§ MR. ALFRED E. HUTTON (York, W. R., Morley)I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education what are the precedents for the action of the Department in refusing to accept the decision of the first meeting of the ratepayers of Burley-in-Wharfe-dale and in ordering a second meeting; whether such refusal is in accordance with the provisions of The Education Act, 1870; and whether, since the school to be closed is admittedly unsectarian, he will consider his decision to refuse the establishment of a Board School?
§ THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST,) CambridgeDuring the short time given for search, the following precedents have been found, viz., Warborough, in Oxfordshire, and Houghton Conquest, in Bedfordshire. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. No application for a Board School has been made, and, therefore, none refused.
§ MR. HUTTONDid the Education Department refuse to sanction a School Board unless they agreed not to erect a Board School.
§ SIR JOHN GORSTThe Question on the Paper is not as to the School Board. There is reason to believe that the ratepayers at the first meeting were under a misapprehension.
§ MR. JOHN E. ELLIS (Notts, Rushcliffe)In what respect was the summoning of the first meeting irregular?
§ SIR JOHN GORSTI never said there was any irregularity. I said that the ratepayers attending the meeting were acting under a mistake.
§ MR. JOHN E. ELLISWhat mistake?
§ SIR JOHN GORSTThey supposed that if they voted for a School Board they would secure the establishment of a Board School, whereas there is sufficient accommodation in the school without further schools.
§ MR. JOHN E. ELLISHow do the Department know that—from newspaper reports? How did they satisfy themselves?
§ SIR JOHN GORSTI am undergoing a sort of cross-examination, Mr. Speaker. We got the information officially. We never do rely on newspaper reports.