HC Deb 06 August 1902 vol 112 cc873-98

Considered in Committee—

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

Clause 7:—

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 39, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words, 'shall, where the local education authority are the council of a county, have a body of managers consisting of a number of managers not exceeding four appointed by that council, together with a number not exceeding two appointed by the minor local authority. Where the local education authority are the council of a borough or urban district, they may, if they think fit, appoint for any school provided by them such number of managers as they may determine. '(2.) All public elementary schools not provided by the local education authority shall, in place of the existing managers, have a body of managers consisting of a number of foundation managers not exceeding four appointed as provided by this Act, together with a number of managers not exceeding two appointed (a) where the local education authority are the council of a county, one by that council and one by the minor local authority; and (b) where the local education authority are the council of a borough or urban district, both by that authority. (3.) One of the managers appointed by the minor local authority, or the manager so appointed, as the case may be, shall be the parent of a child who is or has been during the last twelve months a scholar in the school. (4.) The "minor local authority" means the council of any borough or urban district, or the parish council or (where there is no parish council) the parish meeting of any parish, which appears to the County Council to be served by the school. Where the school appears to the County Council to serve the area of move than one minor local authority the County Council shall make such provision as they think proper for joint appointment by the authorities concerned.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Question again proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."

*THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment standing in the name of the Member for East Northamptonshire has already been disposed of.

(10.25.) MR. CORRIEGRANT (Warwickshire, Rugby)

said the Amendment he had to propose provided that the foundation managers should be selected by the local education authority from amongst the managers appointed by the trust deed of the school. One might assume that in most cases those managers would be members of the Church of England, but this Amendment would give some opportunity to the local education authority of securing on the working body of managers men who had some sympathy with education as well as a desire to secure denominational teaching.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, as amended— In lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'appointed as provided by this Act,' and insert the words 'selected by the local education authority from amongst the managers appointed by the trust deed of the school.' "—(Mr. Corrie Grant.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'appointed' stand part of the proposed Amendment, as amended. "

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the Amendment of the hon. Member raised the question whether they should or should not provide machinery by which four denominational managers were to be selected. The hon. Member thought that this was a proper time to deal with it, and that it was consistent with the general scheme of the Clause as they were providing the machinery by which the two elected managers were to be placed upon the board of management, so they ought in this Clause to provide machinery by which the denominational managers were to be provided. This was an Amendment convenient in neither form nor substance at that stage. There were many voluntary schools in which there were no trust deeds. In the case of these schools the proposal would be inapplicable and irrelevant, and some other provision would be required for the cases where there were no. trust deeds. By the hon. Member's suggestion four persons were to be selected by the local education authority from amongst the managers appointed by the trust deed; but not only might there be no persons appointed by the trust deed, but where there were persons so appointed they might be fewer than four, so that in neither eventuality would the scheme furnish a way out of the difficulty. It seemed clear that the proper course to adopt was that which the Government recommended, which was to lay down clearly in this Clause that there should be four foundation managers, and to leave the machinery of their election or selection to a separate Clause. He was convinced that if they attempted to deal in one Clause with a question which, though simple in principle, was largely complicated by the great variety of the trust deeds where they existed, and by their absence in many cases where they ought to exist, but did not, they would only load themselves with hopeless controversies and lose sight of the fundamental, essential, and central principle of the Clause. This was simply to lay down that out of those six managers, increased as they might be by subsequent Amendment on the part of the Government, which they were prepared to accept, there should be a proportion of four foundation managers representing the denomination to which the school belonged to two selected by a popular vote. That was the essential principle of the Clause, and that was what they were driving at, and he was sure that they would only complicate the discussion by introducing an elaborate arrangement such as that which had been suggested. This question was too complicated to be dealt with in this Clause, and he hoped the Committee would agree to defer this question to a later stage of the Bill.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

said that the right hon. Gentleman could not avail himself now of the argument that his fundamental principle was to respect the trust deed. The Committee had hitherto been told that to depart from the trust would be an act of spoliation, but what did they find in the last Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had put down? That the trusts were nothing at all. They were to be set aside if they did not happen to suit the framework of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman's new Amendment began by saying that the trust managers of the school shall be managers appointed under the provisions of the trust deed of the school. That did seem to respect the trust. But supposing the trust contemplated only the parson and the curate as school managers, they would not amount to four, and, although in such cases the trust deed of the founder desired the management to be exclusively clerical, the Amendment then would sot aside this intention.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Which Amendment?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The Amendment you have put down.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That is not what we are on now.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said it was not, but it had been ruled over and over again that they could not put the words "as provided by this Act" into a Clause, unless they had before them and could consider what was to be subsequently provided. He was entitled to consider what the subsequent provision was which the Government undertook to put into the Bill, and he said that this subsequent provision was a provision which set aside the trust altogether and left it to the Education Department to frame denominational trusts which had not been trained by the founders of the school. To devolve on the Education, Department in the absence of trusts the duty of framing a new trust was, from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman, a most objectionable thing, because he had always maintained that they must respect the denominational founders' wishes; and yet they had here a whole series of provisions relating to four managers, in which the original trust might be set aside altogether. He indicated who are to be the managers, how they are to be constituted, and said that "if the provisions of the trust deeds as to the appointment of managers are in any respect inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, or insufficient or inapplicable for the purpose, or that there is no such trust deed available, the Board of Education shall make an order under this section for the purpose of meeting the case." Therefore there might be no trust deed at all; there might be trust deeds which contemplated something different from what the Government contemplated. The Education Department was to frame a trust deed to alter the trust deed where there was one. Therefore the view of respect for the trust deed entirely disappeared. They did not respect the trust deed at all. The Committee could not consider the provision of these four managers without considering in what manner they were to be provided.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That is not the Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOUT

said it was the Amendment which the First Lord of the Treasury was going to put into the Bill under the words "as subsequently provided in this Act." They could not say that they were going to have four gentlemen subsequently provided without considering how they were to be provided. Therefore before they parted with those four persons they ought to consider upon what principle and upon what grounds these four persons were to take part in the management.

(10.40.) MR. LLOYD GEORGE (Canarvon Boroughs)

said it was a pity the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to accept substantially the principle laid down in his hon. friend's Amendment. All the First Lord wanted was that the denominational character of the schools should be guaranteed, and therefore they would discuss the question from that standpoint. Granted that the denominational character of the schools was guaranteed, he thought the education authority ought to have some right of selection amongst the persons who were suggested. After all, these were the men who had to administer the funds placed at the disposal of the managers, and he thought the education authority ought to have some control over the personnel of the managing body. With regard to the four managers, the Prime Minister provided that the whole of the machinery for the election of managers should be postponed to a subsequent Clause. They had got elaborate machinery for the election of the four, but when they came to the election of the minority of the same body the right hon. Gentleman proposed to set up other machinery. Why should he not introduce the machinery of which he had given notice after Clause 15 into Clause 7, for it would be perfectly logical, or else take the other alternative and eliminate all questions of machinery altogether from this Clause. The whole machinery should be dealt with in a different clause. He submitted that it was bad drafting. He trusted the Prime Minister would see his way to eliminate all questions of machinery from this clause, so that the Committee might go on to discuss the matters of real principle laid down in the Clause.

MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

said that he had on the Paper an Amendment which raised the point now before the Committee in a slightly different way. The object in both cases was very much the same, namely, that while the denominational character of the school and the appointment of the managers under trustees should be maintained, there should be some association of the education authority with the view to the salient fact which ought to govern the whole of these considerations, namely, that they had to provide one body of managers not merely for the denominational interest in the school, but for the whole educational machinery of the school. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might very well consider the adoption of one or other of the suggestions made with the view of covering this point. He did not think the Committee knew from anything that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman whether these managers when appointed would be responsible in the same sense as the managers appointed under the first subsection were responsible to the education authority.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that, according to his view, the Committee were at this moment engaged more on a question of form than on a question of substance. On the question of form, he earnestly pressed on the Committee the consideration that it was hopeless to endeavour to discuss a subsequent clause in the Bill upon this clause. The Government had put down a new clause, which dealt with the machinery by which the four denominational or foundation managers were to be selected. That was a difficult and complicated matter, not because the principle underlying it was difficult or doubtful, but because the variety of trustees in many cases, and the absence of trustees in other cases, made certain complicated provisions necessary. The suggestion which had been made was that the Committee should endeavour on this Clause, which dealt with principles and not with details, to discuss a question of detail and not of principle. It had been said that if they insisted that all machinery for dealing with the four foundation managers was to be placed in a subsequent Clause, by what logical process did they attempt to force down their throats the machinery for dealing with the two non-foundation managers? He thought he could offer some justification for that policy, but he admitted that there was a discrepancy of treatment; and that, while they did attempt to eliminate from this Clause all machinery dealing with the foundation managers, they did attempt to introduce machinery dealing with the elected managers. That was possibly illogical and inconsistent from a drafting point of view. What they wanted the Committee to do was to come to an issue not on details, but upon principle. What they wanted to decide was whether or not they were to lay down the broad principle that the denominational or foundation managers should be as four compared with the elected managers, who were to be two. That was the essence of the Clause; everything else was machinery, and if he had any reason to believe that they could come to an issue upon the substance of the Clause and defer the discussion of machinery to a later date he should regard that as perfectly consistent with the Government plan. If it really would meet the convenience of Gentlemen on both sides that that should be fought out fairly with reasonable discussion at a reasonable hour before the natural rising of the House, he, for his own part, would not stick out upon a drafting point. He should not endeavour to thrust upon the House his own views as to the actual mode in which the Clause should be drawn. He should be quite prepared to accept any arrangement by which they would be able to carry on in a reasonably and relatively concise manner a debate upon what was, after all, apart from machinery, the real issue between them. He did not know whether that suggestion, made in the interests, not indeed of peace but of interesting debate, and of bringing before the House and the country the real issues of the Bill, would be acceptable. Hon. Gentlemen might think they could not have a better cry with which to go to the country than this inequality of management. They on their side might take the view that, looking to the whole framework of the Bill, this was the only just and possible method of arriving at a national system of education. Those were the two opposing points of view, and if it would conduce to having these fought out to a clear issue on the present occasion, he should be content to drop the question of machinery and have that issue fairly debated and divided upon.

(10.58.) MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

said that if he understood the Prime Minister's suggestion, it was that when they arrived at a certain point in the Clause the right hon. Gentleman should propose that they should relegate all questions of machinery to a later stage. That was for the right hon. Gentleman to settle, but he did not think it made any difference to the substantial question with which they had to deal. He considered that they were entitled to some further declaration from the right hon. Gentleman as to what he meant before they parted with the Clause. He hoped the Committee would see that they were entitled to know what the relation of the foundation managers in non-provided schools was to be to those appointed by the local authority, and whether the local education authority was to have the power of removing them from time to time.

MR BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)

thought a great many Members on both sides of the House would be glad to fall in with the suggestion of the Prime Minister. He understood that the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite was to defer discussion to a later period of the year. He did not know exactly what advantage they hoped to gain, but what the Prime Minister had said would, to a certain extent, have that effect. If the suggestion was adopted, the Committee would settle a question of principle, and go into detail in the autumn, lie would suggest that the Committee would be carrying out the view of the right hon. Gentleman if they accepted the Amendment which had been proposed and in-inserted after the word "appointed" the words "as hereinafter provided."

SIR WILLIAM MATHER (Lancashire, Rossendale)

said he understood the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to be that the Committee should decide as a matter of principle whether, in future, in schools not provided by the local authority, four managers should be provided by the foundation and two by the local authority.

SIR EDWARD GREY (Northumberland, Berwick)

agreed that it was unsatisfactory that they should deal with a question of principle and a question of machinery at the same time, and he would ask the First Lord whether he could not adopt the suggestion first made from his own side of the House by the hon. Member for North Hackney.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)

thought there was force in the objection of the hon. Member for Carnarvon that it was not desirable to leave the machinery for appointing the foundation managers to stand over while they defined the machinery by which the managers were to be appointed by the local authority. He believed that if the discussion were confined to the mere question of the proportion of representation, it would not only diminish debate, but also modify—he would not say the acrimonious—but the severe character of the discussion which had taken place during the last ten days.

SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

said he desired to know particularly from the right hon. Gentleman what was to happen with regard to a school where there were no trustees now. Was the Board of Education to be empowered to appoint trustees? He wanted very much to know whether in the case of schools where there were trustees, these trustees were to be allowed freedom to appoint the managers in years to come. And was it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that where there were no trustees, trustees were to be fixed at the will of the Board of Education?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to have in his mind a special case in which a man had built a school. He quite admitted that in such a case the builder of the school was the owner. Surely the interpretation of the hon. Gentlemen and other hon. Members showed how very inconvenient the present method of discussion was. He again suggested that the discussion of all details with respect to trustees and the management of schools which had not trustees should be deferred until the Clause dealing with them was reached. For his part he was perfectly willing to fall in with any arrangement by which all discussions on machinery would be deferred and the attention of the Committee concentrated, in the time now at their disposal, on the main question of principle, and that there should not be deviations into less important points. That being the view, as he gathered it from speeches on both sides, he believed the proper way to do it was to cut out all the words after "two" in line 11, and to put in the words "representing local authorities also as appointed by this Act." The Subsection would then run as follows— All public elementary schools not provided by the local education authority shall, in place of the existing managers, have a body of managers consisting of a number of foundation managers not exceeding four, as provided by this Act, together with a number of managers not exceeding two representing the local authority, also appointed as provided by this Act. The result of that would be to put the two classes of managers absolutely on an equality so far as drafting was concerned, and would leave for future discussion the machinery by which these classes were to be appointed. Then all that would be necessary would be to safeguard the question of the grouping of schools and also the question of the extension of six to some larger number to meet particular cases, but still keeping the joint proportion which had been laid down by the rest of the Clause. These two principles must be safeguarded, and he thought it would be easy to safeguard them. With that qualification he thought it would be easy to discuss the whole principle of this Clause with the changes he had suggested. If the House considered that that would conduce to the clearness and decisiveness of the debates, he for his part should be glad to fall in with their view.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said that what the right hon. Gentleman said amounted to this that they should determine the question for or against two, and let the manner in which they were to be appointed be determined hereafter. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to pass this Clause without telling the Committee or the country what was essential to the Clause itself. The right hon. Gentleman ought to say that he would not ask the House to pass the Clause as a whole until he had dealt with the manner of the appointment of the four and the two respectively. The right hon. Gentleman said it might be necessary to increase the number of managers beyond six. They wanted to know in what proportion they were to be increased.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that the right hon. Gentleman quite misunderstood him. When he said he wanted to safeguard the principle of increasing the six to a higher number he had in his mind an Amendment in the name of an hon. friend which proposed that where the circumstances of a school required it the number of managers should be increased, but the proportion between the denominational and the non-denominational

managers should remain the same. That, therefore, did not touch the question of machinery. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to discuss the Bill in divisions; they could not discuss ambiguities. The Government put their cards on the table and said quite plainly and openly what they meant.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said the right hon. Gentleman stated that the principle of the Bill was to give four denominational managers, but he had not said so in the Bill. ["Oh, oh."] What was put first was trusts, and then foundations, but the Government had not put "denominational" in the Bill.

MR. A, J. BALFOUR

I did not put "denominational" in, not because I was afraid of the term, but because there are voluntary schools which are not denominational.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said then it depended on the word "trust," and therefore he insisted again that the Amendment was one to give power to the Education Department to set aside the trust. If the foundation of the Bill was not denominational, but trust, how was it that the Government did not determine now how to deal with the trust? The Amendment would enable the Education Department to deal with the old trust and to create a new trust. He did not see how the Committee could deal that evening with the question of four and two managers. The Committee could not dispose of Clause 7 until the Government had explained how they meant to deal with the trusts.

(11.23.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 235: Noes, 101. (Division List No. 380.)

AYES.
Abraham. William (Cork, N. E.) Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Bigwood, James
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Bill, Charles
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Blundell, Colonel Henry
Anson, Sir William Reynell Banbury, Frederick George Bond, Edward
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Bousfield, William Robert
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Beckett, Ernest William Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St John
Bain, Colonel James Robert Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Brotherton, Edward Allen
Balcarres, Lord Beresford, Lord Charles William Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Bull, William James
Butcher, John George Haslett, Sir James Horner O'Malley, William
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Carew, James Laurence Hay, Hon. Claude George Parkes, Ebenezer
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hayden, John Patrick Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley Pierpoint, Robert
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Heaton, John Henniker Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Henderson, Sir Alexander Plummet, Walter R.
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset. E Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Chapman, Edward Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Power, Patrick Joseph
Charrington, Spencer Hornby, Sir William Henry Pretyman, Ernest George
Churchill, Winston Spencer Howard, John(Kent, Faversham Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Clive, Captain Percy A Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Purvis, Robert
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A. E. Hudson, George Bickersteth Pym, C. Guy
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.) Randles, John S.
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Jameson. Major J. Eustace Rankin, Sir James
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Jebb, Sir Richard Claver house Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Reid, James (Greenock)
Compton, Lord Alwyne Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Keswick, William Robertson. Herbert (Hackney)
Cranborne, Lord Knowles, Lees Roche, John
Crean, Eugene Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Cripps, Charles Alfred Law. Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Ropner, Colonel Robert
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. Round, Rt. Hon. James
Cullinan, J. Lawrence. Wm. F. (Liverpool) Rutherford, John
Dalkeith, Earl of Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Sackville. Col. S. G. Stopford-
Davenport, William Bromley- Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Scott. Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Delany, William Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Denny, Colonel Llewellyn, Evan Henry Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Dickson, Charles Scott Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside
Dillon, John Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Doogan, P. C. Loyd, Archie Kirkman Spear, John Ward
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk
Duke, Henry Edward Lundon, W. Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison Stroyan, John
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W. Macdona, John Cumming Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Faber, George Denison (York) MacIver, David (Liverpool) Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Sullivan, Donal
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r M' Arthur. Charles (Liverpool) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Finch, George H. M' Govern, T. Talbot, Rt. Hon. J G (Oxf'd Univ.
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne M' Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N.
Fisher, William Hayes Majendie, James A. H. Tollemache, Henry James
Fison, Frederick William Malcolm, Ian Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Flannery. Sir Fortescue Manners. Lord Cecil Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Flavin, Michael Joseph Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. Tully, Jasper
Flower, Ernest Melville, Beresford Valentine Valentia, Viscount
Flynn, James Christopher Mildmay, Francis Bingham Walker, Col. William Hall
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W Milvain, Thomas Warde, Colonel C. E.
Galloway, William Johnson Molesworth, Sir Lewis Warr, Augustus Frederick
Gardner, Ernest Montagu. G. (Huntingdon) Webb, Colonel William George
Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond. Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Mooney, John J. Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Cordon. J. (Londonderry. S.) Morgan, David J (Walthamstow Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Gore, Hn G. H. C. Ormsby- (Salop Morrell, George Herbert Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm.
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford Willox, Sir John Archibald
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Mount. William Arthur Wilson. A. Stanley (York, E.R.
Goulding, Edward Alfred Murnaghan, George Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Murphy, John Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.) Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.
Groves, James Grimble Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Nannetti, Joseph P. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Nicholson. William Graham Wylie, Alexander
Hambro, Charles Eric Nicol, Donald Ninian Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x Nolan, Col. John P. Galway, N.)
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Hardy, Laurence(Kent. Ashford O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Hare, Thomas Leigh O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Sir William Walrond and
Harris, Frederick Leverton O'Donnell. T. (Kerry, W.) Mr. Anstruther.
NOES
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Atherley-Jones, L. Bell, Richard
Ashton, Thomas Gair Barran, Rowland Hirst Bolton, Thomas Dolling
Asquith, Rt Hon. Herbert Henry Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Brigg, John
Broadhurst, Henry Horniman, Frederick John Rea, Russell
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Rickett, J. Compton
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Burns, John Jacoby, James Alfred Robson, William Snowdon
Caldwell, James Joicey, Sir James Roe, Sir Thomas
Cameron, Robert Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Shackleton, David James
Causton, Richard Knight Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Cawley, Frederick Kearley, Hudson E. Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Channing, Francis Allston Kitson, Sir James Strachey, Sir Edward
Craig, Robert Hunter Langley, Batty Tennant, Harold John
Cremer, William Randal Layland-Barratt, Francis Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Dalziel, James Henry Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Leigh, Sir Joseph Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan Levy, Maurice Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Lewis, John Herbert Tomkinson, James
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lloyd-George, David Toulmin, George
Edwards, Frank Lough, Thomas Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Elibank, Master of M' Arthur, William (Cornwall) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Emmott, Alfred M' Crae, George Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone M' Kenna, Reginald Weir, James Galloway
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) M' Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund Mather, Sir William Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Fuller, J. M. F. Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Furness, Sir Christopher Moulton, John Fletcher Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick) Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Norman, Henry Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Harmsworth, R. Leicester O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd
Harwood, George O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Paulton, James Mellor TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Helme, Norval Watson Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Mr. Corrie Grant and Mr.
Holland, Sir William Henry Price, Robert John Charles Morley.

Lords Amendment, agreed to.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire will not read, because a third of four is not a possible number. The second Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire is in order.

*(11.45.) MR. CHANNING

said his Amendment was to insert after "Act" the words "and removable by the education authority." The point of the Amendment was perfectly simple. It concerned the relations of the managers of denominational schools to the education authority, and it was a point which required a thorough elucidation. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman sincerely intended the Bill to be an educational measure, and that he also sincerely intended that the voluntary, as well as the provided schools, should be brought into one coherent and coordinate system; that there should be an equal standard of efficiency throughout; and that both classes of schools should be brought into educational relations with each other. But it was extraordinary that during all these discussions, so far there had been no declaration as to the position of managers of these schools, though it was repeatedly stated that the managers of the provided schools should be the creatures of the education authority. It seemed to him essential that the status of managers of denominational schools should not be of a wholly different character from the status of managers of provided schools. If they were to have one system carried out rationally and coherently, the position of the managers of the denominational schools should be similar to that of the managers of provided schools. It was stated in Clause 8 that the local education authority should have complete control over the secular instruction carried out in the schools; but he did not think that that really touched the point he had in view. According to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the managers of the schools provided by the local authority were to have exactly the same status as managers appointed by a School Board under Section 15 of the Act of 1870. What he now asked was that they should adopt the same principle, mutatis mutandis if necessary, with reference to the managers of denominational schools. Were they to be removable by the education authority or not? As far as he understood it, Clause 8 provided that where a dispute arose between the education authority and the managers of a denominational school on a question affecting secular instruction, it was to be referred to the Board of Education. He wished to know if the managers of denominational schools were to remain as a sort of minor autonomous authority, and occupy a position which would enable them to defy the education authorities. The Amendment raised a very serious and important question in a very definite and concrete form. It provided that substantially the managers of denominational schools should be subject to the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1870, and should therefore be removable by the local education authorities.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, as amended— In line 11, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'and removable by the local education authority.' "—(Mr. Channing.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said it was quite clear that it would be impossible for the Government to allow the local education authority to have the power of dismissing managers of denominational schools. That might be right or wrong, but it was an essential part of the principle of the Clause. Denominational managers were after all a quantity that could be exhausted, and the education authority would only have to go through the simple process of dismissing them all in certain localities where the number of eligible denominational managers might be limited, and the schools would cease to be denominational. The principle of the Clause was that denominational managers were not to be under the control of the education authority so far as their own functions were concerned; but so far as secular education was concerned, they would not be able to violate the wishes, run counter to the policy, or interfere with the schemes of the local education authority. The one was equally as fundamental a principle of the Bill as the other and if the hon. Gentleman did not think that the latter was carried out by the Clause already passed, he thought it would be possible to frame words which would make it even clearer still. It should, however, be understood that it was their view of the Bill that the education authority was to be supreme in all matters of secular education, but that they could not have the power of dismissing denominational managers, because that would carry with it the logical consequence that they would not only be supreme in secular education, but in religious education also. That was not the principle of the Bill; and it would, therefore, be clearly impossible to accept the Amendment.

MR. ROBSON (South Shields)

said he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to carry his point further, and explain low, if the local education authority were to be supreme in all matters of secular education, it could enforce that supremacy when it had no power to appoint or dismiss either managers or teachers.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said it would have the power to veto the appointment of teachers.

MR. ROBSON

said it would have no power either to appoint or dismiss teachers. It would have the power to veto the appointment of teachers on educational grounds if they could be defined, and it had the power to appeal to the Board of Education to dismiss, teachers, also on educational grounds; but it had no power to appoint teachers, and no power to dismiss teachers.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he thought it would have that power.

MR. ROBSON

said that it would not have power to dismiss teachers except in a qualified way. How then was it to enforce its will with regard to the management of secular education. It was now clear, as indeed it had been clear all along, that the phrase in the Bill giving the local education authority the management of secular education was a mere phrase put in with a political object. It was not a phrase by any means inserted in order to facilitate education, but simply and solely for the purpose of facilitating the platform defence of the Bill.

MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland)

said he did not know where the Prime Minister found in the Bill that the local education authority had power to dismiss teachers.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he thought that power was in the Bill.

MR. TREVELYAN

said it was satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman understood that, and would make it definite.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that he had always stated that the policy of the Government was that in secular matters there should be a veto on the appointment of teachers and the power of dismissal.

MR. TREVELYAN

said if that was necessary in the case of teachers in order to give control, why should it not also be given in the case of managers whose action, by the Bill as it stood, was entirely uncontrolled by the education authority. The control provided by the Bill was a sham. Supposing the managers of a school refused to dismiss a teacher they had been ordered to dismiss by the local authority, or supposing they insisted on appointing a teacher they were told not to appoint, or supposing they refused to use a particular school syllabus, or a certain school book, how were they to be compelled to obey the local authority There was no means provided in the Bill except by refusing grants; and if they refused grants they would not be able to keep the school up to its proper efficiency and another school might have to be provided in the district. That was a nice prospect for the ratepayers, and was an alternative too monstrous to maintain. He ventured to think that when they came to discuss the clause which provided that alternative schools might be built the right hon. Gentleman would find that there would be a very great deal of objection to building up in the villages a series of religious schools to suit different sects. Therefore, he maintained that some means should be found by which the local authority should have control over recalcitrant managers.

* MR. DUKE (Plymouth)

said the spirit of the discussion which had followed the attempt of the Prime Minister to introduce concord into the proceedings gave the Committee an indication of what they might expect during the next few sittings. They might expect a strong partisan discussion upon matters on which partisanship should be out of the question. It was easy for hon. Members opposite to talk about the hardship to the ratepayers and taxpayers of providing here and there a new school, but it did not occur to those hon. Members that the only alternative to this Bill would be to provide thousands of new schools. One main object of the Bill was to prevent the necessity of the taxpayers and ratepayers having to provide schools in the place of the present voluntary schools. As to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for South Shields, that the Bill did not provide an effective control over the managers as regarded secular education, it was perfectly obvious that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not read Clause 8 of the Bill. That Clause provided that the authority for secular education should be the local authority, and that if any question arose between the local education authority and the managers of the schools, that question should be determined by the Board of Education, and that compliance with the orders of the authority should be one of the conditions of any such school obtaining a grant. In view of these provisions, and the assurance the Committee had received that if they were inadequate they should be strengthened, it was a little hard on the Prime Minister to be told that when he talked about local and popular control, he did so for platform purposes. The real object of the Amendment—as was, perhaps, the object of other Amendments—was to prevent the passage of the Bill as a consistent measure by the introduction of absurd provisions.

(12.0.) MR. DILLON

said he was strongly opposed to the Amendment, and would not have intervened in the debates were it not for a remark which fell from the First Lord of the Treasury which raised what appeared to him to be, perhaps, the most vital question of the entire Bill —namely, the relations between the managers and the local education authority. He was amazed to hear that the local education authority was to have a veto on the appointment and dismissal of teachers on secular grounds. Who was to be the judge of what secular grounds were? If the local education authority was to have the power to veto the appointment or the dismissal of teachers, and to prescribe the syllabus and the books to be used, he did not see where the managers came in at all. When the proper time came, he hoped that hon. Members who represented the interests of the Catholic schools would have a great deal to say on the question of the relations of the managers to the local education authority, and would make a strong claim that the managers should have some substantial share of control in voluntary schools.

MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)

said that the argument in favour of the Amendment could be best presented in the form of an illustration. In a certain village in the Midlands a manager entered a school a short time ago—it was the only school in the village— and asked all the children who went to chapel to stand up. Upon the order being obeyed, the manager lectured the children and told them that they were on the straight road to damnation. [Several hon. Members: "Name!"] He would not give the name, because his informant was a parent of one of the children, and he knew only too well what Nonconformist children in such circumstances had to suffer. He did not say such cases were frequent, but hon. Members opposite knew as well as he did that they existed in a number of the smaller villages. What he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman was whether, under the Bill, a manager would be at liberty to enter a school and act in such a manner, and yet be absolutely irremovable by the local education authority. The illustration he had given was an ample argument in support of his hon. friend's Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM MATHER

said he thought the Prime Minister did not, if he might say so, appreciate the position. There appeared to be no doubt in the mind of the Prime Minister that the local education authority was to be absolutely supreme as regarded secular education. If that was the case, what would happen if managers of schools not provided by the local authority disobeyed any injunction or did not thoroughly carry out the instructions of the local education authority? Would the local education authority simply inform them that they must not have anything to do with secular instruction, or could they be debarred from having any control over such instruction? It was no answer to say that the local education authority could appeal to the Board of Education. Imagine the circumlocution that would ensue! It would be impossible to appeal to the Board of Education on the 101 trivial cases that would arise in connection with the management of the schools. What they asked for was that the managers should be under the local education authority, as was provided in the Act of 1870.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he desired to point out that this discussion could be far more conveniently carried on upon Clause 8. He had informed the Committee that the principle of the Government was that the local education authority should be supreme in secular education; and if the machinery for that purpose was not sufficient, that was not the clause on which it could be improved. He would remind hon. Gentlemen that the Education Department since 1870 had had no other control over the schools of the country but the financial control, and that that had been found quite adequate. [HON. MEMBERS: No.] Well, they had always got their way. [HON. MEMBERS: No.] If that was disputed, he would not argue it any further. If the Board of Education said a thing was to be done, it was done, or the grant was withheld. That was precisely the power the local education authority would have.

MR. BRYCE

said that it might be that Clause 8 would be the most convenient clause on which to discuss this point; but they regarded it as a very serious blot on the Bill that there was no power on the part of the local education authority to compel recalcitrant managers to submit, except by the supreme step of refusing the grant. That meant depriving the children of education in the meantime, and, in the last resort, providing another school. Whether the question was to be decided now or later, they looked upon it as one of great importance; and they thought that some more effective control over managers should be given than that contained in the Bill.

MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)

said the Prime Minister seemed to him to have accepted substantially the principle of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to recognise the fact that the managers would be the supreme authority, not only for the control of education, but for the appointment and dismissal of teachers. It was all very well to say that the local education authority would be provided with power to object to the appointment of teachers on educational grounds, but the managers would be supreme. That was only natural. The local education authority would be an authority at a distance; the managers would always be on the spot. If the Prime Minister recognised that that was a weak point in the Bill, and would give a definite pledge to deal with it on Clause 8, that would satisfy the supporters of the Amendment.

MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden)

said that there was one point which had possibly escaped the Prime Minister's attention, and that was the way in which the local education authority, under the Bill, would work They would work through Education Committees, and they had been told by the Vice-President of the Council that such Committees need not ask for confirmation of their acts from the County Council or the local education authority. That being so, the Amendment was necessary, in order to carry out their view that the local education authority should have control over education. On Friday last he gave an illustration, with chapter and verse, similar to that which had been given by his hon, friend the Member for Halifax, in which a parson and his curate told Nonconformist children that they were on the road to destruction. They should insist on such managers being removable.

MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)

said that cases of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Halifax were constantly being brought before the Minister of Education, and his invariable answer was that the Education Department had no control so long as the conscience clause had not been infringed. It was time for such a state of things to be brought to an end. Were these managers to be for ever irremovable? Supposing a manager left the neighbourhood, was he still to be a manager? It was absolutely necessary that there should be some power of removing such managers and substituting others.

*MR. H. J. WILSON (Yorkshire. W. R., Holmfirth)

thought that some better explanation of the difficulties which had been raised ought to be given. Suppose the managers and the local authority were at loggerheads, and an appeal was made to the Education Department, but its decision not complied with. The only thing that could be touched was the Parliamentary grant, and in that case the school and the children would suffer. The Prime Minister ought to explain how the decisions would be ultimately enforced.

MR. WHTTLEY

asked whether, if a manager made a statement such as he had quoted to the children, the local education authority would have power to remove him from his office?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the hon. Gentleman would see that the case mentioned must be dealt with on Clause 8. Before an authoritative opinion could be given more details were necessary, but, as the hon. Gentleman had narrated the case, he had no hesitation in saying that the matter was a scandal.

MR. CORRIE GRANT

asked the Prime Minister to say that on Clause 8 he would accept an Amendment to provide for the removability of clerical managers who acted unreasonably, and give the ratepayers control without dilatory and unsatisfactory appeals to the Department in London. The provision as it stood was perfectly futile, as it would not deal with the kind of difficulty that would arise. The disputes would lie trifling and peddling matters, as a rule, such as recently occurred in a village in Yorkshire. The local temperance society had arranged for some lectures to be given in the Church school with the leave of the managers. Suddenly the managers objected to temperance lectures being given in Lent. The Parish Council called a meeting in the same school-room to discuss the action of the managers, whereupon the vicar and churchwarden demanded a fee of a guinea for the hire of the room. That was in 1901, and over since communications had been passing between the local body and the Education Department and the Local Government Board, each of the Government Departments saying it was a matter for the other, and the grievance remained unsettled. Such matters ought to be capable of settlement immediately on the spot, without having recourse to such cumbrous methods involving delay of months.

MR. WHITLEY

asked whether, in the event of this Clause being passed without the question of the removability of managers being dealt with, it would be possible to raise the matter on Clause 8.

*THE CHAIRMAN

If the Committee now decide that the managers are not to be removable, they will not be able to go back on that decision.

SIR WILLIAM MATHER

remarked that he had placed Amendments on the Paper dealing with this matter under Clause 8.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said in that case, as he could not possibly accept it, it would be to the interest of the hon. Member that, the present Amendment should be withdrawn. To promise something in connection with matters which arose on a subsequent Clause was an inconvenient method of procedure, and would also prejudge questions which would come up at a later stage.

MR. BRYCE

put it to his hon. friend whether it would not be wise to withdraw the Amendment, as the matter could be better discussed on Clause 8, and the importance of the question had been admitted.

*MR. CHANNING

said there were various reasons in favour of withdrawing the Amendment, but in taking that course he desired to emphasize its importance. It raised the question of the inequality of treatment of the schools. It would be a monstrous thing that the board schools which had a real local management should be deprived of their local independence, while the denominational schools should have their managers given a permanent autonomy.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(12.30.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

pressed the First Lord of the Treasury not to proceed further with the Bill this evening. The next Amendment was a very important one, and would necessarily take a long time. He moved to report progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again." —(Mr. Lloyd George.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said his only desire was to conduct the discussion of the Clause in a businesslike manner. He had expressed his intention to shorten the Clause and to make it more logical by eliminating all the machinery parts of it. Under those circumstances he believed that the Committee would be ready to come to a decision on the Clause tomorrow. He hoped they would have a long Parliamentary day tomorrow, and the main business would be the Education Hill. If it was the general view of the Committee that it would deal with the important questions which still remained before it separated to-morrow night, he was prepared to assent to the Motion.

MR. BRYCE

said it it would be the general wish of the Committee that they should begin the discussion of this important question at a time when it could be properly debuted. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to move an Amendment eliminating the machinery part of the Clause, it would be perfectly simple for him to do so, but that did not appear to him to be in the natures of a compromise.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that, although he objected to the word compromise, he would be ready to move an Amendment to eliminate the machinery part of the Clause, in the belief that the Committee would be able to finish the discussion next day. The discussion would be resumed on the question of proportion between the managers. The Bill would be taken at the afternoon and evening sittings tomorrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.