COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE. (Hansard, 12 August 1876)

§ MR. BARING (for Lord FRANCIS HERVEY)
moved, "That this House will, upon this day two months, resolve itself into the said Committee." The hon. Member complained that practically the House was placed in the position of being asked at the fag-end of a Saturday afternoon, and on the very last working day of the Session, to pass a Bill about which they had not heard a word of explanation. The measure was a very short one, no doubt, but it meant a good deal in its very few lines. It was a Bill to give the present School Board for London, whose term of office and official life would terminate in November next, compulsory powers to purchase 56 pieces of land, containing altogether] 762,000 square feet, or 17£ acres, all in London. In November there would come into office a new School Board, to whom one would think that such a duty as that which would be entailed by the Bill would be much more naturally left He had several personal friends on the Board, and he thought, when the House was able to take a reasonable view o: the work the London School Board had done, and when they considered their difficult circumstances, they would admit that this first School Board had done difficult work and done it well. Then was one fault he had to find with them, however, and that was that they had been a little extravagant. But it was not until we had built our firs house that we learnt how to build economically. It might fairly be expected from another School Board that the; would avoid all the extravagances— al the well-meaning extravagances —the present Board had been led into. It might be that the new School Board 1186 would seek for similar powers to those now asked for, and if they did he did not think that Parliament could offer much objection. He objected to the measure because it tied the hands of the new School Board absolutely, and would oblige them to carry out operations of a very large and expensive character. That was neither fair to the Board nor to the ratepayers of London. Most of the sites in question were removed from the centre of London, although they were in the metropolitan district. But there were many scattered through St. Pancras, Marylebone, Holborn, Finsbury, and other parts, and the expense of acquiring them would be very great indeed. He objected to the passing of a measure of this kind, when the House was reduced to its present state of empty benches, by the numerical strength of the official supporters of the Government. He should have been willing to make some compromise on the subject, but he understood there could be no compromise. He should be quite willing to consent to the present School Board going on with the sites which they had acquired, and which were not entirely new; and if the Bill went into Committee he should move that a course of that kind be adopted. But he felt as sured that the Bill could pass as well next Session as now. What would be said by the supporters of the Bill he did not know; but he supposed it would be said that the measure must be allowed to pass because some Government officials had agreed to it. Well, he had perfect confidence in the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council; but he could not place implicit confidence in all the officials of a Government Department, and he thought they had a right to ask the Government not to press such a Bill as this in a House which had neither the time, the knowledge, nor the inclination to debate it at the length it deserved.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he was in favour of the measure, and be lieved it would be carried by a majority 1187 of the House. The hon. Member had said that there had been no time to scrutinize the Bill, but he would remind him that it had been scrutinized by the elected representatives of the ratepayers of London, and the Vice President of the Council's connection with it was purely an official one. When the hon. Member argued that the Bill should not be carried because there would be a new School Board next November, he should recollect that one School Board carried on the work of its predecessors. Would the hon. Gentleman contend that the House ought never to pass a Bill relating to a borough because a new Town Council would be elected in November next. It would be a very grievous mistake if the Bill were not allowed to pass. True, the London School Board had been a little extravagant; but that fact should not be allowed to interfere with the purchase of sites of this kind. A great hardship would be done to the Metropolis if this measure were not allowed to pass.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
pointed out that the second reading had been carried without a discussion, but that was an accident, which had been explained, and was one which the Government had very much regretted. The Government had been anxious to push the matter on further; but the hon. Member's Amendment had kept watch over the Bill, and at late hours when it had come on the Government had been unable, in consequence, to make progress with it. Again, the lamentable illness of the noble Lord (Lord Francis Hervey) had made them anxious not to press the Bill on one or two occasions when it might have been discussed and passed. It might be well to mention what had taken place in the Education Department respecting the sites scheduled in this Bill. The London School Board sent the usual Notice to the Education Department that they proposed to take certain sites for schools, for which they required compulsory powers. The Education Department thereupon sent an Inspector, who went over the ground and reported to the Lord President and Vice President of the Council the results of his survey. Meanwhile notice was given in the locality, that any objections could be made to the Education Department. Ultimately, the Lord President went into the cases of every one of the sites 1188 proposed, and the good ones were accepted and the bad ones rejected. As a matter of fact, he believed he might say, that all the cases to which local objections were made to the Department, were in this instance, rejected. The eligiblity of these sites had, therefore, been well sifted by the representatives of the ratepayers and by Her Majesty's Government, As to the numbers of these sites, the fact was that the London School Board were not providing accommodation for nearly the number of children for whom they ought to build, so that if the House re fused to pass the Bill the Education Department would be placed in a very perplexing position as regarded the School Board. If the Board, through the rejection of this measure, failed to provide for the proper number of children, it would be the duty of the Department to send them a requisition calling upon them to build for possibly two or three times the number of schools contained in this Schedule. Neither the London School Board nor the voluntary schools had hitherto met the deficiency of school accommodation, so that next year, unless the present measure passed, the Department would have to tell the London School Board, "You must build more schools," and their answer would then be that Parliament had refused to sanction their sites; and yet the Department would be bound, under the Act, to order them to build for all the children needing school accommodation, under pain of being declared in default. He entreated the hon. Member for South Essex to remember this, and also to consider that the passing of his Amendment would amount to a vote of censure upon the London School Board. He, for one, should be exceedingly reluctant to see any action of this nature taken by the House just before the School Board elections were coming on. In the interest, therefore, of the children of London, the Education Department, and the School Board of London, he trusted that, after this explanation, which was most naturally desired by his hon. Friends, the Bill which had received the full and deliberate sanction of the Government would now be allowed to pass through Committee.

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT
said, he had in tended to move an Amendment which, amongst other things, asked for information. A great part of the information 1189 he sought had been given. His contention had been that the new Board, which was to be elected in November, ought not to be fettered by the action of the expiring Board. He thought there might with advantage be omitted from the Bill the names of the five schools which would cost £20,000 each, and he suggested that cheaper sites should be purchased for the future. But after the explanations which had been given he would not put the House to the trouble of a Division.

§ MR. CHARLEY
condemned the Bill as being entirely at variance with the principles which Conservative Members supported, and moved the Adjournment of the Debate on the ground that the measure had slipped through the second reading by accident.