessly impossible that arrangement was, and was beginning to see that either he or someone else would before
  624
  very long have to radically alter what he had called "the settlement of last year," but what they declared to be the unsettlement of last year. The hon. Baronet also said that he was not quite sure that he understood the effect of his hon. friend's Amendment. He would suggest a very simple illustration which would make it quite clear—he alluded to the provision of the Jewish schools in the Metropolis at the present time. There they had an instance of a separate religious community with their excellent schools under the control of the London School Board, and that arrangement had worked with excellent results for many years. The School Board appointed the managers; there were no objectionable religious tests, and they appointed Jewish teachers to teach in those schools. The hon. Baronet know perfectly well that this arrangement worked with a most excellent success, and what they were offering now was the last chance to the Government of anything like a real settlement of this very debatable question in London, namely, that the Government should put denominational schools in the same position as Jewish schools, which had been worked so satisfactorily for many years. He did not know where the representatives of the Jewish community in the House were at that moment, but he suspected they were on the Terrace. Had they been present probably they would have had the hon. Member for Limehouse voting for this Amendment. He thought those representing the Jewish community ought at least to come and support them in obtaining the same arrangement for other less-favoured religious communities. There was another point which had entirely escaped the hon. Baronet's attention. He alluded to the new by-law, which made all the difference in the world. It gave the possibility of preserving that inalienable right of the parents, about which they heard so much last year, without interfering with the principle of public management. If the Government would give them that by-law and public management they would be satisfied, and they could at least join hands with hon. Members on the other side in working for education apart from those wretched religious questions. The imposition of religious tests in privately

  625
  managed schools which were to be supported by public funds was bound to introduce irritation and friction into their educational system. This Amendment made it possible for the Government, in the case of London, not only to get rid of the religious difficulty, but to make an experiment in London which they thought might be a solution of this question so far as the rest of the country was concerned. If the Government had only sufficient courage to accept the offer now held out to them on this occasion, they might not only save themselves from making a mistake in the education of London but they might also find a way of salvation for themselves out of the imbroglio into which they had got. Otherwise nothing could save them but their dissolution. He trusted the faint signs of grace apparent in the last words of the Secretary to the Board of Education would grow and flourish before this Amendment was put to a division, and that the Government would accept the Amendment.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid his hon. friend behind him had done good service to the House and the country by raising this question as regarded London. He could not share the sanguine hopes of his hon. friend. They could not expect the Government to change now, but this Amendment gave them an opportunity of entering their protest against the system adopted last year and now extended to London. The statement of the hon. Baronet that he gathered that the system of nominating managers to the voluntary schools was almost universally agreed to, was most astonishing, because the hon. Baronet must be aware there was the strongest possible protest against it, and against the payment of rates without a proper representation on the management. And these protests would be accentuated in the case of London. He would be extremely glad to have this question settled on terms satisfactory to the denominational schools as well as to the country at large. There was no desire to deprive the schools of their denominational teachers, but from the point of view of representation and efficiency they ought to be under the control of the local authority. He was afraid this feeling was even more acute in London than in
  626
  the country, having regard to the resolution of the London County Council which had been read, that they would not give London rates to schools not under the education authority. That would seriously add to the difficulties of the London schools. On these grounds he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid he was sorry that the Government were determined to keep this provision in the Bill, because it showed that they had learnt nothing from the operation of the Act of last year in the country. Nothing had caused greater friction throughout the country up to the present than this question of the appointment of managers. The Prime Minister had charged them with raising sectarian rather than denominational questions on this question, but that question was raised by the Bill itself, and they were not responsible for it in any way. He could give many instances where schools under the Act of last year had become absolutely sectarian, which was extremely objectionable to those who had to pay the rates. All these schools were equally maintained out of the rates, and when the ratepayers—many of whom were Nonconformists—found the whole control going into the hands of one body, it naturally excited all kinds of strife and contention. The Prime Minister, if he read the newspapers and knew what was going on in the country, could not possibly believe that real good educational work was being done under this system. It began with strife, and educational work could only be carried on effectively by the good-will of the people. What was proceeding under this Bill? He went through one of our great towns a short while ago, and he was told, in answer to inquiries he made of a friend who was one of the managers of the schools, that under this system of management the clergyman assumed to take the chair by right; that he was appointed treasurer; that he was appointed correspondent; and also to check the register, and nobody else had any right to look into the affairs of the schools. Under those circumstances his friend doubted whether it was any use attending any further meetings. As long as the system embodied in the clause existed the friction would continue, and the educational interests of the

  627
  children suffer. Many of the opponents of the Bill had devoted to the work of education more years than the Prime Minister had hours, and yet, because they stood up to defend the rights of conscience, they were charged with being the advocates of sectarianism. It was because they believed that sectarianism stood in the way of educational progress, and that as long as sectarianism was promoted by such Bills as that under discussion educational progress was impossible, that they felt bound to make their protest. They would be only too glad to discuss the question on purely educational grounds, but they had to perform a primary duty from which they would not shrink, whatever the attitude of the Government might be.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the question had been argued as though the Act of 1902 was being exactly followed, and the hon. Baronet had resisted the Amendment on the ground that the House arrived at a decision on the point last year. It should be borne in mind, however, that there was no parallel in the Act of 1902 for the course that was being followed in London. The Borough Councils were to have no right whatever of appointing any managers in connection with the schools not provided by the local authority That was a complete departure from the Act of last year. The Amendment would secure unity of management. The argument constantly used last year was that a majority of the managers of the voluntary schools must be appointed by the trustees because a majority of the children in the country were educated in voluntary schools. In London the case was different. In every area there would be voluntary schools over which the Borough Councils would not have the slightest control. The Amendment would supply the necessary link between the voluntary schools and the Borough Councils. The matter might be compromised by allowing the Borough Councils to appoint two managers.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that under the Bill the situation would be the same as under the Principal Act—the County Council would appoint one manager, and the Borough Council as the
  628
  minor local authority would appoint one manager.
  MR. LOUGHthought the Government might go a little farther, considering the circumstances of the London case, and give the Borough Councils two managers without reducing the number appointed by the County Council.
  MR. SPEARappealed to the Parliamentary Secretary to do something to meet the case under discussion. He ventured when last year's Bill was in Committee to urge the desirability of giving greater popular representation on the Committees of Management, and he ventured to say that the experience of the working of the 1902 Act had so far showed that to be the chief blot on the Bill. The denominational character of the schools could be safely preserved by a special clause, and the broader and more democratic was the management the better it would be for the schools and the public as well. As one who was very hopeful of the working of last year's Act, he believed there was no alternative to its main lines if they desired to co-ordinate education. As one who supported that Bill, he appealed to the Government to do something to meet the strong feeling that had been aroused in some districts on this matter. He wished, as a Nonconformist, to dissociate himself entirely from the movement of passive resistance which had taken place in certain parts of the country. The Bill was something in the nature of a compromise. It was impossible to produce a perfect measure at first, but where there were defects, there was always a constitutional way of remedying them. He claimed that Nonconformists had done much to further the religious life and education of the country, and he objected to the fair fame of Nonconformity being besmirched by the methods of the passive resistance movement. At the same time, he felt that there was some grievance, but, having regard to the complete control exercised by the County Council, he hoped that the Bill would work fairly well, notwithstanding the illogical

  629
  composition of the Committee of Management. He again appealed to the Government to give more popular representation on the Committee of Management.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that if the hon. Member for the Tavistock Division spoke as a Nonconformist he surely would not object to anybody following the dictates of his conscience in a matter of this sort. In that case, where did the "besmirching" come in? It was the fair fame, not of Nonconformity, but of the Government, that was being besmirched. It had been frequently argued that outside the House there was no feeling whatever on the question of sectarianism, but recent experience showed that the strongest possible feeling existed in the country on the matter, and that it was not manufactured for the purposes of debate. It was necessary that the Government should face that fact. If they thought the movement was merely temporary and would soon die down, they were probably right in pursuing the same course now as in the Act of 1902. But he thought that could hardly be their view. They must realise that there was such a depth of feeling among Nonconformists as would carry on the movement with renewed force, and that there was no prospect of it coming to an end in the immediate future. That being so, surely it would be better to accept the situation, and deal with it in regard to this Bill. Did the Government desire the passive resistance movement to extend to London?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the remarks the hon. Member was now making would be more appropriate to the Third Reading of the Bill.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the point he desired to make was that
  the extension of the movement would probably be avoided if the popular control of the schools was extended. What would the London County Council do? Several County Councils, certainly in Wales, had decided not to put the Act into operation so far as the voluntary schools were concerned unless popular control were given. The hon. Baronet had been forewarned in this matter. When a body like the London County Council declared its intention beforehand it was pertinent to consider whether the Amendment was worthy of support or not. The London County Council expressed, by eighty votes against twenty-three, its deep regret that the Bill failed to provide for the efficient management of education or for popular control, and, by sixty votes against ten, the Council passed a resolution protesting strongly against the maintenance of schools not under public control out of public funds and the payment of teachers subject to religious tests. That was a frank protest on the part of the London County Council, which was to be called upon to administer the Act. The London County Council would, according to the hon. Baronet, only have the appointment of one out of six managers. The Council protested against that state of things; and he felt sure that if the hon. Baronet pursued the course indicated in the clause he would have the opposition to the Act of last year, which existed up and down the country, repeated in London. The Government would be pursuing a wise policy, in their own interests and in the interests of education, if they acknowledged the unwisdom of the boards of management for voluntary schools proposed in last year's Act.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 253; Noes, 130. (Division List No. 158.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Aird, Sir John

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Bowles, Lt-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Brassey, Albert

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Bull, William James

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Butcher, John George

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Myers, William Henry

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward H.

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

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

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

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  O'Malley, William

  Chapman, Edward

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  O'Mara, James

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Coddington, Sir William

  Heath, James (Staff's., N. W.)

  Percy, Earl

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Som's't, E.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm

  Purvis, Robert

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Randles, John S.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Cullinan, J.

  Jessel, Capt, Herbert Merton

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Delany, William

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Denny, Colonel

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Dillon, John

  Kerr, John

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Dimsdale Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Knowles, Lees

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dix'n

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Doughty, George

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Fardell, Sir T. George

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

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb Tyneside

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Lundon, W.

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Flower, Ernest

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Forster, Philip. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Fyler, John Arthur

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Malcolm, Ian

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Garfit, William

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Gilhooly, James

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

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

  Milvain, Thomas

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

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

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Gretton, John

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  632

  633

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Young, Samuel

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES

  Allan, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Priestley, Arthur

  Asher, Alexander

  Grant, Corrie

  Rea, Russell

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Rigg, Richard

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Harwood, George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Black, Alexander William

  Hayter, Rt. Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Runciman, Walter

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Russell, T. W.

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Brigg, John

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Burt, Thomas

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Caldwell, James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Cameron, Robert

  Labouchere, Henry

  Tennant, Harold John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Langley, Batty

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

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

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Crombie, John William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Tomkinson, James

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Toulmin, George

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardign

  M'Crae, George

  Wallace, Robert

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-shire

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Elibank, Master of

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Ellis, John Edward

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

  Emmott, Alfred

  Moulton, George Fletcher

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Fenwiek, Charles

  Partington, Oswald

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ

  Perks, Robert William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Price, Robert John

  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 8, to leave out the word 'schools,' and insert the words, 'by the local education authority.'"—(Mr. Peel.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BONDmoved an Amendment with the object of eliminating the Borough Councils from any participation in connection with the work of the schools. He said the arguments pro and con were well known, and he need not trouble the House at any length respecting them. The amount of authority now left to the Borough Councils was so small and ineffective that he could
  634
  not believe that there was any real desire on their part to retain it, and it did introduce a possible element of discord in the constitution proposed to be set up. They had had experience already as to how managers should be appointed. They had been appointed by the School Board, and, so far as he knew, with satisfactory results. That appeared to him to be the plan which should be pursued in future, substituting the local education authority for the School Board. It was suggested that by adopting the plan proposed in the Bill some fresh element of educational

  635
  interest or enthusiasm would be introduced into the working of the system. For his part he was rather sceptical about it. The number of persons in London who would take an interest in education was comparatively small, and they would always come forward if opportunity was given to them. It had been more difficult for the School Board to get efficient managers than to discriminate between applicants for the posts. In some districts it was difficult to find people who possessed the necessary qualifications, and who could afford to give the time which the proper management of the schools undoubtedly demanded. Under these circumstances it seemed to him that they had better not run any risk in the matter, but, having gone so far as they had gone in altering, modifying, and almost destroying the constitution originally proposed by the framers of the Bill, that they should give this part the coup de grace and keep the Borough Councils out altogether. As things at present stood the School Board which appointed the manager's could get rid of them. From time to time a manager might turn out to be corrupt, or, for some reason or other, not to be a desirable person to be associated in the management of a school of young children. If such a manager were appointed by a Borough Council that Council might take a different view from the Education Committee, and there would be an opportunity for quarrelling. The differences of opinion arising might assume quite a serious aspect, and, although he did not say that such cases would be frequent, he could not see any good reason for running a risk of that kind. He therefore moved.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 8, after the last Amendment to leave out the words, 'within the area of each Metropolitan Borough.'"—(Mr. Bond.)
  Question proposed, "That the words, 'within the area of each Metropolitan Borough' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WHITLEYsaid it was a great pity there was nobody to speak a word for the Borough Councils when the last shred of their privileges contained in the Bill was proposed to be taken away. When the Bill was before
  636
  the House in the Committee stage, two stalwart supporters of the Government looked after the interests of those Councils, but to-day, when he looked round the House, he could not help asking, "Where are the champions of the Borough Councils?" Was there not a single Member on the Government side to get up and withstand this Amendment? He agreed with the hon. Member that what was left to the Borough Councils was not worth having from their point of view, but it would be a source of irritation if allowed to remain, and if the Government were wise they would strike out the Borough Councils from the management altogether.
  MR. LOUGHsaid if a little thought were given to this Amendment the Government might be inclined to accept it. The Borough Councils were not grateful to the Government for the position in which they were now left under the Bill. The Government had been pursuing this will-o'-the-wisp with the view apparently of doing something to gratify these Borough Councils. He appealed to the London Members to look at the proposal of the Government from the point of view of any single case with which they were familiar. In the case of Islington the Borough Council consisted of fifty or sixty members who made considerable sacrifices in order to carry out their municipal duties. They did their work well under the Local Government Act for London; but he did not believe that they were conscious of the number of schools in the borough or that they had any consciousness of the exact work of school managers. Why should this body of sixty or seventy men appoint 300 or 400 managers without any knowledge of the duties which these managers would have to discharge, and without any financial control over the educational system which the managers were to conduct? When the matter was put in that simple manner, he could not see how any one could argue that the right of nominating these managers should be left in the hands of the Borough Councils. They were creating a new education authority for London, and if they left it alone it would go into the

  637
  School Board offices, and follow the School Board conditions, and yet, with everything so easy to the hands of the Government, for the gratification of some whim, the thing was to be split up into twenty-nine parts. It seemed to him to be a crazy proposal, and thoroughly inconsistent with the policy which the Government had now gradually adopted. He appealed to the hon. Baronet to re-consider his position, and he likewise hoped that hon. Gentlemen on the other side would support one of their own number in moving to get quit of the Borough Councils for good and all.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he should vote with his hon. friend who moved the Amendment. It seemed to him a most unbusinesslike proceeding to appoint an authority, and not allow that authority to designate its own managers. The representatives of the Borough Councils would undoubtedly be likely to create friction, and at the same time do no good. He understood his hon. friend who was in charge of the Bill to say that if the managers did not work with the County Council, the County Council, although it could not dismiss them, could take the authority from them and give it to a Committee. That was certain to produce friction, and he considered that the arrangement with regard to this matter had only been made to satisfy the amour propre of the Borough Councils.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he had listened with extreme gratification to the hon. Member for Peckham, and he cordially agreed with every word the hon. Member had said. Every scheme brought forward to keep up the representation of the Borough Councils had failed, and he hoped the idea would now be abandoned. He thought the wisest course was to provide that the local education authority should determine the number of managers and the grouping of the schools after consultation with the Borough Councils, and subject to the approval of the Board of Education. Educationally a Borough Council area did not exist in London; it existed only for municipal purposes. In fact he knew of the case of a school which was
  638
  practically in two Borough Council areas, and the idea of a Borough Council area being an educational area should at once be dismissed as preposterous. The scheme in the Bill was not the position in the country, and it would not be workable in London.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid that the provision in the Act of last year which gave power to the local education authority to appoint two-thirds of the managers, and to the minor authority to appoint one-third, had worked exceedingly well. He would not exclude the Borough Councils entirely from nominating the board of management, but he would be prepared to agree that they should nominate one-half instead of two-thirds. That would take away any excuse the County Council might have for saying that they were left in a small minority. He hoped that some provision would be made for ensuring that among the first managers appointed there would be a proper proportion of the present managers under the London School Board. They were a valuable body and consisted largely of women; and if they were recognised in that way, he felt assured that their services would be largely continued in the future.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that it had been just a little bit forgotten what the duty of the managers was. The silence of the Government on this Amendment was not attributable to the arguments they had used on the previous Amendment, because they gave the House no argument whatever. The Government did not seem to realise that the managers were to be the agents of the local education authority; they were to act under their direction, and carry out the instructions of that authority as to the management and control of the schools and report upon them. Was there any reason why they had got to give the appointment of those agents to somebody else instead of keeping it to themselves? It was absurd to bring in the Borough Councils, and it would only introduce complication and possible friction, by giving the appointment of the managers to a body which had nothing to do with the functions to

  639
  be discharged by the managers. That was brought out by the hon. Member for Nottingham in regard to the question of dismissal. The dismissal was to be in the hands of the Borough Councils, but the Borough Councils did not know the reason for dismissal, because they never would know how a school was working. They gave no instructions and received no reports. All these things were done by the local education authority, and it was only the education authority who could say whether a man or a woman was a good or a bad manager. He submitted that that argument was conclusive on the matter. But there was another point of some importance. There were large districts of London where there were extremely few people who had either the leisure or the knowledge which would qualify them to undertake the work of managers. That deficiency was met at present by the School Board enlisting the services of leisured and philanthropically disposed persons from other parts of London, and these managers had not only given the poorer districts what they could not supply themselves, but had formed a very valuable link between the richer and the poorer parts of London. The people who lived in the poorer districts after all worked in the richer districts, and it was a positive gain that those who lived in the better parts should have this opportunity of going down into these poor and neglected districts and doing what had been done for the schools in the past by the London School Board. He did not think this could be equally well managed by the Borough Councils, whose knowledge was local and was not educational, who did not know the people in their own areas, and who knew still less the people in other areas. They would therefore be taking away a real benefit the poorer districts had enjoyed if they deprived them of the opportunity of getting this kind of help from the other parts of London. There had been no argument adduced by the Government to show that the Borough Councils were needed to determine the number and the character of the managers to be appointed. As a matter of fact they were not needed, and under those circumstances he hoped the Government
  640
  would eliminate the Borough Councils from a function for which they had no special competence.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the real question between them was who was to retain the initiative in choosing the managers—whether they were to retain the system of School Board management or whether they were to endeavour to create a local management? He was in favour of local management. He quite admitted that the School Board managers had done admirable work, a most unselfish and valuable work, for the schools. But he believed also that there was a very considerable element of valuable work which they might get at if they could excite more local interest in the management of the schools. What he had been told was that there was material accessible if only local interest were excited. The sooner they made the Borough Councils feel that the children of the borough were members of the borough, for whom they ought to have some care, the better. Everybody knew that there was a great deal beside teaching which had to be attended to in the conduct of the schools. The children had to be looked after when they were leaving school by people who were interested in them, and they had to be attended to when they came to school to see that they were cared for and fed and brought to school in a condition in which they were capable of receiving the education offered to them. If they could get the Borough Councils to take an interest in that, if they could create the sort of feeling under which the boroughs would realise that the schools were their schools, that the children were their children, they would have done a very good thing for education in London. If the whole appointment of the managers was put in the hands of the County Council and the Borough Councils had nothing to say to their appointment, he thought the consultation of the boroughs by the County Council would be an empty form.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the argument of the hon. Baronet would have been more to the point if they had been discussing whether the Borough Councils should be the statutory managers. But was it not absurd to argue that they, not being

  641
  themselves the managers but having the power to nominate three-fourths of the managers, would bring to this matter that local interest and local knowledge to which the hon. Baronet had referred. He should have thought it would not have the least effect in that direction, but he was perfectly certain that if this power were given to the local education authority it would practically reappoint the same body of managers as that which had done such valuable work for London under the School Board. If the Borough Councils were given the nomination of two-thirds, what would they naturally consider was the intention of the House of Commons in giving them that nomination? They would naturally think that the intention was that they should go rather outside the existing boroughs, and would take it as an instruction from this House that they were to get rid of the existing managers and put others in their place. That was the view that he would take if he was a borough councillor. He thought under these circumstances it was better to get rid of this Borough Council interest altogether, and from top to bottom place the matter in the hands of the central authority. He thought there was a good deal of force in the arguments of the Member who moved the Amendment. There was a great likelihood of this leading to great friction between the Borough Councils and the local authority, and if there was the least likelihood of any such friction arising, in the best interests of education they would be wise, he thought, in eliminating this last shadow of Borough Council interest and so leave the local authority in their proper position.
  *MR. COHENsaid he was not in favour of the Borough Councils having complete control over education, and was glad to see that eliminated from the Bill, but there was one point on which the Borough Councils should have the control, and that was the appointment of managers, in which the local knowledge, which they possessed and which the County Council did not possess, could be brought into play. He thought that they had
  heard quite sufficient of the bogey of friction between the London County Council and Borough Councils. He had had the privilege of being a Member of the London County Council for twelve years, and had never been a member of the majority of that body, but he knew from personal experience, that if there was one thing ever absent from every sphere of work of the London County Council, it was friction between the London County Council and those with whom they differed. He could assure the House that the apprehension of friction was totally unfounded. The County Council always displayed a tolerant spirit towards those with whom they differed.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid the House had heard with interest the hon. Member's experience of the London County Council, and could only wonder why there should have been such an exhibition of distrust of the County Council on the part of hon. Members opposite. The speech of the hon. Member would relieve the hon. Baronet from a very embarrassing position, and the support which it gave must be very welcome to the hon. Baronet, because he could hardly regard this clause with satisfaction. The speech of the hon. Baronet opposite showed that he was still hankering after his original scheme. They were glad to know that the Government had now at heart the desirability of local interest, of which they did not hear much last year. But what local interest would be secured by this proposal which could not be secured by the County Council? If the County Council appointed managers they would secure the assistance of people locally interested. Two words had been used which had had a great charm for them, unification and co-ordination, but he failed to see how under the system proposed any authority could enforce unification and co-ordination with regard to education in the various schools.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 239; Noes, 128. (Division List, No. 159.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Arrol, Sir William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Garfit, William

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Baird, John George Alexander

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Balfour, Captain C. B. (Hornsey

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

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

  Myers, William Henry

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Gretton, John

  O'Malley, William

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Groves, James Grimble

  O'Mara, James

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Bill, Charles

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Penn, John

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Percy, Earl

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Brassey, Albert

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

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bull, William James

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Butcher, John George

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo

  Purvis, Robert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Heath, James (Staff's., N. W.)

  Randles, John S.

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Chapman, Edward

  Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Coddington, Sir William

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Kerr, John

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marlybone, W.)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon Sir Joseph C.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

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

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

  Derington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Spear, John Ward

  Doughty, George

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lundon, W.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

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

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Webb, Col. William George

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Milvain, Thomas

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-un.-Lyne

  Forster, Henry William

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  644

  645

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Young, Samuel

  NOES.

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Asher, Alexander

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Runciman Walter

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Russell, T. W.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hope John Deans (Fife, West

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's, Lynn)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Brigg, John

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Burns, John

  Labouchere, Henry

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Burt, Thomas

  Langley, Batty

  Tennant, Harold John

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Caldwell, James

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Cameron, Robert

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lloyd-George, David

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

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lough, Thomas

  Tomkinson, James

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Toulmin, George

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  M'Crae, George

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wallace, Robert

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Elibank, Master of

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Ellis, John Edward

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Emmott, Alfred

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Newnes, Sir George

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

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Partington, Oswald

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Wilson, Chas. H. (Hull, W.)

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond Univ.

  Perks, Robert William

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Price, Robert John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Priestley, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Rea, Russell

  Mr. Bond and Sir Frederick

  Grant, Corrie

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Banbury.

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

  Rigg, Richard

  Question put, and agreed to.

  MR. PEELsaid the next two Amendments were merely drafting Amendments—viz., to substitute "any" for "each," and to omit "or bodies" in line 9. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  In page 1, line 9, to leave out the word 'each,' and insert the word 'any.'"—(Mr. Peel.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 9, to leave out the words 'or bodies.'"—(Mr. Peel.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'or bodies' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. YOXALLthought some further explanation of the effect of this Amendment should be made. Did the hon. Member mean to compel all the schools within the area of each Borough Council to be under the control of one body of managers?
  MR. PEEL: Not all the schools under one body.
  MR. YOXALLthought it was a point which required to be made clear, because the words might have the effect of providing that all the provided schools within the area of a Borough Council were to be under one body of manager's. If that

  647
  were the case the danger to which he had adverted earlier in the debate would be even greater than before. He assumed that what was intended was that two or three schools might be under one body, not that all the schools should necessarily be.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONthought the point was sufficiently provided for by the words to be proposed later on enacting that the manner in which schools should be grouped should be determined by the Borough Council in consultation with the local authority and the Board of Education.
  MR. BOUSFIELDpointed out that as a later Amendment contemplated the grouping of schools under one, or more than one, body of managers the words "or bodies" were necessary.
  MR. PEELsaid the object of his next Amendment was to give the utmost elasticity to the arrangements made under the Bill. In some cases it might be necessary to group certain schools together under one body of managers, whilst in other cases the schools might be so large that they must have a body of managers for each school. In other cases still it might be necessary to place a school under more than one body of managers, and this Amendment gave power to take whichever course was deemed desirable. It might be left to the Board of Education to decide which of these courses should be followed.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words 'whose number,' and insert the words 'the number, of those managers and the manner in which schools, in cases where it is desirable, should be grouped under one body of managers or placed under more than one body of managers.'"—(Mr. Peel.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'whose number' stand part of the Bill."
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid they had not come to the real issue as to who should determine the number. He understood the proposal to apply to a school large enough to have one body
  648
  of managers to itself and of course they had a great many bodies which managed more than one school. He desired to move formally an Amendment to the Amendment to leave out the words "or placed under more than one body of managers." The ordinary public elementary school which required more than one body of managers he had not yet come across.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he gathered that this Amendment evidently caused some difficulty. What the hon. Member for Manchester meant was nothing more nor less than that the schools were to be grouped as in the manner prescribed. He thought the case would be met by the insertion of the words "the number of those managers and the extent to which schools should or should not be grouped." The grouping of schools meant putting several schools under the same body of managers, and that was covered by the use of the words he had suggested.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he understood his hon. friend had in view the possibility of there being a separate body of managers for each department of the school. He should object to the Amendment in its present form because the words were positively dangerous, and they would permit of separate boards of management taking charge of separate departments. He could not imagine anything worse than that the Borough Councils or the local education authority should have separate managers say for the infants and another set for the older children.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he did not think the words of his hon. friend's Amendment bore the interpretation placed upon them by the hon. Member for North Camberwell. He did not think the object of the Amendment was that one school should have more than one board of managers. The question was the manner in which schools should be grouped either under one body or more than one body and he did not refer to any particular school.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that when the Question before the Chair had been disposed of they would come immediately

  649
  to the words which it was proposed to insert. The Government seemed to be in some little difficulty, and the Amendment appeared to be one which required re-modelling, and as they were approaching the dinner hour it might be desirable that the Government should have the interval in order to avoid further confusion. During the interval the Government might draw up a simple Amendment, which everybody could understand, to carry out a purpose on which they were all agreed. What they required was that they should have words submitted to them to be inserted before they left out the words "whose number" which would carry out what appeared to be the unanimous wish of the House.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the matter was a very simple one, and the case put forward by his hon. friend was not at all likely to arise. He thought the words suggested by the right hon. Member for Aberdeen would meet all that was required.
  MR. YOXALLsaid the House was not in possession of the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid they appeared to be in a state of confusion on this point. The words proposed to be left out were "whose number," but they could not leave out those words except with the view of inserting something else. If they left those words out it made perfect nonsense, and therefore they were contemplating the insertion of something else. They could not discuss this without having some idea as to what the Government proposed to do. Did they propose to accept the words proposed by the hon. Member for Manchester in substitution of the words proposed to be left out? That involved the principle of grouping, the arrangement of the managers, and matters of that sort. Was that what the Government proposed to do, and did they accept the words of the hon. Member for Manchester as they appeared on the Paper? He had never heard of words being eliminated without knowing what words had been substituted for them. The
  650
  House of Commons ought to have some guidance.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned till this evening's sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
  As amended, further considered.
  Proceedings resumed upon Amendment proposed to the Bill [14th July]—
  "In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words 'whose number,' and insert the words 'the number of those managers and the manner in which schools, in cases where it is desirable, should be grouped under one body of managers or placed under more than one body of managers.'"—(Mr. Peel.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words 'whose number' stand part of the Bill."
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsuggested that the words "or placed under more than one body of managers" should be omitted from the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  Proposed words amended by leaving out the words "or placed under more than one body of managers."—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  Proposed words, as amended, inserted in the Bill.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid they had had a number of skirmishes with regard to the way in which they should frame the clause. As regarded the grouping of the schools they now came to the most important question of all, and that was, who should determine the number of managers. The Amendment he proposed to move would make the clause read so far as they had gone in this way: "Shall be determined after consultation with"—leave out the word "by"—"the Council of each Borough"—and then "by the local education authority," so that the number would be determined after consultation with the Borough Councils by the local

  651
  education authority. As a local authority the Borough Councils had no knowledge of these matters. If, for instance, they asked the Borough Council of Camberwell to name the Board schools in the Borough of Camberwell, they would not be able to do it. It was most pathetic to hear the hon. Baronet talk of exciting the interest of the Borough Councils in this way. The hon. Baronet had evidently no knowledge of these bodies. They could not excite their interest in the way he suggested. What could be done was to leave it in the hands of the London County Council and say—"You shall determine the number, but you ought to consult the Borough Councils." They would have very great difficulty in getting managers in any case. He had to go through the list of the managers of the ten schools in his charge every year, and every year he had to strike out the names of all those who had not made three visits to any school or managers' meeting during the year, and he found the greatest difficulty in finding people to fill their places. With their wider knowledge of the whole of London, surely the local authority were the persons to determine the number, because they were the persons who were in greater touch with those in the West End who would come forward to assist in these matters. He appealed to the hon. Member for South Manchester to accept this Amendment in place of that which he had upon the Paper, which contained the converse proposition, namely, that the number should be determined by the Borough Councils after consultation with the local education authority.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word 'determined,' to insert the words 'after consultation with.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he ventured to think that the proposal of the hon. Member for Camberwell was hardly supported by the arguments which had been used in its favour. The hon. Member had pointed out that the School Board had had great difficulty in keeping up their managers, and that the Borough Councils had taken no interest in any way in the education of their districts. Experience had proved
  652
  that whenever new powers were given to these local bodies they always had sufficient patriotism to carry them out. He always contended that the greater the functions put upon these bodies the greater would be their interest, and the greater would be the desire to discharge them. This particular Amendment did not seem to him to raise in itself a very important matter, for the Borough Councils and the County Council were not likely to fall out over it; but, so far as the hon. Member's object was to diminish the influence of the Borough Councils, he was opposed to him. It was of the greatest importance to awaken the interest of the local authorities in education within their area, and the more functions they gave them the more they would succeed in that object.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid the position was not altogether that described by the hon. Member. This was not an Amendment to the Amendment moved, but really an Amendment to the Bill as drafted, because the Bill as drafted said the number of the board of managers was to be determined by each Borough Council, subject only to the approval of the Board of Education. In his judgment, the London County Council, a competent body provided to superintend these schools, should have the paramount voice in this matter. The Borough Councils were not the proper body to provide managers. He would instance the case of the Jewish schools in Whitechapel In that case, certainly, the Borough Council was not the proper body to provide the managers, and it seemed to him that the only authority that could do this properly was the London County Council; that was the authority which ought to have the power, and, if this power were given to it, it would go far to conciliate public opinion in this matter. He strongly appealed to the Government to accept the words proposed by the hon. Member for Camberwell.
  MR. YOXALLsaid that inch by inch the Borough Council proposals in this Bill were being narrowed down until now it was only suggested that the Borough Councils should take the initiative in providing the Committee of Management for the schools in their areas and nominate the managers of that Committee. He would ask the Secretary

  653
  to the Board of Education seriously to consider whether it was worth while to persist in the proposal in the Bill as it stood. It would not conciliate the Borough Councils, and it did not satisfy the majority of the London Members. Was it worth while to leave these grains of grit in the machinery? It might be said that friction would not arise, but he thought it was very likely that friction would arise, and if there was the least danger of it the wisdom of the House ought to avert that danger. If there was a principle at stake he could understand the Government standing up for it. But the thing had been so whittled down and had become of so little value to the Borough Councils that there was no principle in it, and yet in itself it was dangerous. He begged the Government not to persist. The Amendment advocated, in his opinion, a very proper change, namely, the transfer of the initiative of these proceedings into the hands of the London County Council. He hoped even now it would be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to fall in with the general spirit of the House and give the initiative to the local education authority provided they consulted with the Borough Councils.
  *MR. COHENcontended that this was not a question of principle but of machinery, but he differed from the hon. Gentleman as to where the initiative should lie. He thought the Bill would work more smoothly if the initiative was with the Borough Councils instead of being with the local education authority, and in support of that contention reverted to the argument of the hon. Member for Camberwell that it was very difficult for the School Board to provide managers. Inasmuch as it was anticipated that the London County Council would be obliged to go, when this difficulty confronted them, to the Borough Councils and ask them to supply the names of ladies and gentlemen who would act as managers, it was only right that the Borough Councils should have the initiative in this matter. He had always been opposed to entrusting the Borough Councils with the large duties which it was at first proposed to place upon them, and
  654
  he was glad they were not to be given to them. But the duty they were now discussing was certainly not educational. The Borough Councils would have the duty of finding ladies and gentlemen with a certain amount of educational experience who were capable of managing the schools. He would confide that duty to them because it was one demanding a knowledge of the particular localities which could not be possessed by the central authority. He believed they would willingly undertake it, and that they would supply ladies and gentlemen capable of performing the duties of school managers.
  SIR MICHAEL FOSTERsaid there were two things to be observed in the selection of managers. There was the requisite knowledge, and the requisite judgment which would make that knowledge efficient. He quite sympathised with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education in saying that it was most desirable to excite local interest. He would add that it was most desirable to make use of local knowledge, but that was provided for in the Amendment by the consultation with the Borough Councils. How that knowledge could best be utilised for the educational advantage of London was surely a question for the central authority. He hoped the hon. Baronet would accept this very desirable Amendment.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he would strongly add his voice to that of the hon. Member for London University in urging the acceptance of this Amendment. As a matter of practical machinery, it was better to leave the selection of managers to the County Council after consultation with the Borough Councils than to the Borough Councils after consultation with the County Council. In such districts of the East-end as Poplar and Bethnal Green, it was impossible to find persons of leisure to undertake the duties of managers. He did not mean that they could not find people of the highest ability there, but they were all engaged in the struggle for existence, and they had no leisure to devote to the work of school management. The London School Board met the difficulty by reinforcing

  655
  the East-end managers from the leisured classes of the West-end. It was desirable that that plan should continue, and the County Council, which was in touch with all parts of London, would be able to continue it. But the Government proposed to arrest what was a going concern in order to begin de novo. There was no matter of principle involved here. It was a matter of practical statesmanship and machinery, and he thought it would be better to adopt the Amendment.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the speeches to which the House had been listening were useful and practical, but they had not been directed to the Amendment, which referred entirely to the question of number and not to the question who was to appoint the managers. The grouping of schools need not be confined within each borough, and therefore that was a question for the local education authority.
  MR. BONDsaid it was not a question whether the number of managers should be determined by the local education authority or the Borough Councils, though, of course, that was the issue raised by the Amendment. Assuming that the proposal of the hon. Member for Camberwell was accepted as to the number, what he asked was that it should be determined after consultation with the Borough Councils. If the Borough Councils were, as had been represented, in a state of blissful ignorance in regard to educational matters, why consult them at all? It would only introduce a fiddling method of proceeding which the House should be anxious to avoid. He could not vote for the Amendment.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid everybody who had spoken had stated that this was not a matter of principle, and that it would be comparatively unimportant in practice, yet it had given rise to a long discussion. It was said that they were derogating from the local education authority. The local education authority retained absolute control, but an initiative was given to the Borough Councils which it was very desirable they should have. It was said there was nothing in the Government's proposal to conciliate the boroughs. He did not care whether there was anything specially calculated
  656
  to conciliate the boroughs. If the boroughs had the duty thrown upon them they must consider the requirements of the schools in the area. It was said they were ignorant and knew nothing of the needs of the area. The hon. Member for Islington was never tired of dwelling on the educational incapacity of the Islington Borough Council. He supposed that to those who formed the School Board at first the needs of the different areas were matters of obscurity. He took it also that the County Councils, which had taken up technical education of late years, were not generally familiar with the matter when the duty was first thrust upon them, but he did not know it had ever been suggested that because they had nothing to do with education up to that date they were therefore incapable of doing the work. He believed the Borough Councils were perfectly capable of doing the work with which it was proposed to entrust them. If they were ignorant they would not be worth consulting; if they were capable they would be capable of taking the initiative of determining the number of managers necessary or desirable for their schools. The matter of the selection of managers was not before the House at present. When the proper time came he might have something to say in reply to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University. What they had to consider now was whether, in the matter of the number of managers desirable for the different schools and the general arrangement of their duties, the local education authority should consult the Borough Councils or the Borough Councils should consult the local education authority. He thought it exceedingly important that the Government should give the proposed powers to the different boroughs, because the London schools were most of them quite large enough to stand alone. The necessity of grouping was chiefly a necessity in scattered rural areas where managers were hard to find. But the real point was, that if they were to give to the boroughs an interest in the matter of management they must give them initiative. If they were required to wait until the County Council came to consult them the consultation would

  657
  probably have no result whatever. He hoped they would be able to excite the interest of the Borough Councils in educational work, and that they would play a good part in the education of London.
  MR WHITLEYasked what the word 'determined' in the clause meant if it did not mean that the power of fixing the number of managers lay with each Borough Council. It was not a question of mere initiative. The action of the Borough Council in this matter was to be "subject to the approval of the Board of Education," but if they passed the words "shall be determined by the council of each borough," were they not giving the real control into the hands of the Borough Council? A Borough Council might make up its mind, and then make the consultation with the County Council a farce. A much more important question than that of the number of managers was the question of grouping.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he did not see what this Amendment had to do with the question of grouping. That would arise on a subsequent Amendment.
  There had already been a general discussion on the first Amendment, but to have a general debate on every particular Amendment would be extremely inconvenient.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYpointed out that the words which were moved a few minutes ago were now in the clause, and, therefore, the question they were discussing was that the number of managers and the manner of grouping "shall be determined by the council of each borough."
  MR. SPEAKERruled that the hon. Member would not be in order in discussing the question of grouping.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he would not pursue the subject further. He thought that the proposal of the hon. Member for Camberwell was, from the point of view of education, immensely superior to that supported by the hon. Baronet who represented the Government.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 86; Noes, 144. (Division List, No. 160.)

  AYES.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Roche, John

  Brigg, John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Runciman, Walter

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Russell, T. W.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Burns, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Burt, Thomas

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kitson, Sir James

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Caldwell, James

  Langley, Batty

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cameron, Robert

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Cawley, Frederick

  Levy, Maurice

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

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Toulmin, George

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Dillon, John

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  O'Dowd, John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Edwards, Frank

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Elibank, Master of

  Partington, Oswald

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Perks, Robert William

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Wilson, John (Durham Mid.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Price, Robert John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Priestley, Arthur

  Foster, Sir Michl. (Lond. Univ

  Rea, Russell

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Dr. Macnamara and Mr.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Rigg, Richard

  George White.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Forster, Henry William

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Arrol, Sir William

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Purvis, Robert

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Randles, John S.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Groves, James Grimble

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

  Hain, Edward

  Renwick, George

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

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

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Bill, Charles

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Bond, Edward

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Helder, Augustus

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

  Brassey, Albert

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Bull, William James

  Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Butcher, John George

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

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

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Kerr, John

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

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Keswick, William

  Spear, John Ward

  Chapman, Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

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

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

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

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.)

  Webb, Col. William George

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

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

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Denny, Colonel

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Doughty, George

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Young, Samuel

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

  Myers, William Henry

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Percy, Earl

  Flower, Ernest

  Pilkington, Col. Richard

  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONmoved—
  "In Clause 2, page 1, lines 10 and 11, leave out 'council of each borough,' and insert 'local education authority.'"
  The object of this Amendment, he said, was to raise the clear issue whether the Borough Councils should be brought in in the matter of determining the number of managers, or whether the number of managers should be determined by the local education authority. The Amendment proposed that the matter should be left to the local education authority.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words 'council of each borough,' and insert the words 'local education authority.'"—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'council of' stand part of the Bill."
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the question had already been argued at length. He therefore proposed to say no more than that the Government could not accept the Amendment.
  Question put.

  The House divided:—Ayes, 158; Noes, 100. (Division List, No. 161.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Flower, Ernest

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Forster, Henry William

  Percy, Earl

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby- (Salop

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Purvis, Robert

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

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

  Randles, John S.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Groves, James Grimble

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bhownaggree Sir M. M.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Bill, Charles

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

  Renwick, George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Midd'x)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Brassey, Albert

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Heath, James (Staffs, N. W.)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Bull, William James

  Helder, Augustus

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Butcher, John George

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Howard, Jno. (Kent, Faversham

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Chapman, Edward

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

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

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Kerr, John

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Keswick, William

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

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Spear, John Ward

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cranborne, Viscount

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

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lowe, Francis William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Valentia, Viscount

  Denny, Colonel

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Doughty, George

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Manners, Lord Cecil

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

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

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

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

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

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

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

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Young, Samuel

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Myers, William Henry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway N.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Caldwell, James

  Elibank, Master of

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cameron, Robert

  Emmott, Alfred

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Fenwick, Charles

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Cremer, William Randal

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Bond, Edward

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Brigg, John

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-shire

  Foster, Sir Michl. (Lond. Univ

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Dillon, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Burns, John

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Burt, Thomas

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Edwards, Frank

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  662

  663

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Perks, Robert William

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

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Toulmin, George

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Price, Robert John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Kilbride, Denis

  Priestley, Arthur

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Kitson, Sir James

  Rea, Russell

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Langley, Batty

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Rigg, Richard

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Leng, Sir John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Levy, Maurice

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roche, John

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

  Lloyd-George, David

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Runciman, Walter

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  M'Crae, George

  Russell, T. W.

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  O'Dowd, John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Mr. William M'Arthur

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

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

  and Mr. Spencer.

  Partington Oswald

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 11, after the word 'borough' to insert the words 'after consultation with the local education authority and.'"—(Mr. Peel)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 12, to leave out the words 'Provided that.'"—(Mr. Peel.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid the Amendment he wished next to move dealt with the proportion of managers to be nominated by the Borough Councils. The Bill as it stood provided that three-fourths should be so nominated, and his proposal was to secure that only one-third should be selected by the minor authority, and two-thirds by the major body. This was an important point, because the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had again and again said that they desired that the County Council should have supreme control in their scheme of municipalisation, just the same as other municipal authorities throughout the country, and if the Government were sincere in this desire the least they could do was to give the authority the same amount of representation as was contained in last year's Act. He feared that the Borough Councils would feel a good deal of irritation against the Government in respect of this measure. At the outset they were offered lots of things which none
  664
  of them asked for, and all had since been withdrawn. It might be they would desire to appoint their proportion of the members from their own body. There was a certain amount of patronage in connection with the management of elementary schools in London. The management, for instance, had the entire appointment of assistant teachers, and the final selection for the head teacher-ship from three names sent down to choose from. Apart from their zeal for education, therefore, he could well understand that the borough councillors would be anxious to serve personally, so as to have a share of the patronage attaching to the office. This might produce conflicts with the County Council, which was nominally supreme. If the borough councillors themselves constituted three-fourths of the managing body, a large number of the existing managers would have to be got rid of. All were agreed that those managers were doing admirable work, and it certainly would be a great pity to lose their services. He understood that the Parliamentary Secretary did not want to bring that about, but the temptation to the borough councillors to elect themselves would be very great. He did not mean to suggest that they would exercise their powers of patronage unworthily. The Government had refused to give them special treatment for London, and had said they must accept last year's Act. What did that Act say in this respect? It said that as regarded urban districts the local authority need not have any managers at all, but if any were appointed four should be

  665
  chosen by the major authority—the council of the county—and two only by the minor authority—the urban district council. Why was that scheme to be departed from in the case of London? According to the Act of last year the Borough Councils should only appoint one-third instead of three-fourths of the managers. If the County Council was to be really supreme, it should be supreme in regard to these nominations. He had been looking through the list of managers in London, and he doubted very much if the Borough Councillors would be able to find a sufficient number of persons to act. Take the case of Stepney. Many of the existing managers were drawn from the West-end of London, but if the choice was to be confined to the borough he was convinced it would not be possible to find nine managers for each separate school.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 12, to leave out the words 'three-fourths,' and insert the words 'one-third.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  Question proposed, "That the words three-fourths stand part of the Bill."
  MR. W. F. D. SMITHsaid the House must be weary of discussing the comparative merits of the County Council and Borough Councils. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Camberwell that the London boroughs should be looked on in the same light as the urban district councils, neither did he believe they would necessarily limit their choice to residents of local areas. People in the East-end of London would still be able to have the assistance of those from the West end, and under the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Manchester the present managers would get due representation on the new Board. It must be clear to everybody that, although the Borough Councils would have a majority of the members, as a matter of fact they would be powerless to interfere with or run counter to the policy of the local education authority. But he thought the figures as they stood were rather
  666
  extreme, and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would see his way to modify them by giving two-thirds instead of three-fourths to the Borough Councils. If opportunity offered he would himself propose an Amendment to that effect.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he was anxious not to delay the Bill unnecessarily, but the Amendment before the House was one of considerable importance. Steadily step by step the House was forging the chain of control from the County Council authority down wards. In the Bill as originally presented the chain was broken in the constitution of the Committee and in the establishment of boards of management, but the House itself, with the Government very reluctantly acquiescing, had established the first principles of the control of the County Council over its own Committee, following upon the control of the Committee over the schools in the several boroughs. Now he was anxious to complete that chain of control. A large amount of detail work would undoubtedly have to be delegated to the managers of the schools, but the Education Committee would never consent to delegate powers to a body over which they were not able to exercise control. If the provision in the Bill was retained he believed the County Council would refuse to delegate this detail work, because the Education Committee could have no confidence in boards of management so constituted. They had repeatedly been told that the County Council must have full confidence in the managers, but how could it have such confidence under an arrangement like this. He hoped that before the debate closed the House would agree to provide that one-half of the managers should be appointed by the County Council and one-half by the Borough Councils. That would be a reasonable Amendment. He was anxious to enlist the services of women, and he thought the County Council would be more likely to appoint women than the Borough Councils would be. He agreed

  667
  with the argument that the Borough Councils would be strongly tempted to elect their own members as managers. They would forget that two-thirds of the children in the schools were either children of tender years or girls, and that therefore it was most desirable to appoint women as managers. It was useless, perhaps, to appeal to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, but he would appeal to hon. Members on this question to try and disregard Party pressure, and to arrive at a decision in the interests of the schools in this effort to complete the chain of control. The thing once done would not be undone for many years to come, and in the interim much mischief might be perpetrated. The schools were now being placed under an entirely new system, a great experiment was being entered upon, and he appealed to those who wished to see the education given in the Metropolis equal, if not superior, to anything in the Empire to give the County Council a paramount voice in the selection of boards of managers for each school or group of schools. Personally he would support the omission of the words "two-thirds" in the hope that later on one-half would be substituted.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid it was scarcely necessary to do more than move the Amendment, because of the arguments that had already been put so forcibly in its favour. He hoped the Government would facilitate the proceedings by at once announcing that they would consent to the Motion, and thus obtain an equality of representation.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONthought hon. Members had forgotten to look at the schedule in the Act of last year, which prescribed the powers of the Committees of Managers to deal with matters relating to the management, but subject to such conditions and restrictions as should be suggested by the local education authority. He hoped, having provided that those bodies should be brought into consultation with one another, that the consultations would bring about such an interchange of opinion as would enable the selection of the boroughs to command the confidence of the local education authority. He bore in mind what had been said as to the difficulty of getting managers, experienced by the School Board. Surely they might draw from that the lesson that they would lighten the heavy burden of the local education authority, and, to some extent, obviate the difficulty experienced by the School Board if they required the Borough Councils to find the larger proportion of the board of managers. He confessed that unless precautions were taken to ensure the presence of women on the board of managers, as well as the presence of former managers, he should hesitate to entrust the boroughs with this large proportion, but, as it was, he wanted to retain the best of the old, and, at the same time, strike a new vein by giving the boroughs the larger number. He quite agreed, however, with the hon. Member for the Strand Division that three-fourths was a large proportion, and, besides, it was somewhat inconvenient arithmetically. Bodies of six, nine, twelve, and fifteen were easier to be sub divided than were those of four, eight, twelve, and sixteen. Therefore, although he could not go to the length suggested by

  669
  the hon. Member for West Ham, and accept the proposal to give one-half, he should be quite prepared to accept the proportion of two-thirds nominated by the Borough Councils, and one-third by the County Council.
  MR. BRYCEcould not follow the arithmetical argument of the hon. Baronet that it was easier to divide by three than by two. He should have thought that if the Government was willing to depart from the three-fourths proportion they might have accepted one-half. Surely sufficient opinion had been expressed on the Government side to make it clear that the House would be content with one-half. They were willing to withdraw further objection to the scheme if the principle of equality were agreed to, and that proportion would be most in accord with the general feeling of the House, whilst no slur would be cast on either council.
  *MR. BONDcalled attention to what had taken place earlier in the Bill, when it was proposed to mak the London County Council the local education authority. As to the possibility of that Council undertaking, in addition to its other duties, the vast work of the School Board, and controlling the voluntary and elementary schools of London, the fears then expressed were mitigated by the suggestion that there must be a certain amount of delegation. It was said that the London School Board did not delegate sufficiently, and that the new authority ought to do more in that direction than the School Board had done in the past. How could it delegate powers if the Committee contained two-thirds whom it did not
  670
  appoint? Then it had been suggested that the powers of managers were but trifling in importance, but could it be contended that the appointment and control of the teachers was a trifling matter. He could not help thinking that unless there was a majority appointed by the local education authority, the work of the central education authority as regarded the management of elementary schools, instead of being made less would be greater, so much so, in fact, as to entail a risk of the machine breaking down under the pressure. Every consideration pointed in the direction of giving a considerable majority to the nominees of the local educasion authority upon the boards, but he thought it was quite possible that if a large majority of these managers were appointed by the Borough Councils, the borough councillors might be tempted to go upon these governing bodies—a step that would not conduce to the interests of education. The hon. Member for Camberwell had drawn attention to the Act of last year, and said if they followed that precedent they would have two-thirds appointed by the central authority and one-third by the local authority. In the small towns, dealt with by last year's Act, people knew each other, and those selected to act were recognised as the right people to undertake the business, but in large boroughs, like Camberwell or Paddington, where there were an enormous number of schools to be managed, it was not so likely that the really right people would be picked out. If it was desirable in the case of rural councils to give two-thirds to the central authority and only one-third to the local authority, then à fortiori it was much more right to give the larger nominations to the central authority in London. He hoped that the Amendment would

  671
  be accepted, and if they could not get that they must get something as near to it as possible.
  MR. BOUSFIELDventured to think that in making the concession the Government had gone as far as they ought in the direction desired by the hon. Member for Camberwell. The difference in the policies advocated was that they desired the Borough Councils to take as much interest as possible in education, and for that reason they thought it right that they should have some real power, without which they would take no real interest. They did not want to carry control into every detail of administration. So far as real control over policy was concerned, the County Council had absolute and ample control. They on that side of the House who had advocated the Borough Councils having some power, had desired that the County Councils should have the real controlling power as regarded the policy of Education in London, and they had got that. If the management did not carry out the policy of the County Council the latter had the power to alter it on vital matters of administration, but he submitted that the paramount consideration was not that the County Council should be able to carry its control into the very smallest details of administration, but that they should have a body of men engaged in the work of education that knew something about it and were devoted to it. From that point of view some increase of interest and power in the Borough Councils was absolutely necessary to create a race of men willing and capable to take upon themselves those administrative duties. What they wanted were men in every district interested in the education of their locality. The Government
  672
  had now suggested a modification of two-thirds nominated by the Borough Councils and one-third by the County Councils. That meant that as far as possible two-thirds would be inhabitants of the borough. It had been suggested that they would probably be borough councillors, but he did not think that was likely, because he knew how heavy the duties of those gentlemen were already, and he could not imagine that they would take upon themselves these additional duties. Under the proportions proposed, they would have two-thirds of the managers chosen by the locality, and one third from outside. He hoped the Government would adhere to the compromise that they had suggested.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he rose for the purpose of making a further appeal to the Government. It was quite clear from what had occurred that afternoon and evening, and especially with regard to that Amendment, that there was a very strong feeling, certainly among the majority of Members, that the County Council, as the local authority, ought to have supreme authority in this matter. No reason had been given why the Government should depart from their Bill of last year, which gave a substantial majority to the local authority. The proposal that in regard to the local authority the counties should be in a minority on the boards of managers was resisted by the Leader of the House last year, when he said that the County Council was to be the supreme authority in all matters of education, and, that being so, it was only reasonable to give them the majority on the boards of managers. It would be extremely foolish after deciding that the County Council was to be the supreme authority, to hand

  673
  the majority over to the local body. He (Mr. Buxton) could not see how the Government could resist a proposal they themselves adopted last year in regard to this matter. He hoped the hon Baronet, in order to meet the feeling which was not confined to any one quarter of the House, would carry this matter out on the lines of the Act of last year.
  MR. LOUGHsuggested that as the hon. Baronet had intimated his willingness to make a concession, the point should be settled at one-half.
  DR. MACNAMARAasked leave to withdraw his proposal in order that the substitution of "one-half" might be moved, the latter proportion appearing to carry more favour. ("No.") Then he would take the "one-third" to a division.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question put, "That the words 'one-third' be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 110; Noes, 172. (Division List No. 162.)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

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

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Purvis, Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Chapman, Edward

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Renwick, George

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

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Sackville Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton

  Kerr, John

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Keswick, William

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

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

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas-

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

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

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh W.)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

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

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Valentia, Viscount

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Milvain, Thomas

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Welby, Lt.-Col A. C. E. (Taunton

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

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

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

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

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Myers, William Henry

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Young, Samuel

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

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gretton, John

  Percy, Earl

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pilkington, Col. Richard

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONmoved the insertion of "two-thirds."
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 12, after the last Amendment, to insert the words 'two-thirds.'"—(Sir William Anson.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Brassey, Albert

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

  Bull, William James

  Arrol, Sir William

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Butcher, John George

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

  Aubrey Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Bill, Charles

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: — Ayes, 177; Noes, 105. (Division List No. 163.)

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

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Purvis, Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

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

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Chapman, Edward

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Renwick, George

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Kerr, John

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Keswick, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Doughty, George

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

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

  Stanley, Ed. Jas. (Somerset)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Tollemache, Henry James

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

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Valentia, Viscount

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Milvain, Thomas

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne

  Forster, Henry William

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Mount, William Arthur

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

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

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

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

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby (Salop

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Wylie, Alexander

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Myers, William Henry

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Young, Samuel

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

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cumbs.

  Percy, Earl

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Gretton, John

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Plummer, Walter R.

  NOES.

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

  Caldwell, James

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Asher, Alexander

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cawley, Frederick

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Crooks, William

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bond, Edward

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Brigg, John

  Elibank, Master of

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Fenwick, Charles

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Foster, Sir Michl, (Lond. Univ

  Jones, William (Canarvonshire

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Kitson, Sir James

  678

  679

  Langley, Batty

  Price, Robert John

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Priestley, Arthur

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rea, Russell

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

  Levy, Maurice

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Tomkinson, James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rigg, Richard

  Toulmin, (George

  Lloyd-George, David

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lough, Thomas

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Weir, James Galloway

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Runciman, Walter

  White, George (Norfolk)

  M'Crae, George

  Russell, T. W.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, John (Darham Mid.)

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice

  Perks, Robert William

  Tennant, Harold John

  and Mr. Henry Hobhouse.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen E.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan E.

  MR. MANSFIELDmoved to substitute the word "may" for the word "shall" in that part of the clause which provides that the Borough Councils shall appoint three-fourths of the school managers. At the present moment the number of those who had the appointment of those managers was very small indeed. The ratepayers had decided that the Borough Councils were not the proper authorities to elect the managers, and the ratepayers of London had declared that they did not wish the Borough Councils to have the appointment of managers. In some cases, the very Councils upon whom the Government wished to put the duty of electing the managers, had declined to have anything to do with the Act at all. How was the Secretary to the Board of Education going to deal with that difficulty? How he would deal with the Borough Councils who refused to elect managers he was at a loss to understand. They would, in all probability, have to call out the 5th and 6th Army Corps in order to adjust these matters in London. The Government were finding out in the country that there was such a thing as opposition to the Education Bill of last year, and what
  680
  they wanted to do now was to prevent the passive resistance movement spreading from the provinces to London. He was anxious to reduce that resistance to a mimimum, so that this Bill should have a chance of becoming popular and securing success. It was notorious that the Borough Councils were not looked upon as a good authority to elect those managers, and he desired to take out the word "shall" and insert the word "may," so that some degree of elasticity might be introduced. He proposed this Amendment in order that the County Council as the education authority might have supreme power.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 12, to leave out the word 'shall' and insert the word 'may.'"—(Mr. Mansfield.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Bill."
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he had some difficulty in understanding the object of the hon. Member's Amendment. He did not know whether he meant this power to be permissive or not. If he meant it to be permissive then he could not accept the Amendment in its

  681
  present form. If he meant that the Borough Councils might decline to appoint managers and a deadlock might arise he wished to point out that in the first schedule of the Act the Education Committee might appoint Sub-committees consisting partly of its own members and partly of other persons, and therefore the management might go on under Sub-committees. He could not consent to leave it to the option of the Education Authority as to whether the boroughs should appoint these managers or not.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought there was a good deal more in this Amendment than the hon. Baronet seemed to think. After all, in his opinion, it would facilitate arrangements being made between the two parties, and he hoped his hon. friend would press the matter to a division.
  DR. MACNAMARAthought this was a more practical proposal than the

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Arrol, Sir William

  Doughty, George

  Hoult, Joseph

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

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

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

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

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Kerr, John

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

  Keswick, William

  Bill, Charles

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Bond, Edward

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Brassey, Albert

  Fitzgerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Bull, William James

  Flower, Ernest

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Butcher, John George

  Forster, Henry William

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol S.

  Campbell, John (Armagh S.)

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

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

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby- (Salop

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Chapman, Edward

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ry S Edm'nds

  Milvain, Thomas

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Gretton, John

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Cranborne, Viscount

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent. Ashfd

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Myers, William Henry

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway N.

  Secretary to the Board of Education realised, because two-thirds in this case would mean eight persons. Suppose, as was quite conceivable, the Borough Councils could not appoint eight persons, in that case they at once created a deadlock. He could see no other way out of the difficulty at all except making this proposal more elastic. In regard to the practical working of this scheme by putting in the word "shall," they were asking them to do an impossibility in the East-end of London. They would send eight or twelve persons, who would not always be the most suitable for the office. Surely the Secretary to the Board of Education, with his zeal to make this thing workable, would be well advised to make it as elastic as possible.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 176; Noes 83. (Division List No. 164.)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Percy, Earl

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone W.)

  Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Purvis, Robert

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

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

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Renwick, George

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Asher, Alexander

  Hayter, Rt. Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Runciman, Walter

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Russell, T. W.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Langley, Batty

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Levy, Maurice

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Caldwell, James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tennant, Harold John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Crooks, William

  M'Crae, George

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

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

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tomkinson, James

  Elibank, Master of

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Toulmin, George

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Partington, Oswald

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Weir, James Galloway

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Price, Robert John

  Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Priestley, Arthur

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

  Rea, Russell

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Rigg, Richard

  Mr. Mansfield and Mr.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  George White.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 13, to leave out the words 'one-fourth' and insert the words 'one-third."—(Sir William Anson.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR, in moving the adjournment of the House, gave notice that, as a measure of precaution, he proposed to ask for the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule to-morrow night in order to finish the Education Bill.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he did not think there was any reason to give notice that the twelve o'clock rule should be suspended. Although there was a very strong feeling against the Bill there had not been any obstruction, and he did not think there was the slightest risk in regard to the passage of the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he believed that what had just fallen from the hon. Member was quite true, and the Motion he should make for the suspension of the rule was not intended in the least to be coercive.
  And, it being Midnight, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered this day.

  NAVAL WORKS (PORTSMOUTH BARRACKS SITE) BILL.
  Ordered, that the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Naval Works (Portsmouth Barracks Site) Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Mr. Pretyman.)
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Ulster and Connaught Light Railways Bill ought to be dispensed with, subject to Clause 14 being struck out of the Bill, unless the special resolution of the Clogher Valley Railway Company approving of the Bill be proved before the Examiners before the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Read, and agreed to.
  Hainault Forest Bill. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The order made on the 18th of June last discharged, and Bill committed.
  Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill. The King's consent signified; and, Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  East Ham Improvement Bill; Scottish Central Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Woolwich Borough Council Bill; Watford and Edgware Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
  Great Southern and Western Railway Bill. Reported, without Amendment.
  Strabane and Letterkenny Railway Bill; Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (Extension of Time) Bill; Sheffield Corporation Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 16th March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; Bills read 2a accordingly.
  Wood Green Urban District Council Bill; Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (Transfer) Bill, now Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill; Walker and Wallsend Union Gas Bill; Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill; Strabane and Letterkenny Railway Bill; Sheffield Corporation Bill. Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (Extension of Time) Bill. Committed.
  South Shields Corporation Bill. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 30th of June and Thursday last discharged; and Bill committed.
  Castleblaney, Keady, and Armagh Railway (Extension of Time) Bill; Croydon and District Electric Tramways Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill. [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  Frinton-on-Sea Sea Defences Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  Merthyr Tydfil Urban District Council Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order): An Amendment made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendment to be received on Thursday next.
  Glasgow Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Glasgow Corporation (Police) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Irvine and District Water Board Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Lanarkshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to Order),

  519
  and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been reported from the Committee: Bills to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill; Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Colchester be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Craven; read, and agreed to.
  Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill; Ebbw Vale Water and Improvement Bill; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Haddington, the Lord Kintore (E. Kintore), and the Lord Colchester be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl Waldegrave, the Earl of Powis, and the Lord Harris, and that the Lord Kintore (E. Kintore) be Chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INDIA (ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES 1903–1904.)
  Explanatory Memorandum by the Secretary of State for India. Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LICENSING ACT AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, in the few remarks which I shall make in commending this Bill to the attention of your Lordships it is not my intention to touch on the question of drink, in regard to which, I think, many foolish attempts have been made at legislation. It is rather to a question of justice that I shall venture to call your attention—justice to a body of traders who carry on a trade for the benefit of the public which produces enormous revenues to the country. I think altogether the liquor traffic, in one form or another, brings in £34,000,000 a year, and these traders who carry on this business are now subject to what I hold to be a very grave injustice, for they may at any moment lose their licences through no fault of their own, but through the fad or crank of some teetotal magistrates. The Bill which I now ask your Lordships to read a second time is not my Bill. When I presented it I stated that it was Lord Bramwell's Bill. What is the history of this Bill? I find in the last page of the "Memoirs of Lord Bramwell," by Mr. Charles Fairfield, these words—
  "Trial of the appeal case in the House of Lords of Sharpe v. Wakefield having brought to light some flagrant injustices possible under the Licensing Acts, Lord Bramwell drafted a short Bill to remedy those injustices."
  That is the Bill which I venture to present to your Lordships to-night. It was, I think, in the early part of 1894 that Lord Bramwell drafted and brought in this measure. At that time there were meetings of what is commonly called "the Trade" in all directions, and the Government and the Members of the Opposition were approached upon it. Lord Salisbury, who was then in Opposition, when asked to support the Bill, advised those who were promoting it not to press it at that time, but to wait patiently until after the General Election, when, he said, there might probably be a change of Government, and the Government who would then come in would look with favour on this kind of legislation. A dissolution took place in 1895, and a very large majority was given to Lord Salisbury's Government, but they did nothing to remove this great injustice except to appoint Lord

  521
  Peel's Commission. They shunted the question on to the shoulders of a Commission, which is not an unusal practice. But that Commission did not at all touch this question of licencees losing their licences in the way I have described. As a result of nothing having been done, cases are constantly occurring of magistrates, from no cause whatever, except their antipathy to drink, refusing to renew licences. This property, I would remind your Lordships, is one of the assets of the Government. Licences are assessed for the death duties like any other kind of property, but notwithstanding this we have these licences taken away without any justifiable cause. It was the case of Sharpe v. Wakefield which drew Lord Bramwell's attention particularly to this injustice. Since I presented this Bill there have been 187 petitions in favour of it. These petitions have not come from individual licence holders, but from the chief associations connected with the various branches of the liquor trade in all the big towns throughout the country—from Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds, Bristol, Bradford, etc. The petitioners, in their petition, submit—
  "That the trade or business of a licensed victualler or beer retailer has existed a great number of years and has been the subject of a great many Acts of Parliament having for their object the regulation of such trade; that the latter section of the trade—namely, beer retailers—has enjoyed the special protection of an Act passed by the Legislature in 1869, whereby magistrates have no power to refuse the renewal of a licence then in existence except on such grounds as are therein inserted to protect the good order and well-being of society without in any way limiting the natural operation of legitimate trade, and all licencees in Ireland enjoy a similar protection; that recently great uncertainty has been experienced by licenced victuallers or holders of full licences, inasmuch as by the law as it now stands, as laid down on appeal before your Lordships' House in the case of Sharpe v. Wakefield, a licencee has no legal security for the renewal of his licence, and is now subject to the arbitrary caprice of the licensing authority."
  In this petition reference is made to the state of the law in Ireland. We hear a great deal about justice to Ireland, but what I ask for in this case is justice to England and Scotland. Your Lordships' House is the highest Court of Appeal in all questions of justice, and I appeal to your Lordships to do justice in tins case. I have not the least idea what action His Majesty's Government
  522
  propose to take with regard to this Bill. I know it is impossible to carry a Bill in opposition to the Government. In another place Sir William Hart Dyke has brought in a Bill to suspend the power of licensing justices to take away licences, but I understand that the Government have given him no hope of support. I would remind the House that the Bill now before it is not of my drafting. It is the Bill of that great lawyer and wise man, Lord Bramwell, who thought it absolutely necessary in order to secure justice to licence holders. By his death we have lost one of the wisest men and a man who put common sense before sentiment in legislation, a thing very rare and much wanting in these days. The Bill, the Second Reading of which I now move, provides that—
  "Licencing justices shall not be at liberty in the case of premises licensed at the time of the passing of this Act to refuse the renewal or transfer of a licence for the sale of any intoxicating liquors in any such premises except upon one or more of the grounds specified in Section 8 of the Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869, but nothing herein contained shall limit or extend their discretion in the grant or refusal of applications for a new licence. When an application for a renewal or transfer of a licence is refused the justices shall specify in writing to the applicant the ground of their decision."
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I hope my noble friend will not put your Lordships to the necessity of dividing on this Bill. I can assure him that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill upon the subject as early as possible in the approaching session, and the only object of dividing your Lordships on the question to-day would be prematurely, I think, to ask your Lordships to commit yourselves to some sort of legislation on the subject which might be inconvenient afterwards. As I can assure my noble friend that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to deal with this subject at the earliest possible moment next session, I trust that he will not put your Lordships to the necessity of dividing.
  THE EARL OF WEYMSS: After what has fallen from the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack I will not put the House

  523
  to the trouble of dividing. It was with a view of ascertaining what the Government intended to do in the matter that I moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I thank the Lord Chancellor for his assurance that a Bill will be introduced by the Government at the earliest possible moment next session.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  MOTOR-CARS BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  *THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for again addressing you on this subject, but I confess that the text of the Bill does not present quite as favourable an appearance as the speech of the noble Lord in moving the First Reading would have led one to believe. There is no doubt that the Bill itself constitutes an admirable framework, but I think it requires in some places a considerable amount of stiffening and alteration. What are the considerations by which we should be guided in dealing with this measure? The pre-eminent consideration must be the safety and comfort of the public as users of the highways of this country; and secondly, we are equally bound to take into consideration the motor-car industry and the proper and legitimate convenience of those persons who may be fortunate enough to own and drive, or be driven by others in, motor-cars. It has been said by some persons, who, I think, are generally connected with the motor-car industry, that a certain amount of the objections which have been raised to those who we think very often drive most recklessly are vindictive, and simply intended to cripple the motor-car industry. I should think there is no human being who is in the slightest degree anxious to in any way interfere with the due expansion of any great industry in this country, and I am sure I am amongst those who wish to see this particular trade very largely
  524
  developed. But I cannot help thinking that those who are doing most to injure the industry are those persons who drive their motor-cars to the danger and injury of the public, and I am confident that the motor-car industry is far more likely to be injured by disregard of the public safety than by any legislation. It is rather by legislation on behalf of the public, and by seeing that they are legitimately and properly protected, that the industry itself will be very largely benefited.
  I do not believe, for one moment, that the industry will be benefited by the continuous building of very high-speed racing cars. On the contrary, where the benefit, in the long run, will come in will be in the adaptation of the motor principles to the great commercial vans, to agricultural implements, and, in fact, to all those slower moving vehicles on the road which will eventually become very common. The other night the noble Earl behind me, Lord Mayo, speaking on that point, said he hoped that every one would take a fair view of the question and not attempt to cripple this industry, and he referred to the great interest that had been taken in the motor-car race in Ireland. If I may branch off for one moment to a subject which is not absolutely in this Bill, I would venture to express the hope that we have seen the last of motor-car racing on the public roads in this country. I cannot see that it is right or fair that the roads should be taken up for these purposes, that great numbers of policemen and His Majesty's troops should be employed to look after the safety of the public and those racing in the cars, and that public money should be spent on such an object.
  Turning to the provisions of the Bill itself, many of the clauses appear to me to have, at any rate, the foundation and the making of a most excellent measure, and no doubt many of your Lordships are thinking of putting down, for the next stage, such Amendments as will strengthen and improve the Bill. The first matter upon which I should like to ask for a little information, and to offer some suggestions, is the clause which deals with the licensing of drivers. On

  525
  that point I trust sincerely that the Government will see their way to either inserting, or accepting, an Amendment which will render it necessary for every person, male or female, paid or unpaid, who may drive a motor-car to hold a licence to do so. I can see no reason for making any exemption, and I feel sure your Lordships hold a similar opinion. As a matter of fact, as your Lordships are well aware, no one can navigate even his own yacht unless he first obtains a Board of Trade certificate of his competency as a master, and I can see no reason why anyone should drive one of the most dangerous engines that has ever been placed on the public roads in this country without being compelled to have a licence.
  When we come to the question of speed I think the Bill appears to need some alteration. It does appear to me that the proposal to place the control of speed in the hands of the County Councils through an order of the Local Government Board is a somewhat cumbrous procedure. I hardly know what to suggest as an alternative if the County Council is to remain the main factor as regards the regulation of speed in the country, but surely it might be an extremely lengthy process to get an order confirmed by the Local Government Board saying that a mile or two miles of any particular county, or even less, is a dangerous area. You would then have to have some very large sign stating the speed at which motor cars are allowed to go while passing through that area. If those boards are put up all over England you will be taking away largely from the beauty of many of our high roads, and you will be putting up structures in the nature of those extremely offensive advertisement hoardings which we see all over the country. I think that particular method of regulating speed is rather a doubtful one. However, I believe there are other noble Lords who have suggestions to make on that point, and I shall not press it. There is one other point to which I would draw your Lordships' attention, and which, I think, is worthy of some consideration. Nothing is said in the Bill as to whether a person, who has been summarily convicted and sentenced to imprisonment
  526
  and has given notice of appeal, will be allowed to continue driving during the interval before the hearing of his appeal. Personally I think the licence should be suspended during the interval.
  However much this Bill may be amended, and if it has the good fortune to receive the Royal Assent this session, I am sure that unless the owners and drivers of motor-cars show more consideration for others on the high roads it will be necessary in another two or three years to introduce an amending Bill of a much more drastic character. Therefore, I am extremely anxious that this Bill should be brought into operation as soon as possible, and that it may not be necessary within a very short time to have to suggest some other measure which would only rake up the very unpleasant feeling which now exists between a preponderating section of the public and the users of motor-cars. While I shall certainly vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, I feel that it is capable of, and in fact will require, a considerable amount of Amendment in the next stage.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I venture to think your Lordships will view with general approval the introduction of this Bill by the Government. This subject of motor-cars is urgent, and during the last few weeks and days it has been becoming more urgent. Your Lordships will now see every morning in the columns of the more prominent of the daily newspapers a column which is generally headed "Speed of Motor cars," and if your Lordships should have time to cast your eyes over that column you will generally discover things which are very terrible and disagreeable, but a certain amount also that is decidedly amusing. The first point in this matter is the rapidly increasing number of these cars. I was struck very much some time ago by a statement made by Mr. Hawkshaw, the President of the Institute of Civil Engineers. I do not know whether he is a motorist or not, but at all events he may be taken as an impartial authority on the subject. He was addressing a speech to the civil engineers, and he said that he stood on Whit Monday, at Horsham, on the Brighton road, and that in eleven minutes there passed him 209 motor-cars, motor-bicycles, and bicycles. Well, now,

  527
  if your Lordships will multiply that by six, it comes to something like 1,200 vehicles of this sort going by per hour; therefore in one hour, apparently, the happy residents at Horsham were passed on that day by considerably more motor vehicles than trains pass through Clapham Junction during the twenty-four hours.
  This subject has been forcing itself more and more upon the notice of the public. I have not the slightest ill-will towards motorists, but it seems to me we may reasonably expect them to regard, to some extent at all events, the convenience of the public. We all have our own experience. We have our experience as magistrates and in other capacities, and we know what we ourselves see in the streets of London. I daresay many of your Lordships have had narrow shaves before now. Only a fortnight ago a motor-car nearly demolished the humble Member of your Lordships' House who is now addressing you. I do not suppose that anything less than the immolation of an Archbishop of Canterbury—for I do not think an ordinary Bishop would be at all sufficient—will induce drivers of motor-cars to show any respectful consideration for the welfare of the general public. I am afraid one must say that although there are no doubt a great many persons who drive with great care, still there are a considerable number—and I am afraid their number is increasing—who commit serious offences of several sorts. The first is that they drive recklessly. I appeal to your Lordships on that point. You know what goes on every day in London. In Hyde Park and elsewhere people who might easily be content to drive round the park at a moderate speed drive—well, your Lordships know at what rates they go.
  With regard to the number of accidents and the state of things which is generally prevalent, I will quote from an article headed "Speed of Motor-cars," in the Standard newspaper of this morning. It states—and this is merely a record of what happened yesterday at three or four suburban Benches—that at the Epsom Bench yesterday a number of motor drivers were summoned for exceeding the twelve miles speed limit. In the case of one defendant—Frederick
  528
  Bolton, of Wimbledon—the police evidence was to the effect that he was driving through East Street, Epsom, at the rate of eighteen miles an hour. It was stated that the defendant had been fined the previous week at Reigate, and the Bench now imposed a fine of £5. In the case of another defendant named Frederick Sharpe, the police stated that on Sunday morning, 28th June, he was driving through the Sutton High Street at the rate of twenty miles an hour. Another gentleman, a Mr. Arthur Chase, of Anerley, was summoned for a similar offence. He asked the constable if he could identify him as the driver of the car, and the officer said he could not because the driver he stopped was wearing goggles. The defendant said it was very fortunate the constable did not, because he had only just returned from Ireland. He had never been in Sutton or Epsom previously to that day. He proved conclusively that he was not there on the day in question, and one of the magistrates very properly said that it was abominable that the offender should have given an innocent gentleman's name. It only showed, he added, to what length some motorists would go.
  Another case was that of Mr. Lewis Waller, of the Comedy Theatre, who has delighted so many of us. He was, at the Shoreham Petty Sessions yesterday, fined £5 and costs for driving a motor-car at excessive speed between Brighton and Shoreham. When told by the constable that he had been travelling at the rate of twenty-four miles an hour, Mr. Waller expressed his pleasure at knowing he had such a good car. At the Richmond Police Court yesterday a gentleman residing in Piccadilly was summoned for furiously driving a motor-car at Petersham on 27th June. Evidence was given that defendant descended the steep declivity by the Dyart Arms at thirty miles an hour, narrowly avoiding several schoolchildren who were in the road, and knocking down two cyclists, whose machines were severely damaged. That is one day's record in two or three Police Courts, and shows what we are coming to. I will instance a case which happened to come within my own observation. I was at the petty sessions where I live in Worcestershire

  529
  on Saturday, and it was stated that about a fortnight before two foreign gentlemen passed at a great speed on a Mercedes car on their way to Holyhead, en route for Dublin. When taken to the police station they asked how far it was to Birmingham, and on being told that the distance was about thirty miles one of them said to the other, "then we shall just do it in about half-an-hour." There is another little town close by, and about thirty-three miles from Birmingham, a gentleman went to the telegraph office there about ten days ago at a quarter to eight, and telephoned to his wife in Birmingham to put off dinner till nine o'clock. I don't know whether he arrived punctually to dinner, but that is the sort of thing which goes on quite constantly in that part of the country. The Birmingham high road runs through it, and you see quantities of these motor-cars racing down, the drivers perfectly disguised, and there is no means of stopping them.
  Motorists after they have caused or taken part in an accident very often do not wait, but rush on and escape. I think that is a cowardly and a very serious offence. Here is an instance of what took place yesterday, which I also quote from the Standard. A young lady living at Woodstock, Sutton, was found lying at Malden Road, Cheam, by some haymakers, with her face terribly grazed, her breast badly cut, and her right arm fractured. She stated that she was out riding when her horse was frightened by a motor-car and bolted, throwing her and dragging her some distance. The driver of the car did not stop to assist her, but drove off. She was removed in an unconscious condition to the hospital at Sutton, where she now lies in a very precarious condition. I cannot believe that there are many drivers who would do such a thing as that, but still it is by no means an uncommon thing for drivers when concerned in an accident to drive off and thereby escape all responsibility. I can give your Lordships another illustration—a Scottish one. Farmers, when their sheep or cattle are being driven across the road from one field to another, frequently incur accidents in this way. There is a very distinguished agriculturist
  530
  in Perthshire who had some cattle being driven across the road, when up came a motor-car and knocked one of them over and nearly killed it. The car went on and disappeared. The owner of the animal finished the killing and then sent the meat into the local market, but, having done that, he was fined £13 for sending diseased meat to market. This particular gentleman never was very friendly towards motor-cars, but he is rather less so now probably than he was a month or two ago.
  Again, drivers of motor-cars habitually refuse their names, and what are you to do? They are not persons living in the neighbourhood; you do not know where they have come from or where they are going to. The police are perfectly powerless. Two cases have come under my own personal knowledge lately. One was of a man who came into Stratford on-Avon. He had been driving too fast, and the policeman got into his car to identify him, upon which the driver started the car and never stopped again until he got a distance of seventeen miles, when he put down the policeman. These things are very amusing in themselves. The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack will tell us the law no doubt, but I can hardly conceive the law in this country to be in such a state that an abducted policeman has no right whatever to make any charge against the individual who has carried him off. But however that may be, I can assure you that on this occasion, and on another occasion at a place close by, a policeman was carried off in this way. These cases escape unpunished.
  In view of what takes place, is it surprising that reprisals are beginning to be advocated? If your Lordships look at the papers, you will see many amusing letters and different modes of reprisals suggested. First there has been the very simple one of broken glass bottles. A well known sporting Baronet has suggested that there is only one means of identifying the drivers of motor-cars, and that is by swan shot. A most extraordinary case occurred quite recently. A gentleman was cycling near Ealing, and he heard one of these motor-cars making a noise behind him. He thought there was room for the motor to get by, but then he saw another cyclist in front

  531
  of him coming the other way, so he decided that there was no room and very wisely got down. He got into the hedge and the motor passed him, he says, at twenty to twenty-five miles an hour. When it reached the other cyclist, who had brought up at a fence which he grasped, that cyclist whipped out a revolver from his hip pocket and fired two shots in rapid succession at the car. When the motor-car had disappeared, cyclist No. 1 went up to cyclist No. 2 and pointed out to him that carrying revolvers was not permitted in this country, and that free firing was certainly not allowed, and he replied—
  "What can I do? I have hit one of his back wheels, I am quite certain, and I think I have got them both."
  Cyclist No. 1 then proceeded on his way to the next village, where he found the motor just as the cyclist had described. He had disabled one of the wheels, and the car was ruined, and he afterwards saw it dragged away by a mule towards its home, but the driver of the car was absolutely ignorant as to what had occurred. He was making so much noise and creating so much dust that he did not see cyclist No. 2, and he did not hear him discharge his revolver. Naturally, he could not conceive what had happened. All this is very amusing, but at the same time it is becoming serious.
  I hope this Bill will pass in some form or another, because if we are to have another twelve months of administration of the present law, there will be traps set in every lane for motors, and magistrates will have to fine more than half the motor drivers in the country. The real question is, Are the roads in this country suited for this sort of thing? Motorists have a perfect right to demand to use the roads and to use them in any manner which is at all akin or analogous to the manner in which they are used by other people; but I think we must all be agreed, in the first place, that the roads were never made for express trains—very often these motor-cars are nothing less—and, in the second place, that it is utterly unreasonable for motorists to claim to be allowed to run along roads as they like, and without any respect for other descriptions of traffic. Then there is the further objection—the dust
  532
  nuisance. Fortunately, I do not live near any road where motor-cars pass, but people who do are rendered absolutely miserable. One gentleman, writing to the Standard, says—
  "May I be allowed to put in a word for the merciful consideration of motorists and Sunday bicyclists on behalf of the remnant—a very little one now—of that old-fashioned and prejudiced class who still cherish the seventh day of the week as one of rest and quiet, and not a field day of noise and pleasure? Though a young man, and a Londoner, I am unhappily afflicted with such simple notions, and in consequence moved some twenty miles into the country, off the main road, in order to enjoy that repose which was denied me in town. I am also a lover of dogs, and had some idea of exercising them peacefully on Sunday afternoons. Such was my humble ideal. The reality is that from six o'clock on Sunday morning till one o'clock on Monday morning the diabolical tooting of motor horns is incessant; my garden is covered with the dust which they leave behind, and the summer air redolent of oil. To exercise my dogs with any degree of pleasure is, of course, out of the question, so I pay a boy to do it on week day, when motors are recovering from last Sunday's work, and their owners earning the where withal for next Sunday's amusements."
  The dust nuisance is really dangerous to the motorists themselves. I understand that a very serious accident which took place on Saturday last was caused in this way: two motors were following one another, but owing to the dust it was impossible for the drivers to see anything, with the result that one of them, a little bit wide of the other on the road, did not see a motor coming in the opposite direction, and the consequence was a telescope. That gives you some idea of what the thickness of the dust must be. I had a letter only a day or two ago from a gentleman at Richmond, who said his house was full of dust each week-end and almost uninhabitable. The dust is caused to a large extent by the excessive speed at which these cars will insist upon going. Surely twenty miles an hour is as fast as any reasonable person ought to want to go on the roads. Of course, if any of us attempted to go at anything like that speed in our carriages or on horseback, we should be had up for furious driving or riding, and punished.
  Clause 1 of the Bill omits a speed limit altogether, and the only reference that is made to restricting speed is in Clause 5, where it is provided that the Local Government Board may empower County Councils or Borough Councils to enact a lower rate of

  533
  speed in certain specified parts. I shall venture to submit to your Lordships, and I hope your Lordships will accept it, an Amendment imposing a speed limit of twenty miles. I am well aware of the objections that there are to an Amendment of that sort. It has been said that if you impose such a speed limit the result will be that the motorist will consider that he has a right to go at twenty miles an hour. Of course, if a motorist chooses to misread the Act entirely, that nobody can help. But his ideas on that point would undergo a change if he found himself in the Police Court on a charge of reckless and dangerous driving. Another point is that nothing is said about the owner. The driver is the person to be punished. Of course, in many cases the driver is to blame, but there are other cases in which the owner is to blame, and it has even been suggested by some persons that you should include the hirer. I cannot myself go as far as that; but, with regard to the owner, I think that in a Bill which is to be at all effectual, the owner ought to be included and made punishable when he is really to blame.
  The next point I wish to call attention to is Sub-section 2 of Clause 1, which says that—
  "Any police constable may apprehend, without warrant, the driver of any car who commits an offence under this section within his view."
  A more futile provision cannot be imagined. How can police constables be expected to see everything that is going on? I would suggest that a police constable should be empowered to apprehend the driver of any car who commits an offence under this section if he does not know him, or if he refuses to give his name and address. I think then that the sub-section would be a good and effectual one. But, further than that, I think power ought to be given to other people, when an accident occurs, if they do not know the driver, to apprehend and detain him until, at all events, such time as he can be charged. As your Lordships know, what happens now is this, that the driver, if he can, scuttles off as fast as possible, and nothing more is heard of him. Suppose he has knocked me in a ditch and I manage to get hold of him, and
  534
  find that he is wearing goggles and there is no means of identifying him, why may I not be allowed to apprehend him? It is said that the number will be sufficient. Of course if the driver is obliged to carry a number, and if he is carrying a number, I quite admit that that is a very good mode of identification and quite satisfactory; but if he has no number is there any reason why he should not be apprehended by the unfortunate person whom he has injured?
  When we come to the question of licensing, I quite agree with what my noble friend, Lord Granby, said just now, that there appears to be no good reason for obliging the professional driver alone to take out a licence. I cannot see any difference between amateurs and professionals, except, perhaps, that of the two amateurs are the most dangerous. The Bill as it now stands does not contain any clause requiring the licence to be produced. Surely it is most desirable that if a police constable asks for the production of this licence the holder should be obliged to produce it. I think an Amendment of that sort would do good to the clause. I will not trouble your Lordships with any more remarks at this stage of the Bill, except to ask the noble Lord in charge of the measure whether it would not be possible to draft a clause to exempt broughams and private carriages, which can only go at low speeds, from carrying numbers. It seems to me that if a private carriage can and does only go at an ordinary rate of speed it will be unnecessary to put marks upon it which must be of a rather disfiguring charactering.
  Another point which I hope the noble Lord will consider is that of interfering with the police in the execution of their duty. As I stated just now, cases have occurred in which the police have even been abducted while endeavouring to do their duty, and apparently there is no remedy. I hope words will be put in to deal with that case. I should like to ask the noble Lord also whether it would be possible to extend this Bill so as to include the cases of motor bicycles, which are very nearly as bad as motorcars. They go at a very great pace and make most disagreeable and disturbing noises, and I believe they have been the

  535
  cause of a great many accidents. They certainly stand on an altogether different footing from other bicycles. I believe they can go nearly as quick as motor cars, and very often do, and I think if it were possible to include them in this Bill it would be an advantage. I will not trespass further upon the time of the House to-day, as we shall have to discuss these questions at considerable length when we go into Committee.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYN: My Lords, we have already heard two speeches containing very divergent opinions, which only prove to us how difficult the solution of this problem must be. Whilst I earnestly congratulate His Majesty's Government on their apparent desire to amend for the general good the Locomotives on Highways Act of 1896, I cannot but feel that this new Motor-Car Bill will not fulfil the hopes they anticipate, and will fail to remove the friction which at present exists between the motor-car drivers and the local authorities. Not only that, but it will create further difficulties for the Local Government Board, for apparently under Sub-section 1 of Clause 5, the local authorities are to be appointed referees in any question as to defining dangerous localities. I use the word "referees" because, as I understand the section, the council of any county or borough are given permission to frame regulations for speed, but must submit them for confirmation to the Local Government Board. In these circumstances it will be interesting to know whether it is intended that the councils of counties or boroughs are to send these clauses to the Local Government Board and the Local Government Board are to refer them back again for further consideration—in other words, to know which is to be paramount, the Local Government Board or the councils of counties or boroughs.
  In view of what has already been said by the noble Marquis beside me, I make this very humble suggestion, that in this no-limit-of-speed clause should be inserted a proviso that in passing any group of houses, or through any narrow lane, the limit of speed should be reduced to eight miles an hour, and that distinct warning should be given by the blowing of a
  536
  horn on approaching the houses or passing through the lane. I have used the words "group of houses" because I do not wish to distinguish between half a dozen houses and a regular village. It is not so much collision with other vehicles that has to be guarded against, but accidents to pedestrians, who constitute the largest majority. We have also to consider the convenience of householders on the road, who suffer the indignity and the annoyance of having their houses filled with dust by cars travelling at an enormous speed. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh was understood by me to say that the onus of identification would rest with the driver of the car—in other words, that he must identity himself. That is only natural so long as he carries the registration mark which is to be selected; but I should like to know whether the noble Lord or His Majesty's Government considers that the present labels and signs which are on foreign cars are adequate for a driver who is travelling recklessly and enveloped, as he always is, in a cloud of dust?
  The object of this Bill is undoubtedly to promote and protect a young and rising industry, but also to prevent injury to life and limb by the reckless employment of the output of this industry. As the Bill stands, I cannot see that this object will be attained. I consider that the friction at present existing between motor-car drivers and the police—due very often to the exaggerated sense of duty of the police—will not be removed if we are to have one speed for one county, and another for another, and I earnestly ask your Lordships to consider my suggestion when the proper time comes, to add a proviso to the no-limit-of-speed clause that no motor-car driver should be allowed to exceed a speed of eight miles an hour when passing any group of houses or through a narrow lane. I turn to the section which deals with licensing. I cannot understand the reasons which the noble Lord gave on the First Reading for licensing professional drivers and exempting amateur drivers and the owners of the cars. If I remember rightly, he said that the Government exempted them because they believed that those who knew most about

  537
  the cars, namely, the professional chauffeurs, were inclined to take greater risks than the ordinary amateur. But I think it can be proved with the greatest ease that the greater number of accidents have been caused by amateurs, and that a very large proportion of the summonses that have been issued have been served on the owners of cars.
  It ought not to be permissible, in a great democratic country like this, that there should be one law for the rich and another for the poor, that there should be one law for the proprietor and another for his servant. I trust that His Majesty's Government will not only see their way to make the licensing universal, but will go further and say that before a certificate is issued to a driver there shall be a qualifying trial of skill in driving, and a test of knowledge of the component parts of the motor-car. In touching for one moment on Clause 6, which deals with the penalties, I would express the hope that imprisonment will be left out as regards the first penalty and a severer fine imposed instead. Again, I would suggest that on a second or subsequent conviction, the withholding of the licence, added to a fine, should be peremptory for a certain period. The Bill must be framed in such a way as to make it acceptable to everyone, and I hope that consideration will be given to the points to which I have called attention.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I am not a motorist myself, but I have been asked by the Automobile Club, and those very much interested, to say a few words with regard to this Bill. I join with the noble Marquess who spoke first in his contention that the safety of the public comes first. The principle of the Bill, that upon the driver should fall the responsibility of using his motor car wisely, is a sound one, and if he does not do so he should be severely fined. The Marquess of Granby touched upon the commercial aspect of this matter, and I ventured the other day to address a few words to your Lordships from this point of view. There is no doubt that if you put a severe restriction upon motorists and those who build motor-cars in this country, you will hamper that industry, which is now being "cut" and encroached
  538
  upon by foreign manufacturers, The noble Marquess expressed the hope, in referring to the motor race in Ireland, that that would be the last race that would be held on the roads of the United Kingdom. That was my own opinion before the race took place, and that was the very reason why I went over to see it. I am not now alluding to the day of the race but to the traffic on the several previous days. I live on the road which these motor-cars traversed, and I own two villages on that road, and I can testify to the fact that no one was hurt. The noble Earl mentioned the question of dust. The dust did not seem to hurt the people in Ireland. They rather welcomed the hurry, bustle, and confusion in that quiet part of the country; and there was a good deal of money left behind, which is, of course, the material consideration.
  I quite agree that all who drive motor-cars should be licensed, females as well as males. I should like to say a word with regard to the large number of motor-cars, motor bicycles, and bicycles on the Brighton road upon a certain day, which were referred to by the Earl of Camperdown. I do not know whether the noble Earl differentiated between motor-cars, motor bicycles, and bicycles, but certainly bicycles are for the convenience of the public, and I should think there were more of these than of motor-cars amongst them. Another point which the noble Earl dealt with was that of reckless driving. I was glad to see that he did not damn the Bill altogether. I am glad the Bill has been brought in, and I hope it will stop reckless driving. There is a provision in the Bill that every car is to be numbered, and that, I think, will put an end largely to reckless driving The noble Earl opposite told some interesting stories about the proceedings at the Epsom Police Court yesterday. With regard to the story he mentioned of the cyclist and the revolver, I would observe that if the cyclist had hit the motorist and killed him he would have been hanged.
  THR EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: That question was put to him, and he said he was not the least likely to hit the man unless he shot at him. He said

  539
  that if the motorist was in the country where he came from he would have had a bullet in his head.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: The question of the speed limit is the crux of the whole matter. Is it not better for the local authorities to decide in what parts of their counties certain speeds are to be allowed, and that the Local Government Board should then, under their rules, deal with those recommendations, rather than that a speed should be fixed in the Bill? The noble Earl opposite suggested a speed limit of twenty miles. This suggested limit of twenty miles emanates from a meeting held in Committee Room No. 13 on 9th July.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No, it does not.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: I have a report of the proceedings in my hand. At that meeting there was only one gentleman who owned a motor-car, and I suppose those present wished to have this limit inserted, not from any feeling against the Bill, but from a feeling against motorists. I now come to the Bill itself, and I may say that there are a great many things that those interested in motor-cars wish to see altered. In Clause 1, for instance, the word "reasonably" might very well come before the words "be expected"—that is, with reference to the traffic which might reasonably be expected to be on the highway. With regard to the power given to the police to apprehend offenders without a warrant, I wish to know what is to become in such cases, of the car. Even where there is a second individual in the car it may happen that he is unable to drive it. I think the clause which deals with the numbering of the cars is a most useful one. There is another question I should like to ask—What will be the result of enabling the Court to take licences away? A doctor who uses a motor-car for professional purposes may, I suppose, find himself deprived of the vehicle in which he goes about to his patients. With regard to speed, I am of opinion that there is no such thing as a safe speed limit. Twenty miles is suggested as a limit. But how can a car go down a
  540
  hill with a steep gradient without exceeding that limit? A speed limit would make it almost impossible for people to drive motor-cars at all. With regard to the provision enabling the councils of county and county boroughs to make special regulations as to speed at certain dangerous places, I hope all these circumstances will be investigated by the Local Government Board before the regulations are sanctioned. The clause relating to the weight of cars does not, I am instructed, meet the wants of commercial people who build heavy motors; they would prefer to see a higher maximum of weight than the Bill proposes, say a maximum of seven tons or more. Clause 8 provides that motor-car drivers are to be male servants for the purposes of inland revenue, and I wish to ask if the owner of a motor-car will have to pay a duty on the male servants as well as paying for a licence. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading, and that in Committee the various points to which I have directed attention will be fully considered.
  LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I associate myself generally with the remarks and criticisms of previous speakers, but I desire to say one or two words with reference to the licensing of drivers of motor-cars. It is the feeling of the public that some steps should be taken to insure that the drivers of motor-cars shall be persons competent to deal with these complicated machines. It is done in France, and therefore I imagine that the difficulties with regard to the conducting of examinations can be overcome. It has been represented to me that people cannot become efficient motorists unless they practice on the public roads. I was talking to an expert to-day on that subject, and he informed me that at nearly all the large motor establishments they have places where people can be taught to drive motor-cars, so that that is a difficulty that can also be overcome. Unless a test is imposed we shall see motor-cars driven about by boys of ten or twelve years of age as soon as cheap second-hand machines become obtainable. In regard to the suggestion that a speed limit should be

  541
  insisted upon when motor-cars pass through certain populous places, I ask how notices are to be made visible at these places at night. Signal lamps, of course, would be very expensive. I think it will be necessary to deal with this question by means of some general law establishing a speed limit in populous places. I have a letter in my hand from a Scottish minister telling me that in all cases where there has been anything like a motor-car accident in his village the drivers have tried to escape. I would ask whether it would not be possible to stop them by sending on a telegraphic message, and to adopt some summary procedure for the recovery of damages. I understand that the poultry of this country is being quite decimated, and I think it is a very serious matter for poor cottagers that they should have their poultry destroyed. In a case where the owner is in the car, I think he should be held responsible for any contravention of the law, and not the driver, who is his servant.
  LORD KELVIN: My Lords, it seems to me that there are two points with reference to which the safety of the public is not sufficiently provided for in this Bill. One is the registration of cars. It seems to me absolutely necessary that no car should be registered for running on any of the public roads, or licensed or permitted to run on any public road which is dangerous essentially from its own construction. We have heard from the noble earl, Lord Mayo, that it is impossible to go at less than twenty miles an hour downhill—on some particular motor-cars, I presume the noble Earl meant. I think it is absolutely necessary for the public safety that no car should be licensed to go on any set of roads unless it can be shown that it is perfectly under control on the roads in that part of the country. Another point in which the public safety seems to me insufficiently provided for is the interregnum in respect of speed. The present law as to speed is abolished by Clause 5, except in cases in which the local authority continues it, but the clause does not provide that the local authority must consider it. It is only permissive, and years might pass during which the local authority had done nothing, and the public is absolutely
  542
  deprived of all the safety that a speed limit implies. When I read the explanation given by Lord Balfour in introducing the Bill, it seemed to me that this clause must be an exceedingly good one, and very well devised for the safety of the public. But then I understood it to be that the existing speed limit remained in force, unless abolished by the local authority, over all the roads, or over some of the roads, or some parts of some of the roads under their control. In other words, it seems to me that the abolition of a speed limit automatically by the Bill is a danger to the public, and if I do not ask the House to divide on the Second Reading it will be on the understanding that the existing law of speed shall not be automatically abolished but shall only be abolished when its abolition or modification is asked for by the local authority, and is arranged for between the local authority and the Local Government Board.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I have listened with great attention to the interesting debate we have had to-night on this subject, and your Lordships will perhaps think it desirable that some Member of the bench on which I sit should express an opinion on this subject. I am distinctly in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill. I cannot agree with a noble Lord who said that this is simply a measure to protect a growing industry. The Bill is one to make our highways safe for the public who have a right to be upon them; and while ensuring this safety it is not designed to do an injustice to an industry which we all want to see prosperous and successful. A few years ago we used to hear of and meet a great many persons who wanted to put down the motor-car system of travel, and I have seen notices of Resolutions before County Councils, moved by important county magnates, with the object of putting such restrictions on motor-cars as would prevent them almost altogether from running. We have left that stage now. I am glad that that stage has been passed through. Motor-cars are with us and will remain with us, and it is acknowledged that they fulfil most useful functions and facilitate travel in a valuable way. But while that is so, we all feel the absolute necessity at the present moment of putting some check on reckless driving. The noble Lord

  543
  who spoke from the Cross Benches (Lord Kelvin) alluded to a remark made by my noble friend Lord Mayo with regard to the impossibility of stopping the speed of motor-cars going down hill. My noble friend spoke on behalf of the Automobile Club, but I am afraid the argument he used was a most dangerous one from the point of view of that club, and if he had not, at the beginning of his speech, explained that he was not a motorist, a great point might be made against him on account of that observation.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: I am told by a member of the Automobile Club that I was quite wrong.
  EARL SPENCER: I am glad to have that admission from the noble Earl. I think one of the things motor-ears are remarkable for is the extraordinary rapidity with which they can be stopped when running at a high speed. It is difficult, in a debate of this kind, which is of rather a technical character, not to go into details which more properly belong to the Committee stage, and I feel compelled to make a few general remarks which must, to some extent, touch on detail. One point to which I attach considerable weight is that not only professional drivers of motor-cars, but also the owners, should be compelled to have a licence. I quite agree that the most dangerous kind of driver is the amateur. The Bill provides that any driver, by payment of a shilling, can obtain a licence. No condition whatever is imposed in the Bill on the grant of a licence. I think that is a great mistake, and I should certainly say that every driver, amateur or professional, male or female, ought to be made to prove the possession of some qualifications before obtaining a licence. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill said that such a regulation would be an interference with the liberty of the subject, and that as we do not deal in that way with drivers of horsed vehicles there is no reason for doing so in the case of motor-cars. But everybody who is fond of horses will admit that though occasionally you have to deal with a runaway and a horse which is difficult to drive, yet, on the whole, horses are a great assistance to the driver and are not so dangerous as motor-cars, which have no sense or intelligence. I think
  544
  it is not impossible to deal with this matter in the Bill, for I can quote the practice in regard to the licensing of bicycles in Germany and of motor-cars in France in support of my contention. It seems to me only legitimate to impose some sort of qualification on those who receive licences.
  I am not one of those who think we can exclude motor-cars from the roads. Some people argue that there should be special roads for motor-cars, but I cannot give any support to that view. We had a wealth of illustration from my noble friend Lord Camperdown with regard to the terrible inconvenience that arises from the dust created by motor-cars going at a high rate of speed. There are other inconveniences connected with motor-cars on highways. But with regard to the question of dust, a friend of mine was telling me the other day that in one part of the country the owners along a particular road had been obliged to go to the expense of having regular water carts in order to avoid the great nuisance which the rush of motor-cars had caused. I rather regret some of our modern legislation. No doubt in some ways the abolition of turnpikes has been a great convenience; but at times I think that the system was not at all an unfair one of raising money for the upkeep of the roads, and I almost wish that turnpikes still existed as far as motor-cars are concerned. They might possibly run through a turnpike now and then, but certainly the system would afford greater facilities than obtain now for dealing with cases of improper speed. One thing in the Bill which I find exceedingly unsatisfactory is the want of uniformity of regulations in different parts of the country, which will prevail if it passes in its present form. Motor cars, as we are all perfectly well aware, are driven enormous distances in the course of a few hours, several counties, perhaps, being traversed during one drive, and if those counties all have different regulations as to speed in different places it seems to me that a great difficulty will be put in the way of motor-cars, and the safety of the public will be endangered. I think, therefore, that some general regulations ought to be made, applicable to the country as a whole. On the other hand, I admit that it is exceedingly

  545
  dangerous to have any regulations which cannot in practice be applied, and that is the condition of affairs at the present time. I hope the Bill will pass the Second Reading, and that it may be strengthened and made more workable by Amendment in Committee.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I certainly have no reason to complain of the tone of the discussion which has taken place at this stage of the Bill, and I think I may say that there is almost universal agreement on the part of every speaker that there is a case for legislation somewhat upon the lines of the present Bill, though there are differences of opinion in regard to details. There is no doubt whatever in the mind of any noble Lord who has spoken that the time has come when a very earnest effort should be made to pass a Bill dealing with this matter, and I do not apprehend, especially after the observations of the noble Earl who has just sat down, that there will be any desire to divide against the Second Reading. Therefore I shall not go at all into the general arguments which have justified His Majesty's Government in attempting to deal with this intricate, and, I am I bound to say, difficult subject. I regretted to hear the noble Marquess who spoke first say that he was not so satisfied with the Bill as he had been with my explanation of it. I certainly hope that I did not mislead him; if I did I can only assure him I did not intentionally do so, and he cannot have been long in a state of uncertainty, because the Bill was circulated with a celerity which is unusual in your Lordships' House. The speech of the noble Earl who spoke next seemed rather an argument in favour of dealing with the subject generally upon the lines adopted in this Bill, for nearly everyone of the lamentable instances which he quoted would have been much more easy to deal with if the measure had been in operation, and if there had been some convenient means of identifying the persons who broke the law or committed the offences against good taste complained of.
  I think I may say that all the points which have been raised in this debate are points which are more appropriate to the Committee stage. On the other hand, I am bound to say that I agree
  546
  with the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition that it is a matter of great convenience that those of us who are responsible for the Bill should know, at any rate generally, the sort of points which are likely to be raised at the subsequent stage. I shall not trespass at great length on the time of the House, but will indicate generally the opinions which His Majesty's Government hold in regard, at any rate, to the most important points which have been touched upon by the noble Lords who have spoken. It has been urged that there is no reason to distinguish in the matter of licensing between the man who drives a car for amusement, and the man who drives for fee or reward. I clear that out of the way at once by saying that His Majesty's Government are willing to accept that suggestion and to alter the Bill in conformity with the suggestion which has been made from so many different quarters, and at the Committee stage I will undertake to put an Amendment on the Paper on behalf of the Government to deal with that point.
  Closely allied to the question of licensing is the question of granting certificates of efficiency. I ventured to say the other day that we did not intend the licence to imply a certificate of efficiency. If it were possible by any system of examination that the certificate would be a real guarantee of efficiency there would be much to be said for the proposal; but there are very grave practical objections in the way, which have influenced His Majesty's Government I am sanguine enough to hope that they may influence the minds of noble Lords who seem at first sight to be attracted by the idea, and I will endeavour to put them before the House in order that they may be deliberately considered before we come to the next stage. This is not a thing which in our present position could be effectually done by the central authority. I venture to think that it would not be possible to ask every owner of a motor-car to come to London with his machine, or even to a number of centres, to be examined and passed. I do not think that that will be seriously contested. I am quite aware that that is the system, generally speaking, in France. It is done, I know,

  547
  under a public authority—under the Minister of Works—but we in this country are not accustomed to be governed quite in the same way as the French people, and the Local Government Board has not agents—and no other Government Department has agents—spread all over the country who can take a paternal interest in the affairs of those who wish to become motor-car drivers.
  I am bound to say that I was much struck, as I am sure all of your Lordships were struck, by one suggestion made by Lord Kelvin—whose high authority in these matters entitles him to express an opinion which would have great weight with your Lordships—that no car should be allowed on the highway which was not of a safe and proper type. It is not a suggestion which has been made before, and I am bound to say that I think there would be great difficulty in carrying it out It is a very different proposal from that of a certificate of efficiency. I have been told by those who have obtained certificates in France that the examination is not a very practical test or well carried out. The process, as it was described to me, is this. The Prefect or Sub-Prefect mounts the car and tells the candidate to go forward, to stop, to go backward and to stop, and then to illustrate what he knows of the machinery. A couple of unmounted photographs are then produced, and one pasted on the certificate of the driver and the other kept in the Sub-Prefect's office. I can hardly think that noble Lords who are chairmen of County Councils can be expected to go through this performance with every car in their district which has to be licensed. At the present time the County Councils have not officers who can undertake this work, and if each Council is to have an examination of its own, uniformity of test will be lacking and the incompetent candidates will go to the districts where the examination is least severe. It will be impossible to exercise any check upon the quality of the certificates. Then, again, there are various kinds of cars and a man may be competent to drive one type of car and incompetent to drive another. Is the certificate to be limited to the car on which he shows his powers?
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYN: Personally I think the certificate should undoubtedly be limited to the car which the holder has shown himself capable of driving.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: If the noble Earl is really bitten with the practicability of the idea, I venture to suggest that the best course for him to take will be, after considering the suggested difficulties I am putting forward, and after taking such advice as is open to him, to let me see a clause drafted by him for carrying out his suggestion. That will be the time for considering whether a practical, business-like assembly like your Lordships' House will go into a venture of that kind. The Local Government Board have kept a record of many of the accidents that have occurred, and there is no sort of suggestion that the cause of the accidents has been the incompetence of the drivers. Accidents arise much more from recklessness and from taking risks which the drivers ought not to take than from want of skill; and even the most competent man may sometimes lose his nerve. For these reasons I believe that a certificate of competency would be a very difficult thing to provide for in practice, and that it would be a delusion and a snare rather than a protection to the public. As to the responsibility of owners, upon which point some stress was laid by the noble Earl opposite (Lord Camperdown), I am quite sure that no one will suggest that the owner should be held responsible for a driver unless he is with him, or unless he has aided and abetted the driver's offence. I would ask noble Lords who think that the present Bill is not strong enough in respect of the liability of the owner to look at Section 5 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1848, under which I am informed responsibility is distinctly laid upon the principal if he aids and abets his agent in the commission of an offence, and therefore under that Act the punishment would be the same for the owner as for the driver. I will verify that before the Committee stage. The information was given to me earlier in the day, and I have not myself had time to verify it, but it came from the Local Government Board, and I believe it is accurate. The licensing of all drivers will, I hope, prove a really important check, because it will enable the owner or

  549
  amateur driver of a car to be punished in a very practical way without being actually sent to prison, because if his licence is endorsed or forfeited he will be prevented from driving the car which he has purchased, probably at a large cost. I understood the noble Earl who spoke from the Cross Benches to suggest that the method of dealing with the rate of speed in Clause 5 was not a very good one. I understood him to wish that more power should be given to local authorities, independent of the Local Government Board.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYN: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I had no intention of conveying any such impression. I wished to know which would be the supreme authority, and I expressed the hope that the Local Government Board would make one hard and fast rule as to speed in passing groups of houses and through narrow lanes.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Under the Bill the speed limit is to be abolished except for those districts in which the local authority desire it to be maintained, and there it can be fixed at fourteen miles an hour or less. The actual supremacy in the matter will remain with the Local Government Board, and the initiative with the local authority. I think that is the proper division of duties, because there is great force in the contention that you ought not to have ever varying rules of speed in a drive, say, of twenty-five miles. The simpler you can make the law the more likely it is to be observed. The idea of the Bill is to throw the onus of reckless driving on the driver of the car, and to have a much narrower limit of speed in places where there is a real justification for it. Lord Rosslyn suggested a limit of eight miles an hour. My experience of making by-laws, both for motor-cars and bicycles, would lead me to say that in very many cases that is too narrow a limit. Even in crowded districts I think a motor-car can safely be allowed to go as fast as a horse drawn vehicle; and of the two the motor-car is probably infinitely more under control, and I think that on the whole the provision in the Bill as it stands is better than any of the suggestions which have been made in regard
  550
  to that particular point. A suggestion was made by my noble friend Lord Camperdown which I understood to be in the introduction of a new clause for the purpose of allowing cars which can travel only at a limited speed to be exempted from the regulations for numbering and lettering. The class of car to which the noble Earl no doubt alluded is that known as the electric brougham, of which one sees so many about the streets. I am bound to say that such a provision was, indeed, inserted by the Government in one of the drafts of the Bill, but a very grave practical objection was at once pointed out by the police authorities and others who have the experience of regulating the traffic in the streets. In the absence of any mark of identification, how can you say whether an unmarked vehicle is legally unmarked or not? The police would have in many instances to interfere with every car which was unmarked in order to find out whether it was legally entitled to the exemption. What the Government think is the better way, and what they desire to do, is to register every vehicle, but by regulations to modify the form of mark which may be necessary on this class of vehicle. I am willing at the same time, on behalf of the Local Government Board, to give a pledge that if the subject is left in their power the most serious consideration will be given to the proposal which has been submitted. If a vehicle is registered and marked so as to be identifiable I am advised that the Department believe they may be able to allow in the case of low speed vehicles a mark of a much less conspicuous nature than those marks attached to the high speed class.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Can it be done under the Bill as it now stands?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am informed that it can be done. That, at any rate, is the intention, but if there is any doubt on the point I will accept an Amendment to make it perfectly clear. But I take it that those who are interested in this particular class of vehicle will remember that if a vehicle is built to run at twelve miles an hour on a level road, it must have a reserve power of

  551
  speed to go up a hill, and care must be taken that this reserve power shall not be used to drive the car at a greater speed on a level road. I only mention this to show how desirable it is to leave a small point of that kind to be dealt with under a flexible and elastic system by means of regulation by the Local Government Board, rather than by a stereotyped and hard and fast rule in a section of the Bill. A good deal has been said about the speed limit. My noble friend Lord Camperdown suggested, as I understood him, a limit of twenty miles an hour. The noble Marquess who spoke first to night was unable to suggest any alternative to that in the Bill. If it had not been for the remarks which were made by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition upon the statement of Lord Mayo, I should have ventured to point out the very matter to which he took exception, and to show how the argument that a machine going twenty miles an hour along a level road must go faster down hill gave away the whole case for allowing that class of machine to go unrestricted on our roads But, of course, we know quite well that however fast a machine can go it can be effectively controlled by the man who is driving it.
  Nearly all the difficulties in connection with this subject centre round the question of the speed limit. Some people say there must be a limit. The subject was carefully considered at various stages during the preparation of the Bill, and ultimately we decided the question in the negative, and we decided it upon this ground, that whatever limit is chosen must in some circumstances be excessive, and must in others be unduly restrictive. I believe it passes the wit of man to fix any limit which shall not be excessive under some circumstances and unduly restrictive in others. I believe that much of the difficulty which now exists is because there is a cast-iron limit which is too low for present purposes, and which no one respects. I venture to think that it will be a very serious departure from the principles on which the Bill is framed if either this House or the other House of Parliament imposes a speed limit in the Bill. I do not say that it
  552
  will be destructive of the measure, but, as at present advised, I do say that it will require very much stronger reasons than have yet been advanced to induce the Government to depart from the position they have taken up. The noble Earl himself indicated one of the reasons. He said that a maximum speed would be considered a kind of charter within which drivers would be entitled to regulate their speed. But the Government did not wish to give any charter of that kind. We want to make it abundantly clear that the responsibility for the speed, whatever it may be, rests upon the man who drives the car. I believe that to be not only the simplest and the easiest to enforce, but the most satisfactory and most flexible condition to impose.
  What is excessive speed must, it seems to me, be decided by circumstances. Obviously what is excessive speed at one time of the day in any of the thoroughfares might not be excessive at another time; and I hope that before Parliament makes up its mind to alter the Bill in that respect the gravest and the most careful consideration will be given to the subject. Some of those who are enemies of this form of traffic may like it; some police authorities may even like it as affording them an easy way of, so to speak, enforcing the law and catching evil doers. They may measure a piece of road and time a car from one end to the other, but what good do they do by that? Perhaps it is a perfectly straight road where the driver can see hundreds of yards ahead; perhaps it may be the very safest part of the road over which the car may travel, and yet all the energies of the police and the local authorities are concentrated on these easy level portions, while observation at the cross-roads and the populous places is neglected because they know they are less likely to catch an offender at these places than on the portions of the road along which it is perfectly safe to travel. I am bound to say that a great deal of the present difficulty—and it has been frankly recognised from all quarters of the House to-night—has arisen because of the want of consideration for others shown by a certain number of those who use the cars. If only we could impress upon those drivers that it is not enough in these matters to

  553
  obey the letter of the law, but that there is a courteous rule of the road and a consideration for others which it is absolutely necessary to observe, I believe that a great deal of the difficulty would disappear. It is because I know that there is a certain class who will not give effect to these considerations unless they think they are likely to be found out, that I attach importance to an easy means of identification. It is to that kind of consideration that I pin my faith for making the Bill work well.
  I agree in thinking that a large portion of the roads in this country are not constructed so as to be suitable for these exhibitions of very high speed. Many motor-cars go faster than many express trains, certainly faster than many trains in the south of London, and this on roads where there are many turns and crossroads, no safeguards, and no signals or appliances such as tend to make railway travelling so safe. How are we to reconcile what is reasonable freedom with the punishment of those who drive at an excessive speed and ought to be punished? I believe that this end can only be attained, with fairness to all interests, by some such proposals as are contained in this Bill. I hope that these considerations will weigh with the House and induce your Lordships to pass the clauses of the Bill relating to rate of speed on the same lines, at any rate, as those on which they are framed. I pledge myself and those who are interested in this Bill to give the most reasonable, most fair, the most candid consideration to any proposals, from whichever quarter they may come, for improving this measure on the main lines on which it is drafted. Exception has been taken during the course of this debate to the limit of weight proposed in the Bill. I believe the noble Earl behind me was correct in saying that in some of our large towns—in Liverpool, for instance—a great desire has been expressed for a slight increase of the limit as to the weight of these light locomotives. Your Lordships may disabuse your minds of this, that it is the racing fraternity who want an increase in the weight. Those who are hampered by the present limitation of weight are those who are using these machines for industrial purposes.
  With regard to the question raised by the noble Marquess who spoke first,
  554
  whether the licence will be suspended pending an appeal, all I can say at present is that the suggestion is well worthy of consideration, if there is reasonable limit of time for the trial of the appeal. My noble friend Lord Camperdown inquired whether motor bicycles were included in this Bill. Most certainly they are included under the first section of the principal Act of 1896, and in any case the point will be made clear before the Bill becomes law. The part of the Bill which deals with apprehension at sight will require very careful consideration; but I cannot hold out the hope that an aggrieved person shall be entitled to apprehend at sight the person who he thinks has aggrieved him. Free fights and police Court cases would be far more numerous if such a provision were sanctioned, and the Epsom Police Court would be an even more lively place on a Monday morning than it is at the present moment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The power exists under the Highways Act.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I will look into that point, but I think the proper person to apprehend anyone is the person set apart for that purpose.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: If he is there.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I sympathise with those who suffer from the excess of dust caused by the too rapid transit of motor-cars; but there must always be inconveniences as well as conveniences from living near great lines of traffic. I have endeavoured to take a real interest in this matter, which I believe to be of the greatest possible importance, and I assure the House that I shall do my best to make the Bill as acceptable as possible under the difficult circumstances
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I wish to take exception to a single point in the speech of my noble friend who has charge of this Bill—namely, with regard to the non possumus attitude he took up upon the question of requiring some proficiency on the part of the driver before he is granted a certificate. Even the

  555
  arguments that were used by the noble Lord did not seem to be very convincing. They were founded, not on the undesirability of such a condition being required from a driver, but rather on the difficulty of enforcing it. The noble Lord asked who was to examine, and whether we expected chairmen of County Councils to go out in the motor-cars with the applicants for licences; and he suggested that it was not conceivable that owners and drivers of motor-cars were to come up to London in order to be examined. After all, these difficulties are difficulties which have to be got over. This is a new system of locomotion. The whole of the conditions with regard to it are new, and if it is necessary for local authorities to increase their staff and to adopt new methods of administration for the purposes of the new locomotion, then the local authorities must do so. The noble Lord was a little wrong in his description of how this is managed in France. It is not the case that drivers of automobiles are brought up to Paris to be examined. The examination takes place in all the great cities of France, and it is carried on there, as I think it might very well be carried on here, by the police. On the certificate is stated the class of car on which the examination took place, and, in addition, as the noble Lord said, in the corner of the certificate is placed the photograph of the driver. I do insist that it would be much more satisfactory to the country at large if some certificate of efficiency were given. It might not be a perfect one, but one that was not perfect would be better than none at all. After all, as much, if not more, knowledge is required to drive a motor-car than to drive an engine along rails. There is one other point with regard to the question of the speed limit upon which I should like to ask the noble Lord a question. I am with him that the enforcement of a speed limit is not desirable, but I want to know the exact position of County Councils in this matter. Will it be possible for a County Council to insist on a speed limit, say, of twelve miles, over its whole area, or will it be confined to urban districts? I do not think that point comes out clearly either in the Bill or from the speech of the noble
  556
  Lord. I understood the noble Lord to say that the County Council or the local authority could name a speed limit within its area, and, provided that that speed limit was sanctioned by the Local Government Board, it would come into force.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The speed limit as it now exists is wholly abolished, except in populous or special places in the country, where, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, the present speed limit of fourteen miles or less is maintained. In other words, the onus of asking for the continuance of the existing system will rest, in the first instance, with the local authority, who will move the County Councils, who will move the Local Government Board to sanction that particular speed in a particular place.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: What I wish to know is, would it be possible for a particular County Council which had a special hostility to automobiles to apply to have that speed over its whole area?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It would be possible to apply for it, but I cannot conceive the Local Government Board granting the application.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Do I understand that it would be possible to have over the whole country a patchwork of different speeds according to the desires of the different local authorities?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I agree with the noble Lord that the fewer variations of speed the better. I think that there should not be, except in very exceptional circumstances, a very low limit of speed prescribed. I hope it will be found possible to have only one limit of speed in the great majority of places, not exceeding eight or twelve miles—a speed at which a motor-car, properly constructed, will be at least as safe as any horse-drawn carriage in the same area.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: That is exactly my suggestion. I think it would be far preferable to name in the Bill a particular speed for the places indicated.

  557
  That, it seems to me, would be a very great improvement in the Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord, when we get into Committee, will consider an Amendment leading to that result.
  LORD HENEAGE: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether, in the case of rural counties where a policeman is not very often to be found, and where motor-cars can go perfectly safely on long stretches of road, there should not be some general rule made by the Local Government Board that on approaching turns in the road, corners, or cross-roads, or inhabited districts, motor-cars should not travel beyond a certain speed. Motor-cars are becoming an absolute nuisance to the rural population in the country, and at the present moment it is almost impossible for farmers' wives or daughters to drive their husbands or fathers to the station, or go to fetch them, owing to the advent of the motor-car terror. I shall venture to move an Amendment dealing with this point when the Bill is in Committee.
  On question, Bill read 2a.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have had a consultation with noble Lords opposite as to the date when the Committee stage of this Bill shall be taken. It will be inconvenient for the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees to be in the House on Monday, and therefore, subject to the general convenience of your Lordships, I will place the Committee stage down for Friday next.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

  MARINE STORE DEALERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, this is a Bill which has passed the other House with the general assent of all parties, and is for the purpose of remedying a defect in the law of Ireland and making it equal in this respect to the law of England and Scotland. The Bill, however, is framed more upon the lines
  558
  of the Act which is in operation in Scotland. Its object is to compel marine store dealers and dealers in second-hand goods in Ireland to take out licences and to keep books and records to be open to the inspection of the police if necessary. It has been found that in Scotland this provision has had a good effect in preventing a certain class of theft—notably the theft of articles which are largely dealt in by marine store and general dealers. Of course, people who commit thefts of these articles can be prosecuted under the ordinary law, but the great difficulty is to trace the articles, and it has been found that there does exist in Ireland a need for a Bill of this description. The Act has worked well in Scotland. It has checked this kind of theft by placing considerable difficulties in the way of the disposal of the proceeds of these robberies, and has not interfered at all with honest persons in the transaction of their business.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

  LUNACY ACTS (AMENDMENT) LONDON BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  PISTOLS BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 164.)

  THE FISCAL INQUIRY.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I rise to ask my noble friend the President of the Council the Question of which I have given notice, namely:—"Whether the Board of Trade have had occasion to consider to what extent the excess of the country's imports over its exports is accounted for by the amount earned by British shipping, insurance, agency commissions, and profits, not included in the valuation of our exports, and by the interest on foreign investments owned in

  559
  the United Kingdom, and whether, if the Board of Trade have made any such estimate, he will state the figures to the House." My noble friend promised to give me an answer to a Question I asked him the other day with reference to the time the information collected by the Government about fiscal matters would be placed before us.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): It is the fact that recently, and also I believe upon former occasions, the Board of Trade have had occasion to consider how the payments are made which balance the excess of our imports over our exports; and all the elements which are enumerated in my noble friend's Question no doubt account for that excess. My noble friend has accurately stated the items in respect of which payment is received which make up the difference between the value of the imports and the value of the exports. It is, however, extremely difficult to state what are the actual amounts that are received in respect of each of those payments. What those amounts are must be a matter rather of speculation, which cannot be verified altogether by any statistics which exist. The Board of Trade have, in fact, no greatly superior means of arriving at positive conclusions on this subject than are in the possession of any skilled economist or statistician. My noble friend asks me to state what are the figures which have been arrived at by the Board of Trade; but I think it would be undesirable that I should attempt to do so without at the same time putting the House in possession of data upon which those conclusions have been arrived at and those figures have been estimated. It is doubtful whether any statement of such a nature resting on speculative rather than on positive data ought to be presented to Parliament on the authority of a Department of the Government But I am in communication with the Board of Trade with the view of considering whether the information which my noble friend has asked for can be given in such a form as to prevent any misconception as to its authority, and the responsibility of the Board in regard to it. My noble friend asked me the other day the probable
  560
  date when the information the Government is collecting will be in the hands of Members, and I think he specially asked whether it would be available before the month of October, when it has been promised, or rather threatened, that the discussion of this question is to commence. A large amount of information has already been collected, but much of it requires some revision and co-ordination. I am able, however, to inform my noble friend that a considerable part of it will certainly be laid on the Table of this House before the end of the session, and much of it, I hope, at a still earlier date.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: May I make one suggestion to my noble friend? It is whether, while he refers to the Board of Trade the question as to shipping and agency commissions, he should not consult the Treasury and the Inland Revenue with reference to the interest on foreign investments, which seems to me to fall more within their scope than the scope of the Board of Trade; or perhaps both Departments might consult together. I know, from my own connection with the Exchequer, that such investigations are occasionally made at the Treasury. I think I gathered from the noble Duke that, while he is not able to day to give figures which account for the excess of our imports over our exports, he accepted the general position that the items which are enumerated in my Question do account together for that excess.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think there is no doubt in the opinion of the authorities of the Board of Trade, who have examined the question, that the excess is accounted for by the payments which are enumerated in my noble friend's Question. I am under the impression that the Treasury have already been consulted in preparing this information; but, of course, before any Papers are laid on the Table of the House, both Departments will be consulted as to the information which they are able to give.
  The subject then dropped.

  THE LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
  EARL SPENCER: I rise to ask the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council whether he can, as promised last night, make a statement as to the course of public business, particularly with regard to the London Education Bill.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It is impossible to speak with certainty of the London Education Bill, but it is hoped that it will be read the third time in the other House on Friday, 24th July. In that event the Second Reading will be taken in your Lordships' House on Tuesday, 28th July, and I suggest that the Committee Stage should be taken on the following Thursday. I understand that the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition considers that the interval of two days between the Second Reading and the Committee too short, but what I had in view was to give the Thursday and the Friday to the Committee stage—finishing it on the Friday—in order to be able to take the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill on the following Monday.
  EARL SPENCER: I certainly thought the interval of two days between the Second Reading and the Committee Stage too short for the purpose of putting down Amendments. At the same time I do not wish to put the House in any difficulty. If it could be arranged that the Bill as it leaves the other House shall be at once circulated before it is read a first time in this House, I do not think there will be any objection to taking the Committee Stage on the Thursday, so that in the event of its lasting more than one night it could be concluded on the Friday.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.