§ Order read, for consideration of Lords Amendments.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)
I think it would obviously be for the convenience of the House if the Leader would state generally the line which the Government proposes to pursue in regard to those Amendments, which are not more drafting ones but which raise serious points.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carvarvon Boroughs)
, on a point of order with reference to certain underlined words within brackets and the statement in regard thereto that '' it was proposed that those words should be omitted by the Commons," asked by whose order the words were inserted. He submitted that if it was by order of the House of Lords it was a gross breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. It struck him as a piece of dictation by the House of Lords to the House of Commons. He assumed that the words were not put in by the order of the Speaker, and certainly they could not have been inserted on the order of the Prime Minister.
§ MR SPEAKER
I think I can give the hon. Member the information he desires. As he is aware, when the Lords insert an Amendment which contains a blank, it has been the practice to make a motion calling attention to that blank and suggesting that it should be filled in by the House of Commons. What has been done in this case is intended to be analogous to that practice. I rather agree, however, that the phrase quoted by the hon. Member is an unfortunate phrase taken in connection with the present Bill. The words have been inserted without any interference by the Chair or by the Clerk at the Table, but in accordance with a general arrangement made a long time ago between the officers of the House of Lords and the Public Bill Office and frequently acted upon, with a view to conveying to the Commons the nature of the proposal or suggestion. As to whether it is a 1346 convenient practice or not, I believe that as a general rule the use of some such notice is convenient, but it occurs to me that, in relation to a highly contentious measure like the Education Bill, the words used ought not to assume beforehand what the action of the House of Commons will be. Whether some other form of words which avoids that suggestion, while at the same time pointing out the nature of the proposal, cannot be devised for use in the future, is a question which deserves to be considered. The Paper in question is printed by order of this House, and not of the House of Lords.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.
Of course I will rise, out of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, but I really have very little to say. I have no general statement to make with regard to the Lords Amendments. With two or three exceptions, I believe they are purely drafting Amendments, which neither require, nor indeed call for, discussion, and with regard to Amendments not of that character the only result of a general statement would be that we should have a desultory, imperfect, and fruitless discussion before we carne to the actual debate which is to determine the course we shall pursue. Under these circumstances, I venture respectfully to suggest to the House that probably the most convenient course would be to at once enter on the discussion of the Amendments without any preliminary debate.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE
said that several of the Amendments—probably seven or eight—were highly contentious; and in the case of a Bill so contentious it would have been convenient, as well as in accordance with custom, if the right hon. Gentleman had made general statement, such as they had often listened to, as to the views of the Government. As that statement had not been made, he proposed to move that the Lords Amendments be considered this day three months. That Motion could only 1347 be made in the case of a Bill to which those who made it were fiercely hostile, as if carried it meant the rejection of he Bill. Objectionable as the Bill had been before, the seven or eight contentious Amendments inserted by the Lords worsened it from the point of view of the Opposition. In no point had their views been met. He did not propose to discuss them at length, but he would refer to one or two. There was one to which, no doubt, great importance was attached by other hon. Members, but as he did not share their views on it, he would leave them to raise it—he meant the Amendment in regard to the Cowper Temple Clause. Another of these Amendments, to which very little attention had been paid in the other House, included diocesan boards in the bodies to be represented on the education committees. They had had considerable experience of these Boards, and he had called down on himself strong condemnation from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University, and the hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division of Lancashire, who spoke with great knowledge of Church feeling, because in Committee on the Bill he had associated jobbery with these Boards. He spoke of facts within his own knowledge and affecting his own constituency. These associations of voluntary schools, now for the first time brought in, were bodies which had not dispensed the funds given by Parliament to poor voluntary schools in a way which have them the right to representation on these committees; and, in passing, he might say they were already arranging to secure that representation, for in some districts where the opposition was likely to be most strong. time had been taken by the forelock to such an extraordinary extent that the committee had been virtually appointed under schemes which it was proposed to bring into which hon. Members attached great importance was that which excluded elementary teachers from the committees. That was an Amendment of substance, and one which would have to be fought. Higher teachers were to be entitled to be placed on these committees, and why should such a special stigma be placed on elementary teachers as to say that they 1348 were not also fit person to be appointed. The only other Amendments to which he would refer were those which more or less concerned the privileges of the House. those which touched rates and taxes. They divided themselves into two groups, There was the one which had been dealt with under a most unfortunate precedent—objected to at the time by the Irish Members on constitutional grounds—by putting words into the Bill which made nonsense of it, in order to avoid what would otherwise be an interference with the privileges of the House of Commons. With that they would have to deal when this particular Amendment was reached. Then there was the insertion, on two occasions, of the words "or rent." These Amendment were obnoxious, because they were Government Amendments, of the necessity for which the Government thought they ought to put in. His right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen thought there was substance in it, and when the Government Amendment came up it was ruled out of order on the ground that it affected the burdens of the people, and ought to have been the subject of preliminary debate. Yet it had been put in another place and brought down to the House of Commons. It was, he thought, a direct violation of the privileges of the House. If it should be put to them that the right hon. Gentleman the member for South Aberdeen was wrong in his view, and that it was not a matter of substance, but merely a verbal alteration, carrying out the views of the House, what was the position of the Government? It 1349 ought to have taken the natural and constitutional course, and have recommitted the Bill in respect of these two Amendments only. It could not have taken much time or involved any lengthened debate, for no constitutional question could have arisen, and there would have been no breach of the privileges of the House. Therefore the Government, even if their contention in no better position, that they should have recommitted the Bill.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
§ Question proposed, "That the 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
said he had hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite would have risen to make a statement on these Amendments. They were not without a precedent in the matter, and a very recent precedent in the case of the Parish Councils Bill. That Bill was a good deal altered in the House of Lords, and when it came back to the House of Commons, the Prime the moment so important did he deem the matter—the Minister in charge of the Bill, made an elaborate statement as to the course the Government intended to pursue with regard to the Lords' Amendments. Even if there had been no precedent, it was obvious that it would conduce to the proper discussion of these Amendments if the right hon. Gentleman made such a statement. The Amendments came before the House that morning; they had only had an hour or two to look at them: they referred to the pages and lines of a Bill which many of them had not in their hands, and even with it they had to struggle with them as best they might. They knew that some were more important than others, but it would have facilitated business very much if the right lion. Gentleman had taken the business-like and more courteous course he had suggested, and explained to the House shortly what the Government proposed to do. Such a statement need 1350 not have given rise to any discursive discussion, but it would have greatly facilitated the progress of business, and have redounded to the advantage of the Government.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the right hon. Gentleman had made two accusations against him. One was that he was lacking in business capacity, and the other was that he was lacking in courtesy. The first did not move him much. As regarded the second, he was sure the right hon. Baronet, whatever other charges he might have desired to make, did not mean to charge him with discourtesy. He did not think there was really any call for a general reply on the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet, word The right hon. Gentleman had quoted a precedent, but he did not know, for he had not had an opportunity to refresh his memory on the point, what were the reasons which induced Mr. Gladstone to make a general statement of policy with regard to the Lords Amendments to the Parish Councils Hill. Upon this occasion there was no need for such a general statement. The great majority of the Amendments were drafting Amendments, and conduced merely to clearness. He hoped that they would be accepted without any lengthy discussion. He could not make out eight Amendments of substance, and he thought the right hon. Baronet, in his enumeration of the questions of substance, had somewhat exaggerated the number. But he must repeat that he had no general statement to make, as their views could only be stated with advantage as the Amendments came up for discussion. He could only repeat the advice he gave a few moments ago, that it would really conduce to the discussion of these Amendments if they brought this general debate to a conclusion, and proceeded at once to the discussion of the Amendments one by one.
§ (2.55.)MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
did not think the Prime Minister had facilitated the discussion by declining to give a general indication of his policy. This was an exceptional state of things, and he did not believe the Lords Amendments to a first-class Bill had ever been taken on 1351 the very day those Amendments were printed. Such a thing could not be done in the case of a Private Bill. It could not be done by the Rules of the House in the case of a Private Bill. Of course in a case of urgency the House could suspend its Standing Orders, but, then, this was not a case of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman was in a great hurry to give this Bill as a Christmas-box to the clergy.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he expected the right hon. Gentleman to say that. If the clergy could not stand by a bargain, it was not to be expected they would be thankful for a gift. Looking at the Amendments as they were presented on the Paper, it was impossible to discover what they meant. It was necessary to go carefully through the Bill in order to fit them in and to consider their bearing on other Clauses. Although some of them knew every line of the Bill by heart—as well as they did their Catechism— it still needed very careful examination to know what the Amendments meant. He candidly confessed that, though he had followed the proceedings from day to day, he had not the remotest notion what many of the Amendments were. It was only on the previous day he asked for a printed copy of the Amendments. The Prime Minister by his reply showed that he knew what was coming. Although it was not until ho learned that the Lords had amended the Bill on the Third Reading that he understood what the right hon. Gentleman mean when he suggested that there were possibilities. The Prime Minister, he supposed, had this in his mind.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Assuming the hon. Member to refer to what took place in the House of Lords yesterday, I can assure him I had not that in my mind.
§ MR. LLOYD - GEORGE
said he accepted the right hon. Gentleman's statement, of course. But the fact remained that thay got a copy of the Amendments only that morning, and 1352 had not had time to consider them. They were really entitled to ask for a couple of days for that purpose. He thought that no Leader of the House could refuse so reasonable a request if made by the Opposition. But they were not pressing for that. They asked simply for a general idea as to what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do concerning the contentious Amendments. Fifty or sixty Amendments had been made by the House of Lords. He would, not say they were all contentious, but there were possibilities of contention in them. Surely it would be well for the Government to state their intentions with regard to, at any rate, three or four of those Amendments. First, what was the right of entry into secondary schools? That was an important Amendment. But the one they all had in mind was the "Manchester Amendment," the joint production of the Duke of Norfolk, representing the, Catholic Church, and the Bishop of Manchester, representing the Anglican Church. In the House of Lords the Government resisted that Amendment, and wore defeated. Were they going to accept the humiliating defeat at the hands of the Bishops and the Catholic Church, or were they going to stand up to the clergy? The Amendment, as worded, was pure nonsense; it meant nothing, and was intended to mean nothing. The House of Lords was attempting to dictate to the House of Commons by saying: "We do not intend the Amendment to moan anything; our orders are that, you should omit the last two lines." He understood that these words were really inserted, not by the Lord Chancellor or the Bishops, or the Duke of Norfolk, but by the Clerks. Was the Prime Minister, with the honour of the House of Commons in his custody, going to advise the House to bow to the dictation of the Clerks of the House of Lords? The Government, first of all, declared that this was a bad Amendment, and, through their representative in the House of Lords, said they could not accept it, as it was a departure from the bargain. Was the Prime Minister now going to say they would accept it? He was afraid he was, and that this was the reason of his silences. Anyhow, it was a good lesson for the Prime Minister and for every Statesman in the future not to go buccaneering with a crew of Bishops. The House was entitled to ask what the view of the 1353 Government was with regard to this particular loot? Were the Bishops to be allowed to stick to it, or wits the Prime Minister going to keep to the bargain? He was aware that the right hon, Gentleman repudiated the idea of a bargain. Did he mean to say that the leaders of the Church were not cognisant of the terms of the Bill before its introduction in the House of Commons? There was little doubt that they knew what the general outlines of the measure were, and assented to them. According to the Archbishop of Canterbury, it was a bargain, but a hard bargain, and now the Government, having carried out its part of the bargain, and a little more, in the House of Commons, the Bishops said, "As that part of the bargain is perfectly safe, we will try to squeeze a little more." All he could say was that the ideas of commercial honour on the Episcopal Bench were not as high as those of the Stock Exchange. There was not a commercial body in the country, however hard the bargain might be from its point of view, that would dream of attempting such a course.
§ Then there was the question of the teachers. When the proposal was made that the local authority should have the right to put elementary teachers on the committee, it was at once assented to by the Prime Minister, and, by unanimous consent, inserted in the Bill. To draw a distinction between elementary and secondary teachers was most invidious, and the only ground on which he could conceive the House of Lords doing it was that they regarded the secondary teachers as a special and privileged class, whom consequently they were bound to protect. He hoped the Prime Minister would face the Bishops, at any rate on that point.
§ Another matter on which the right hon. Gentleman should declare his policy was the Amendment of the Schedule. That portion of the measure was passed in the House of Commons without a word of discussion. Any Amendment from the Nonconformist, or popular, point of view was impossible, while the Bishops were sure of their chance in the House of Lords. That chance had been taken, and a serious Amendment effected by which, for fifteen or eighteen months, money with regard to voluntary schools, would be handed over to diocesan associations—for what? To pay liabilities; but the balance, if any, was to be pooled. It 1354 might be used for building purposes, so that Parliament would be simply enabling the Church to accumulate a large building fund for the purpose of fighting the provided schools. That was grossly unfair. He hoped the Prime Minister would state generally what he proposed to do with regard to the two or three Amendments he had particularly referred to.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT () Monmouthshire, W.
I think my hon. friend is entirely justified in his demand that the Government should tell us at once whether they mean to take in the House of Commons the same course with regard to these matters as was taken by their representative in the House of Lords. The statement of the case by the Government in the House of Lords was extremely distinct, especially with reference to the Amendment dealing with the repairs. That statement, as made by the official agent of the Government in charge of the Bill, was:—The general intention of the Bill was that the managers should not only provide the schools, but keep them in suitable condition. In the other place, this view was sustained by a majority far beyond their ordinary Parliamentary majority. Any attempt to meet cases of exceptional hardship would go very far beyond these cases, and would disturb to a serious degree the general arrangement of the Bill. The Government had proposed that the managers should make themselves responsible, not only for structural, but also for the internal repairs of the school—.
§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman began by saying he would read from a speech made in the House of Lords. I must remind him that it is not in order to quote from recent debates in that ouse. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to state what he understands to be the views of the Government as expressed in the House of Lords, without quoting the speeches.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
I am sure you will concede, Sir, that, at all events upon the Lords Amendments, we are entitled to state, in a general way, how those Amendments arose, and what the view of the Government in reference to them was in the House of Lords. What I desire to state is that the Government refused to accept the Amendment, because it was entirely 1355 inconsistent with the general arrangement and intention of the Bill. Their view was that these things were part of the arrangement as to the financial relations between the local authority and the managers, and they deprecated as strongly as they could any provision by which that arrangement would be modified in favour of either the one party or the other. We are entitled to ask whether that is to be the view of the Government in the House of Commons? It is perfectly clear that the Amendment carried in the House of Lords is an entire departure from the financial arrangements as made by the House of Commons. I must say that I regard with extreme regret the method which has been adopted occasionally in the past to evade the privileges of this House, and to allow the House of Lords to deal with financial matters which have been disposed of by the House of Commons. It is not as if this was, a financial matter which had accidentally escaped observation, or had passed through in the hurry and scurry in which the financial provisions of the Bill were dealt with during the last days of the discussion in this House. The matter was fully and carefully considered, and it was determined by an overwhelming majority. It is now brought down to us from the House of Lords with this extraordinary paragraph. If this course is to be pursued and extended in matters of such tremendous consequence, the control of the House of Commons over the finances of this country will be practically destroyed. Up to this time the rule has been, with very rare exceptions, that when there has been a breach of privilege it has, been dealt with by Mr. Speaker. If it had come down to the House of Commons without this paragraph in brackets, you, Mr. Speaker, would have declared that it was a breach of privilege of this House, in your official capacity, and you would have done this just as you would have prevented any breach of the Standing Orders of this House. Wherever Mr. Speaker has announced to the House that he regards an Amendment as a breach of the privilege of this House, that Amendment has been so regarded. It was so in the case of the Education Bill of 1891, 1356 when your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Peel, upon the appeal of my right hon. friend the Member for East Wolverhampton, declared that a very indirect Amendment was a breach of the privileges of this House. Thereupon, Mr. Goschen, who was then in charge of the House, consented to the rejection of that Amendment as such.
And now, Sir, what is the position we are placed in by this Amendment? It is a nonsensical Amendment. Is the educational legislation of this country to be based upon nonsensical Amendments of this kind sent down from the. House of Lords in a most unconstitutional form as regards the control of the finances of this country? We know perfectly well if a nonsensical Amendment is proposed in this House, you, Mr. Speaker, would refuse to allow it to be put; but to send down a nonsensical Amendment from the House of Lords for the purpose of carrying through a collusive arrangement with the Government, and to say that the House of Commons shall carry out the directions of the House of Lords, is a most dangerous precedent to establish, and ought not to be encouraged. What was the position? Are the Government, or are they not, going to take up this nonsensical Amendment from the House of Lords and deal with it as a method of superseding the proceedings of the House of Commons? I venture to say, and I believe I am right, that if this Amendment had been made in the House of Commons, it could only have been made in Committee of this House, and that would have been a necessary condition. What takes place? You get rid of the security of finance by a Committee of this House, and you substitute for that Committee this nonsensical Amendment of the House of Lords. That is the protection given to the finance of this country under the reactionary policy to which we are beginning, I am afraid, to be too much attached.
Therefore, I think we are entitled, before we go into these considerations, to hear from the Government what is their contention with regard to these matters. This is admitted to be a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. This proposal has been declared in the House of Lords to be a breach of the intentions of the Government under this Bill, and it is a breach of the whole 1357 financial arrangements made in this measure, which will have the effect of throwing upon the public authority charges which were always intended to be borne by the private subscribers. I desire to know whether these subscribers are to be called upon to fulfil that obligation, or whether the Government are going to depart from the whole of their declarations in this House upon this question? Having been defeated upon this question in the House of Lords, the Government are going to call upon the House Commons to reverse the decision arrived at by a great majority. Are the Government going to encourage such proceedings as those contemplated in this Amendment to defeat the control of the finances of this country by the House of Commons?
MR. ALFRED MUTTON () Yorkshire, W. R., Morley
said the Lords Amendments were either of first-class and real importance, or else they were merely of a drafting character. The latter did not affect the Hill much, but the former were concessions on the part of the Government to the demands of the Bishops, and in regard to those Amendments the only dignified reply was to say that this House declined to consider them altogether. Just complaints had
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Dyke, Rt.Hon. Sir WilliamHar|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Chamberlain, RtHn. J.A. (Wore.||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Chapman, Edward||Esmonde, Sir Thomas|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Claney, John Joseph||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Clive, Captain Perey A. Fellowes,||Hon. Aliwyn Edward|
|Arrol, Sir William||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Fergussion, Rt.Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r|
|Atkinson, Rt.Hon.||John Cogan, Denis J.||French, Peter|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Coheb, Benjamin Louis||Ffrench, Peter|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Colomb,SirJohnCharlesReady||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cranborne, Viscount||Fison, Frederick William|
|Balfour, Rt.Hon. A. J. (Mornsey)||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Balfour, Rt.Hn Gerald W.(Leeds||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Fletcher, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry|
|Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Cullinan, J.||Flower, Ernest|
|Bathurst,Hon. Allen Benjamine||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Flynn, James Christopher|
|Bignold, Arthur||Davenport, William Bromley-||Forster, Henry William|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Delany, William||Galloway, William Johnson|
|Boland, John||Denny, Colonel||Gardner, Ernest|
|Bond, Edward||Dickson, CharlesScott||Garfit, William|
|Boscawen, Arhtur Griffith-||Digby, John K.D. Wingfield-||Gilholy, James|
|Bousfield William Robert||Disraeli, coningsby Ralph||Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Line|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex||Dixon-Hartland, SirFred Dixon||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)|
|Bowles,T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Doogan, P. C.||Gretton, John|
|Bull, Willaim James||Dorington, Rt.Hon. SirJohn E.||Hain, Edward|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Doughty, George||Halsey, Rt.Hon. Thomas F.|
|Carew, James Laurence||Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-||Hammond, John|
|Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Harrington, Timothy|
|Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire||Duffy, William J.||Haslett, Sir James Horner|
§ been made that the interests of many classes had been seriously injured by the proposals of this Bill. The fact that these Amendments were all concessions to the demands of the Bishops, and in favour of a privileged Church, was a sufficient condemnation of the House of Lords as a practical legislative power in regard to the Parliamentary proceedings of this country. It could not be forgotten how extremely hurried had been the proceedings in the Mouse of Lords. For the first time in recent history the House of Lords had sat during the past week every day in the week for six consecutive days, and even on the Third Reading they proceeded to put further Amendments in the Bill. He did not think it was reasonable that the Government should ask the House at such short notice to consider Amendments of such first-class importance as those which the House of Lords had inserted. He shoidd support the Amendment of his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean.
§ (3.23.) Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 228; Noes, 85. (Division List No. 635.)
|Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire||Royals, Clement Molyneux|
|Hay, Hon. Clande George||Morrell, George Herbert||Runtherford, John|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Morton, Arhtur H. Aylmer||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Healy, Timothy Michael||Mount, William Arhtur||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Higginbottom, S. W.||Murnaghan, George||Seely,Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Murphy, John||Sharpe, Willaim Edward Albert|
|Hope, J.F. (Sheffield,Brightside||Murray, RtHn. A. Graham(Bute||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Howard. J. (Midd., Tottenham||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Myers, Willaim Henry||Smith, AbelH. (Hertfort,East)|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Nannentti, Joseph P.||Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside|
|Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)||Nicholson, William Graham||Smith,JamesParker(Lenarks.)|
|Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Nolan, Col. John p. (Galway, N.||Spear, John Ward|
|Johnstone, Heywood||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Joyee, Michael||O'Brien,Kendal (Tipperary, Mid||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Kemp, George||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Kennawy, Rt.Hon. SirJohn H.||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Kennedy, Patrick James||O'Brien, William (Cork)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop||O'Coonor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Talbot, Rt.Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Knowles, Less||O'Doherty, William||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Tnompson,DrEc(Monagh'nN.|
|Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th||O'Dowd, John||Thornton, Perey M.|
|Lewrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||O'Malley, Willaim||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Lawson, john Grant||O'Mara, James||Tonlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Leamy, Edmund||O'Shanghnessy, P. J.||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Lecky, Rt.Hn. William Edw. H.||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Tully, Jasper|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington||Valentia, Viscount|
|Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Pemberton John S. G.||Walker, Col. Willaim Hall|
|Loder. Gerald Walter Erskine||Pilkington, Lieut. Col. Richard||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Welby, Lt.Col. A.C.E.(Taunton|
|Long, Rt.Hn. Walter (Bristol,S.||Plummer, Walter R.||Welby, SirCharles G. E. (Notts.)|
|Lowe, Francis William||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Wharton, Rt.Hon. John Lloyd|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Power, Patrick Joseph||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft||Pretyman, Ernest George||Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne|
|Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward||Whitemore, Charles Algernon|
|Lundon, W.||Purvis, Robert||Willonghby de Eresby, Lord|
|Macartney, Rt.Hn. W.G. Ellison||Rateliff, R. F.||Wodehousr, Rt.Hn. E.R. (Bath|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Rattigan, Sir William Henry||Wolf, Gustav Wilhelm|
|MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Ridley, Hn. M.W. (Stalybridge||Wortely, Rt.Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|MacVeagh. Jeremiah||Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen||Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George|
|M'Govern, T.||Ritchie, Rt.Hon.Chas.||Thomson|
|M'Kean, John||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|M'Killop, James(Strlingshire)||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Sir Alexander Acland- Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Robertson, Brooke|
|Milvain, Thomas||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Mooney, John J.||Rothsehild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Fowler, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry||Morgan,J. Lloyd(Carmarthen|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Fuller, J. M. F.||Morley, Rt.Hon. John (Montrose|
|Bayley, thomas (Derbyshire)||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Newnes, Sir George|
|Brigg, John||Grey, Rt.Hon. Sir E. (Berwick||Norton, Capt. Cecil Willaim|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Griffith, Ellis J.||Partington, Oswald|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Harcourt, Rt.Hon. SirWillaim||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Bryee, Rt.Hon. James||Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale||Philipps, John Whnford|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Hayter, Rt.Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Rea, Russell|
|Caldwell, James||Helme, Norval Watson||Rigg, Richard|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Holland, Sir William Henry||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Cawley, Frederick||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Jacoby, James Alfred||Schwann, Charless E.|
|Crombie, John William||Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarhten)||Langley, Batty||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Sonames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Levy, Manrice||Spencer, RtHn C.R. (Norhtants|
|Edwards, Frank||Lloyd-George, David||Stevenson, Fancis S.|
|Emmott, Alfred||Lough, Thomas||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone||M'Kenna, Reginald||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Markham, Arthur Basil||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Mellor, Rt.Hon. John William||Thomas Davit Alfred (Merthyr|
|Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower||Walson, Engene(Clackmannan)||Wilson, Jphn (Durham, Mid.)|
|Thomson, F.W. (York, W.R.)||Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Tonlmin, George||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Whiteley. George (York, W.R)|
|Wallace, Robert||Whitley, J.H. (Halifax)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Mr. Herbert Gladstone Mr. William M'Arthur.|
|Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer||Mr. Herbert Gladstone and|
|Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk,Mid||Mr. William M'Arthur.|
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments considered.
In pagre 1, lines 21 and 22, leave out 'ineluding the training of teachers,' the first Amendment, read a second time.
§ THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (SIR WILLIAM ANSON,) Oxford University
moved that this Amendment be accepted. The training of teachers was in the definition Clause as part of the duties of the education anthority.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Auson.)
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON
said he quite agreed that the definition Clause explained what might be done under the term "secondary education." At the same time, after two days debate, the House of Commons thought it desirable that these words should be inserted off the face of the Bill in order that this matter, which was considered of firstclass importance, should not escape the attention of any Town Council, or County Council. There was no reason for the Government assention to the leaving out of the words. He did not think there was any matter of more importance, in regard to the educational needs of the country, than increased facilties for the training of teachers.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
hoped the Government would disagree with this Amendment. In substance there was not much in it either one way or the other. While it was true that this was in the definition Clause, the feeling, when Clause 2 was debated was that by puttiong these words on the face of the Bill, local authorities would see that this was one of the things they had to consider. Up to the present the local authourities had made no provision at all for the training 1362 of teachers, and if they found these words there they would be stimulated to make provision, though they might not otherwise do so. The words if retained could not possibly do any harm, and they might do some good.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
thought it was a matter worth consideration whether these specific words should be omitted. This was a matter of great importance House of Lords attached so much importance to voluntary associations that they did not consider they were covered by the words "other bodies," and they insisted upon specific reference being made to voluntary associations. But they did not care to specify the training of teachers. The House of Commons might be excused if they attached more importance to the training of teachers than to voluntary associations. He believed that County Councils would not be disposed of themselves to go to any great expense under Part II, of the disposition would be to koop down the pates. Therefore it was most important that the House should emphasise that matter and keep these words in.
§ SIR WILLAM HART DYKE () Kent, Dartford
hoped the House would proceed to the more important matter awaiting discussion. This matter was covered by the definition Clause, and the words in Clause 2 were weakening words as they stood. It was part and parcel of the duties of the local authority to provide for the training of teachers.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY () Louth, N.
said they weere told a minute or two ago that there were eight Amendments of importance to the Opposition. The Government were invited to state their views on those Amendments, but the House had not been told what they were. The hon. Member for the Morley Division said that all the rest were drafting Amendments, and that it did not matter whether they were inserted or reiected.
§ MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH () Anglesey
I congratulate the hon. And learned Member for North Louth on his alliance with the Government.
§ MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH
I am sure the Government are. This is not a Clause for the training of Irish Members, but for the training of teachers. The
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Dixon-Hartlan,Sir Fred Dixon||Kennaway, Rt.Hon. Sir John H.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Doogan, P.C.||Kennedy, Patrick James|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Dorington, Rt.Hon. Sir John E.||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Doughty, George||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-||Kimber, Henry|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Doxford,Sir William Theodore||Knowles, Lees|
|Arrol, Sir William||Duffy, William J.||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)|
|Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John||Dyke, Rt.Hon. Sir WilliamHart||Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Lawrence, Wm. F.(Liverpool)|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Elliot, Hon. A Ralph Douglas||Lawson, John Grant|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Leamy, Edmund|
|Balcarres, Lord||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Lecky, RtHon. William Edw. H.|
|Balfour, Rt.Hon. A.J.(Manch'r||Faber, George Denison (York)||Lee, Arthur H.(Hants,Fareham|
|Balfour,Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Balfour, RtHon Gerald W.(Leeds||Fergusson, Rt.Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie|
|Bartley, Sir George C. T,||Ffrench. Peter||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Field, William||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham|
|Bignold, Arthur||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Long, Rt.Hn. Walter(Bristol,S.|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Fisher, William Hayes||Lowe, Francis William|
|Boland, John||Fison Frederick William||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Bond, Edward||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Fletcher, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry||Lundon, W.|
|Brassey, Albert||Flower, Ernest||Macartney, RtHn W.G. Ellison|
|Bull, William James||Flynn, James Christopher||Madona, John Cumming|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Forster, Henry William||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Galloway, William Johnson||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Butcher, John George||Gardner, Ernest||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Carew, James Laurence||Garfit, William||M'Govern, T.|
|Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Gilhooly, James||M'Kean, John|
|Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire||Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Line.)||M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Gretton, John||Maxwell, RtHn Sir H.E.(Wigt'n)|
|Chamberlain, RtHn J.A.(Wore.||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Milvain, Thomas|
|Chapman, Edward||Hain, Edward||Mooney, John J.|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Halsey, Rt.Hon. Thomas F.||More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)|
|Clive Captain Percy A.||HamiltonRtHnLordG,(Midd'x||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.||Hammond, John||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Harrington, Timothy||Mount, William Arthur|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Haslet, Sir James Horner||Muntz, Sir Philip A.|
|Colomb,SirJohnCharlesReady||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||Murnaghan, George|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Hay, Hon. Claude Geroge||Murphy, John|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hayden, John Patrick||Murray, Rt.Hn A. Graham(Bute|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Healy, Timothy Michael||Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Heaton, John Henniker||Myers, William Henry|
|Crean, Eugene||Higginbottom, S. W.||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Hogg, Lindsay||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside||Nolan, Col.John P.(Galway,N.)|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Howard, J.(Midd.,Tottenham)||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Cullinan, J.||Hozier, Hon. JamesHenryCecil||O'Brien, James F.X. (Cork)|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hudson, George Bickersteth||O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid|
|Devenport, William Bromley-||Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Delany, William||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Johnstone, Heywood||O'Brien, William (Cork)|
|Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Joyce, Michael||O'Connor,James(Wicklow,W.)|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Kemp, George||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
§ point we take is that these words in the Clause can do no harm, and they may do some good. Then, why in the world should they not be inserted to call attention at the very start of the Bill to one of the most important duties of the edcuation authority?
§ (3.48) Question put.
§ The House divided:— Ayes, 235; Noes, 88. (Division List, No. 636.)
|O'Doherty, William||Ritchie, Rt.Hn. Chas. Thomson||Thompson, Dr. E.C.(Monagh'n,N.|
|O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|O'Dowd, John||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|O'Malley, William||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter||Tully, Jasper|
|O'Mara, James||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Valentia, Viscount|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Rutherford, John||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)||Welby, Lt-Col. A.C.E(Taunton|
|Pemberton, John S. G.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Welby, SirCharles G.E.(Notts.)|
|Percy, Earl||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)||Wharton, Rt Hon. John Lloyd|
|Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard||Sharpe, William Edward T.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Platt-Haggins, Frederick||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||whiteley, H(Ashton-und-Lyne|
|Plummer, Walter R.||Smith,Abel H.(Hertford, East)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Smith, HC(North'mb, Tyneside||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Smith,JamesParker(Lanarks.)||Wodehouse, Rt.Hn. E.R.(Bath)|
|Pretyman. Ernest George||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Stanley, EdwardJas.(Somerset||Worsley-Taylor,Henry Wilson|
|Purvis. Robert||Stone, Sir Benjamin||Wortley, Rt.Hon. C.B. Stuart-|
|Ratcliff. R. F.||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley||Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George|
|Rattigan, Sir William Henry||Sullivan, Donal|
|Redmond,John E.(Waterford)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge||Talbot, Rt.Hn J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.|
|Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth|
|Allen,CharlesP.(Gloue,Stroud||Hayter, Rt.Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Helme, Norval Watson||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Holland, Sir William Henry||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Hope,John Deans (Fife, West)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Brigg, John||Jacoby, James Alfred||Soares, Enrnest J.|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Jones,David Brynmor(Swansea||Spencer, RtHn. C.R.(Northants|
|Bryce, Rt.Hon. James||Langley, Batty||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Layland Barratt, Francis||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Caldwell, James||Leese,SirJosephF.(Accrington||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Levy, Maurice||Thomas,SirA.(Glamorgan,E.)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Lloyd-George, David||Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lough, Thomas||Thomas,JA(Glamorgan,Gower|
|Cremer, William Randal||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Thomson,F. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Crombie, John William||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Toulmin, George|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||M'Kenna, Reginald||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Markham, Arthur Basil||Wallace, Robert|
|Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles||Mellor, Rt.Hon. John William||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Edwards, Frank||Morley, Rt.Hn. John(Montrose||Wason,Eugene(Clackmannan)|
|Emmott, Alfred||Newnes, Sir George||Wason,JohnCathcart(Orkney)|
|Evans,SirFrancisH(Maidstone||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Partington, Oswald||Whitley, J.H. (Halifax)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Paulton, James Mellor||Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk,Mid.|
|Gladstone, RtHn. HerbertJohn||Philipps, John Wynford||Wilson, John(Durham, Mid.)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Rea, Russell||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Grey, Rt.Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Haldane, Rt.Hon. Richard B.||Rigg, Richard|
|Harcourt,Rt.Hon, Sir William||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Alfred Hutton and Mr. Ellis Griffith.|
|Hardle, J.Keir (MerthyrTydvil||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Hayne, Rt.Hon. CharlesSeale-||Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)|
§ Lords Amendments, as far as the Amendment in Page 2, line 26, agreed to.
In page 2, line 26, after 'provided,' insert 'except in cases where the Council, at the request of parents of scholars, or on other grounds, allow any religious instruction to be given in the school, college, or hostel otherwise than at the cost of the Council.'
§ The next Amendment read a second time.1366
§ MR. BRYCE () Aberdeen, S.
said although he objected to the Amendment as a whole, and hoped the House would disagree with it, he would, before discussing the Amendment itself, move and Amendment to it, which was to leave out the words "on other grounds." This Amendment had a very curious history. An Amendment was introduced, in conformity with what was shewn to be the general feeling of the 1367 House, by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Education before he became a Member of the Government last July. Now, in the other House—at the instance of the other House—this provision had been inserted, and it seriously impaired the value of the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Education and accepted by the House in July. There were many objections to this Amendment altogether. In the first place, it introduced what had been objected to by this House—namely, the right to allow the different denominations to come into the schools and disturb the instruction given in them, and complicate their arrangements by each giving his own religious teaching. The complication of such an arrangement had been so conclusively shown that, when this Amendment was sought to be introduced, this House had rejected it by a large majority. But a very much stronger objection was that the Amendment in its present form suggested to the local authority the policy of creating distinct sectarian secondary schools, instead of suggesting to them that the proper policy for them to pursue was to create schools equally available for all members of the community, which would represent the general desire of the community to have religious instruction given to their children in common. The meaning of this Amendment was that they should create and endow, establish and maintain, separate schools, in which distinct denominational teaching could be given. That would be the natural result of it. And that was especially the case if these words, "on other grounds," were left in. If it had been suggested that there was a case for allowing distinctive religious instruction to be given at the, request of the parents, that was one thing, and it might well be that such a case could be made out. But these words carried the Amendment a great deal further. "On other grounds" might mean one of two things. They might mean the offer of a sum of money from a particular denomination towards the cost of building a school on the understanding that the local authority would allow them to use that school for sectarian instruction, or 1368 it might mean that in the view of the local authority itself it was better to set up separate schools for the children of each denomination than to create one school for all denominations. This Amendment seemed to him to be a direct appeal to the local authorities to do the former. Nothing could be more unfortunate than that the local authorities should be persuaded into a policy of creating sectarian schools, and be encouraged to abolish the Cowper-Temple Clause. Nothing could be imagined better calculated to throw the apple of discord into our schools. We should soon see the growth, of sectarian parties in our Councils, whose whole aim would be to set up sectarian rather than un-sectarian schools. Whether or not the House accepted the Amendment as a whole, he submitted that these words ought to be left out. and that this power should only be granted alter a desire for it had been expressed by the parents.
Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
To leave out the words 'or on other grounds.'"—(Mr. Bryce.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment."
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said that as the right hon. Gentleman had intimated that he was going to oppose the Clause in its entirety later, he would confine himself to the particular Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced to the Lords Amendment. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that the local authorities could not establish sectarian schools, and it was not proposed by this Clause that they should, and, if it were, words already accepted by the House had put it out of their power to do so. All that was proposed in this Amendment was that where the local authority were informed, either by the request of the parents or scholars, or from their knowledge of the requirements of the neighbourhood, that special religious teaching was wanted in the case of certain scholars, then, not at the expense of the ratepayers, but of those who' required the teaching, such teaching 1369 might be given. Of course, the needs of the parents seemed to cover most of the occasions out of which the necessity of special religious teaching might arise; but there might be cases where there was a disinclination on the part of parents to express their wants, or, from the fact that the pupils in these secondary schools would be drawn from a wide area, the parents might not be present in collective form to make their application to the local authority, but the local authority might become aware of the need from communications addressed to them. On those grounds, believing that the words "on other grounds" would somewhat improve the Clause, and feeling sure that the local authority was excluded from the power of establishing sectarian schools, he hoped the House would not accept the Amendment.
§ MR. TREVELYAN () Yorkshire, W.R., Elland
said he did not think the speech of the hon. Gentleman had elucidated very greatly what the words "on other grounds" meant. The hon. Gentleman had said that these words allowed persons of all denominations to come in and give sectarian teaching in the secondary schools, and it might be a reasonable thing to permit them to come in where there was a real and genuine desire that they should be admitted. The only other reason given by the hon. Gentleman was that there might be a disinclination on the part of the parents to state their desire. That was the argument of the Church. The Church knew what the parents wanted, "because there were so many Church people in the district." But there was really no way of ascertaining the wishes of the parents except by a statement by the parents themselves of their wishes. He would appeal to those hon. Members opposite who had said they were in favour of the parents having a word upon this matter, but who had opposed every concrete case put by the Opposition in which they said the parents were the people who ought really to decide as to what religion their children should be brought up in—he would appeal to them on this occasion, which was the last chance they would have of voting on this question, to vote infavour of the parents. That was all 1370 this Amendment asked, because what was likely to occur under this Amendment if it was passed as it stood? There had been an Amendment inserted by this House giving the Voluntary School Associations representation on the education committees, and naturally those representatives would attend solely to the interests of their own particular faith. There would be every possible argument that these schools should have a Church of England tinge, and if they wanted to avoid any quarrels with regard to this matter, other denominations would have to have an equal opportunity.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he thought there was much force in the objections to the Amendment to the Amendment which had been urged by his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education. But he was not sure it was not prolonging discussion in the House to retain the words proposed to be left out. He had been impressed by the argument that possibly if the words were retained they would give excuses to the education committees, and perhaps to the education authorities themselves, to indulge in these ecclesiastical controversies of which the House and heard so much during the past eight months. He had done his best so to frame the Bill as to save the local authorities from having to deal with these most difficult and invidious questions; and it was possible that if the words were left in they would give excuses for the raising at meetings of the local authorities of the very kind of discussions which it was most desirable should be avoided. On the other hand, under the alteration proposed in the Amendment, the County Council could only act upon the application of parents, which, as it would be a definite request for a definite thing, could hardly lead to any religious differences; and the Clause in that form would, he hoped, work quite smoothly. Under the circumstances, after having consulted with his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education, he was ready to accept, on behalf of the Government, the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
§ LORD HUGH CECIL () Greenwich
regretted that his right hon. Friend should 1371 have accepted the Amendment. It was inconsistent with his right hon. Friend's attitude of approval towards the Scottish system. All the arguments to which his right hon. Friend had assented in reference to this Amendment could be urged against any system which allowed a popularly-elected body to control religious education. Hon. Members opposite had declared from time to time that, if popular control were once adopted, they would have no objection to a denominational system. What was proposed in the Lords Amendment was a controlled denominational system. Each body would be left to judge for itself. The only conceivable ground upon which it could be opposed was that denominational religious instruction was a sort of vice which could hardly be repressed by law, but of which everyone should be heartily ashamed, and to which the State could give no countenance whatever. He was surprised that the Opposition had not moved, and that the Government had not assented to, an Amendment declaring that contracts for the giving of denominational religious instruction should be treated as contracts for the committal of vice. He and his friends were unable to accept the Amendment because it was against the fundamental principles of their views of denominational instruction, and they must therefore divide the House.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
I beg to move after the word "schools" to insert, "at such time and under such conditions as the Council deem desirable." It is not clear at present whether the local authority have that power.
Amendment made to the Lords Amendment—
By inserting, after the last Amendment, the words 'at such times and under such conditions as the Council think desirable.'"— (Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he had another Amendment to propose, at the end to insert ''provided that no Council shall afford facilities to one denomination 1372 which it is not proposed to extend equally to any other denomination, when so desired by parents of scholars." What he desired to provide against was that one favoured denomination should have facilities extended to it which would be denied to other denominations. If this experiment was to be made in this matter, it should, he thought, be an experiment on fair and equal conditions. He was sure the Government would admit that this was a fair Amendment. It was not a proposal to allow a school to be converted into a sectarian school; it simply gave to those parents who desired it the opportunity of securing for their children the religious instruction that they preferred. The matter was so obvious that he would not elaborate it.
Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
At the end, to add the words 'provided that no Council shall afford facilities to one denomination which it is not prepared to extend to any other denomination, when so desired by parents, of scholars.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be added to the Lords Amendment."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness, Burghs)
thought the words, as moved, would tend unduly to prevent an authority making use of the power intended to be conferred upon them by the Amendment. By providing that no authority should exercise this power in favour of one denomination, unless it was prepared to exercise it in favour of any other denomination in respect of which there was a demand, the House would leave out of sight the fact that the circumstances might be extremely different. There might be a very large number of children in the case of one denomination, while there were only a very small number belonging to a variety of other sects, and the Council might not think it desirable to exercise its power in regard to the latter. What the hon. Member really intended was that the Council should not in exercising this power show any unfair discrimination as between different denominations. That was not the way in which the words of the proposal would work, as they might exclude the consideration of all the circum- 1373 stances. As to putting in words to the effect that no unfair discrimination should be made, he thought that such words were unnecessary. It would be the duty of even local education authority to deal fairly by all religious denominations. He therefore submitted, not only that the words of the Amendment were undesirable in form, but that they would, if inserted, cast a slur on the authorities.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
thought the remarks of the Attorney General constituted a strong argument in favour of the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member had said that it might discourage a local authority from exercising this power in favour of any one particular denomination. In many counties it would be easy to extend this power to the Protestant denominations, but very difficult to do so in the case of Roman Catholics. One of the few merits of the Bill as it left the. House of Commons was that it kept Part II. out of the religious difficulty: it laid down the same rules as applied to elementary schools—viz., the undenominational principle of the Cowper-Temple Clause, and that clearly prevented the introduction of sectarian controversies into higher education. The proposal of the House of Lords entirely destroyed that, and made sectarian disputes pan and parcel of higher education under Part II. It was clear that the various denominations might demand the benefit of this Clause in order to introduce their denominational controversies into the sphere of higher education, one of the first consequences of which would he to indispose County Councils to have anything to do with the Bill, because it would involve them in determining as between conflicting sects. Various sects would seek by this Clause to have their denominational teaching in the higher schools from which hit herto it had been excluded, and, according to the reply of the Attorney General, the most numerous sect would get the power while the less numerous would not, which, being interpreted, meant of course that the Anglicans would get the benefit of the Clause, and that the smaller sects, whether Protestant Nonconformists or Roman Catholics, would be excluded from it. That was the doctrine of the 1374 Attorney General, Fancy putting on the County Councils, whom they desired to undertake this work of higher education, the duty of determining which of the sects should be permitted to teach in the schools! The most extraordinary thing about the matter was that the Clause was originally introduced by the Secretary to the Hoard of Education, its whole object being to put these schools on the same fooling as the provided schools for elementary education. As amended, an entirely different principle was being laid down. Why should there be one rule with reference to denominational teaching in respect to elementary education and another in respect to higher education? The introduction of sectarian controversies would be extremely injurious to the system of higher education, and he should certainly vote for the Amendment of his hon. friend.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
thought the objection taken by the Attorney General to the proposal of the hon. Member was a sound one. What was desired was to avoid unfair discrimination or preference as between one sect and another. On that, the whole House were agreed. As to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he thought, if he might say so, that a great deal of it was relevant to the Amendment as a whole rather than to the particular-proposal of the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Poroughs. The House ought not to accept the proposal, because it was open to precisely the objection urged by the hon. and learned Member. The local authority would take this as a Parliamentary direction that, however many or few the childien might be, or whatever the circumstances of the schools might be, they were to act in precisely the same way—not with equal fairness, but in precisely the same way. He thought the view of the hon. Gentleman and of the whole House would be met by a proviso to the following effect—Provided that in the exercise of this power no unfair preference should be shown to tiny religious denomination.
§ LORD HUGH CECIL
suggested that "unfair discrimination" was better than ''unfair preference." A relieious denomination could be treated 1375 unfairly in two ways—by preference, or by the opposite of preference. A strong Nonconformist body might make a discrimination as against the Church of England. That would be giving an unfair preference, not to a particular demination, but to all denominations except one.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
suggested that, as this was the principle of the most-favoured-nation Clause, the words of the most-favourd -nation might possibly sovlethe difficulty.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
expressed his willingness to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the words suggested by the Prime Minister.
§ Proposed Amendment to Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made to the Lords Amendment—
By adding at the end thereof the words, 'Provided that in the exercise of this power no unfair preference shall be shown to any religions denomination.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfone.)
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment as amended."—(Sir William Anson.)
§ (4.50) MR. EMMOTT () Oldham
thought the Government were making a mistake in agreeing to the Lords Amendment. He wished hon. Members to remember what had been their experience in regard to the Welsh Intermediate Education Act. Hon. Members from Wales had again and again told them that one of the great secrets of the success of that Act was because the schools had been placed under the Cowper-Temple Clause, and they had never had to discuss the religions difficulty. The Charity Commissioners had also had to deal with a simmar matter. In their endowed schemes, except where it was specifically denominational and wherever it was possible, they practically introduced the Comper Temple Clause. That Clause had worked very satisfactorily, and it was a great pity that the local education authorities should be invited to do something different. He should like to ask the government who wanted this altera- 1376 tion. Where was the genuine demand of the parents for this alteration? He could understand the members of the Roman Catholic Church wanting something different, because they required a Roman Catholic atmosphere, and they could not have that in any school provided by the local authority under this Act. Therefore they could not meet their case. The noble Lord said that some hon. Members appeared to treat denominational education as something to be shunned and avoided. To most of them it appeared perfectly possible to arrange an undenominational religious curriculum which would be satisfactory to the groat majority of parents. He thought a system of that sort would work far better than that the local authorities should from time to time be invited to have thin apple of discord introduced into their discussions. As he thought it would not tend to the better working of the Bill, he hoped the House would not accept this Amendment of the Lords.
§ MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR () Liverpool, East Toxteth
said lie thought it did not take the House of Commons Aery long to arrive at the conclusion that it was not a desirable thing to introduce into our system of secondary education, and almost, without any discussion, this Clause, but it had been so altered as to make the Cowper-Temple Clause applicable to secondary as well as to elementary education. Before the Bill went to another place it was in this respect of a symmetrical character. A great many references had been made to the Scotch and other systems which gave a right of entry to the ministers of various denominations, but he took it that the main principles of this Bill were clear as originally introduced, that, at any rate as regarded elementary schools provided by the local authority, they would be, free from any denominational teaching and subject only to the where it was specifically denominational Cowper-Temple Clause; and that for those who desired and legitimately desired a denominational atmosphere, they were to rely upon the non-provided schools which the various denominations had themselves erected. He could not see why, in another place, that principle which, after all, was one of main principles of this B.1I, should have been 1377 departed from not in regard to elementary education, where he admitted the demand was possible, and might be extremely urgent, but, in secondary education, where, as far as he understood the situation, there was very little or no demand upon the question at all. He was quite sure that if this demand were, submitted to the local authorities throughout the country, and it they were asked whether they wanted to have the option of giving these religious facilities to the ministers of various denominations they would give, if not a unanimous, at any rate nearly a unanimous response to the effect that as far as they were concerned they desired to be relieved entirely from the odious task of deciding to what particular denomination they were to show, or not to show, preference. As regarded this right of entry, upon which so much stress had been laid, and possibly rightly laid, by those who desired to see fair play to the parents of all denominations, surely it would he better for this House and for Parliament, both in elementary and secondary education, to insist that all schools provided by the local authorities shall be absolutely tree from any responsibility between one denomination and another, and that, pending some more complete settlement of their national system of education, the responsibility for providing the atmosphere for the teaching of religions education whichthe various denominations desired, should be left to the denominations themselves. He felt strongly on this point. He regretted that in another place the Government should have departed from what he thought sound principle, and a principle which would have been welcomed by the local authorities throughout the country. Speaking as a member of the technical instruction committee in Liverpool, he thought there was no desire upon the part of those who administered elementary or secondary education to have more to decide in matters of religious difference than they had now. They desired to avoid as far as possible increasing the extremely complex burdens which would be laid on them under the Bill.
§ Dr. Macnamara () Camberwell, N.
said that, from the point of view of the secondary teacher, he could foresee that this would be very impracticable indeed.
1378 Looking atthio from the practical point of view, he believed that if this stood in the Bill it would prove absolutely abortive. He did not think they could get the parents of pupils in secondary schools to respond to the appeals for denominational teaching. He did not believe this would have any effect whatever except that it would be a useful experiment to show how far this demand was genuine. It was only the thin edge of the wedge. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwhich failed to get it into the elementary school system in this House, but the friends of denominational teachning has been successful in getting it into the secondary school system in another place. He believed that the parents were satistied with what went on now. Professsional and secondary school people were not going to respond to the sort of arguments which poorer perople responded to when the appeal was made to them. He was prepared to see this stand in the Bill, and he believed that experience would furnish an admirable reply which would conforund the noble Lord. It would be seen that the professional and educated classes haaving had this oppor tunity had not availed themselves of it.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON
said it might be a valuable experiment, but it might also be a dangerous precedent for the future. The Amendment was a very one-sided proposal. It only affected the right of entry to the provided schools and made no balancing proposal in regard to the non-provided schools. He thought it should have affected the right of entry to all classes of schools. His point was that they were interfering with the Cowper-Temple Clause as with regard to the provided schools and doing nothing as to the non-provided schools. Justice was to be done as to one set of people while maintaining the injustice as to another set of people. By the Bill as it stood the local authority would have the right, where colleges were provided, to establish denominational hostels. Having given them that right it was too much to break down the Cowper-Temple Clause and enable teachers to to inside the colleges and give denonminational instruction to their particular students. The noble lord suggested that what was here propossed was somewhat similar to the Scotch system. He denied that this was in agreement with the 1379 Scotch system. The Scotch system included all schools, but this Clause neluded, only the provided schools. It seemed to him dangerous to infringe the Cowper-Temple Clause on one side without seeking to do justice on the other side.
§ MR. NUSSEY () Pontefract
said the only alternative to having no religious instruction at all in the schools was to allow all sects, of whatever creed, to teach their particular form of religion if there was a demand for the instruction. His hon. friend objected to the Amendment because it would only affect one portion of the schoo's. He quite agreed that would be the case, and hel shoud have liked to seethe Amendment carried further. They all knew that the Cowper-Temple Clause did not satisfy everybody. It did not satisfy the Roman Catholics or the Church of England, and he doubted whether it satisfied the Nonconformists. He thought it would be far better to allow any religious instruction to be given which the parents desired if they were willing to pay for it.
|Abraham,William(Cork, N.E.)||Cecil,Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Faber, Edmund B.(Hants.,W.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Faber, George Denison(York)|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Chamberlain, RtHn J.A. (Wore.||Fergusson, Rt.Hn Sir J.(Mane'r|
|Ambrose, Robert||Chaplin, Rt, Hon, Henry||Ffreneh,Peter|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Chapman, Edward||Field, William|
|Arkwright,John Stanhope||Clancy,John Joseph||Finch, Rt.Hon. George H.|
|Arrol, Sir William||Clive, Captain Perey A.||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne|
|Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Cogan, Denis J.||Fison, Frederick William|
|Bailey, James(Walworth)||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Colomb,SirJohnCharles Ready||Flannery, Sir Fortescue|
|Balcarres, Lord||Colston Chas. Edw. H. Atnole||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Balfour, Rt.Hon. A.J.(Manch'r||Compton. Lord Alwyne||Fletchar, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry|
|Balfour,Capt. C. B.(Hornsey)||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Flower, Ernest|
|Balfour,Rt HnGernaldW.(Leeds||Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Flynn, James Christopher|
|Banbury,Sir Frederick George||Cox,Irwn Edward Bainbridge||Forster, Henry William|
|Bartley, Sir George C.T.||Crean, Eugene||Galloway, William Johnson|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Gardner, Ernest|
|Beekett, Ernest William||Crossley, Sir Savile||Garfit, William|
|Bignold, Arthur||Cullinan, J.||Gilhooly, James|
|Bigwood, James||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Godson, Sir AugustusFrederick|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Davenport, William Bromley-||Gordson,MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets|
|Boland,John||Delany, William||Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc.|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Dickson, Charles Soctt||Goschen, Hon. George|
|JoachimBousfield, William Robert||Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)|
|Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn||Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill|
|Brassey,Albert||Doogan, P.C.||Hain, Edward|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Dorington, Rt.Hon. Sir John E.||Halsey, Rt.Hon. Thomas F.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Doughty, George||Hammond, John|
|Butcher, John George||Douglas, Rt.Hon. Sir John E.||Harrington, Timothy|
|Camphell, John (Armagh,S.)||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.|
|Carew,James Laurence||Duffy,William J.||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Carson. Rt.Hon. Sir Edw.H.||Egerton, Hon. A.de Tatton||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Canvendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire||Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Healy, Timothy Michael|
§ On the whole he preferred the Lords Amendment with the modification, which he hoped the Government would be able to accept
§ MR. BRYCE
said he objected to the whole Amendment, because he thought that the less the secondary schools had to do with questions of sectarian education the better. Although the difficulties in the secondary schools were not quite the same as those which arose in elementary schools, still any arrangements for bringing in teachers of denominational doctrines from outside would interfere with the proper position of the ordinary teachers in the schools, The teacher was the proper person to give religious instruction; and to introduce another was very much to be deprecated, because it would lead to inefficiency and be a cause of complaint to the local education authority and the managers.
§ (5.13.) Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 2.31; Noes, 110. (Division List No. 637.)
|Heaton, John Henniker||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Hickman, Sir Alfred||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Hobhouse, RtHn H. (Somerset. E||Milvain, Thomas||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Hope, J.F (Sheffield. Brightside||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Round, Rt.Hon. James|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Mooney, John J.||Royds, Cletment Molynenx|
|Hndson, George Bickersteth||More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)||Rutherford, John|
|Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)||Morrell, George Herbert||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Jameson, Major J. Enstace||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Samuel, Harry s. (Limehouse)|
|Johnstone, Heywood||Murnaghan, George||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Jordan, Jeremiah||Murphy, John||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Joyce, Michael||Murray, RtHn. A. Graham(Bute||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Kemp, George||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Kennaway, Rt.Hon. Sir John H.||Myers, Willian Henry||Smith, Abel H. (Herford, East)|
|Kennedy, Patrick James||Nannetti, Joesph P.||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Kenyon-Slaney,Col. W.(Salop.||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Kimber, Henry||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour||O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Knowles, Lees||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Lawson, John Grant||O'Brien, William (Cork)||Talbot,Rt Hn. J.G. (Oxfd Univ.|
|Leamy, Edmund||O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.||Thompson, Dr EC(Monagh'n,N|
|Lecky, Rt.Hn. William Edw.H.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham||O'Doherty, William||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Tully, Jasper|
|Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||O'Dowd, John||Valentia, Viscount|
|Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||O'Shanghnessy, P. J.||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E(Taunton|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S.||Percy, Earl||Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.|
|Lowe, Francis William||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Wharton, Rt.Hon. John Lloyd|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Plummer, Walter R.||White, Patrick (Meath, North|
|Lucas Col. Francis (Lowestoft||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Whiteley, H.(Ashton-und Lyne|
|Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth||Power, Patrick Joseph||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Lundon, w.||Pretyman, Ernest George||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Macartney, Rt Hn. W.G. Ellison||Purvis, Robert||Wilson,A. Stanley(York,E.R.)|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert||Wodehouse, Rt.Hn. E. R.(Bath|
|MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Ratcliff, R. F.||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Rattigan, Sir William Henry||Wortley, Rt.Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Maconochie, A. W.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford||Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Remnant, James Farquharson||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|M'Fadden, Edward||Ridley, Hon. M W.(Stalybridge||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland- Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|M'Govern, T.||Ridley,S. Forde(Bethnal Green|
|M'Kean, John||Ritchie,Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Allen, CharlesP.(Gloue.,Stroud||Fowler, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Asher, Alexander||Fuller, J. M. F.||Mellor, Rt.Hon. John William|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Goddard. Daniel Ford||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerberHenry||Grant, Corrie||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)|
|Atherley., Jones, L.||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Morley, Rt. Hn. John(Montrose|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Grey, Rt.Hon. Sir E.(Berwick||Newnes, Sir George|
|Brigg, John||Griffith, Ellis J.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Harcourt,Rt.Hon. Sir William||Partington, Oswald|
|Bryce, Rt.Hon. James||Hardie,J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Caldwell, James||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Hayter, Rt.Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Cawley, Frederick||Helme, Norval Watson||Pilkington, Lient.-Col. Richard|
|Cremer, William Randal||Holland, Sir William Henry||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Crombie, John William||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Rea, Russell|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Howard,J.(Midd.,Tottenham)||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Rigg, Richard|
|Denny, Colonel||Jacoby, James Alfred||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)|
|Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles||Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Kearley, Hudson E.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Langley, Batty||Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)|
|Dyke,Rt.Hon. Sir William Hart||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles|
|Edwards, Frank||Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Emmott, Alfred||Levy, Maurice||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Evans, Sir FrancisH(Maidstone||Louth, Thomas||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||M'arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||M'Kenna, Reginald||Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside|
|Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.|
|Soares, Ernest J.||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)||Whitlety, J. H. (Halifax|
|Spear, John Ward||Toulmin, George||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants||Trevelyan,Charles Philips||Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk. Mid.|
|Stevenson, Francis S.||Tritton, Charles Ernest||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.|
|Strachey, Sir Edward||Wallace, Robert||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.|
|Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr||Weir, James Galloway|
|Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings||White, George (Nurfolk)|
In page 3, line 14, aftger 'them' insert 'a body of managers consisting of.'
In page 3, line, leave out 'representing local authorities.'
In page 3, line 21, leave out 'also as provided in this Act,' and insert.
§ Agreed to.
In page 4, line 4, after 'managers,' insert 'but no directions given undre this provision shall be such as to interfere with reasonable facilities for religious instruction during school hours.'
§ The next Amendement, read a second time.
§ Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment."
§ Proposed Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Lords Amendment agreed to.
In page 4, line 20, after 'authority,' insert 'provided that all damage due to fair wear and tear in the use of any room in the school-house for the prupose of a public elementary school shall be made good by the local education authority [but this obligation of the local education authority shall throw no additional charge on any public funds].'
§ The next Amendment, read a second time.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he proposed to move the omission of the word "ail" in order to insert "such." but before he did so he desiered to ask Mr. 1384 Speaker's ruling as to whether this Amendment was not a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. He knew that in order to avoid that decision the Lords had inserted the last two lines of the Amendment; but even with those words he suggested that a burden might be thrown on the endowment and the fees, with the indirect result that less money would be derived for other purposes than fees and endowments, and that so, indirectly, a burden would be thrown on the public funds. He submitted that, as a matter or privilege, the Amendment was out of order.
I do not think the Amendment is out of order. No doubt it would at the end, but I think those words prevent there being any breach of privilege.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that, that being Mr. Speaker's ruling, he would move as an Amendment the omission of the word "all" in order to insert "such," his intention being afterwards to move a further Amendement, so as to provide that the damage in the use of the school rooms for elementary school purposes to be made good by the local authority should be "such" "as the loval authority consider to be" due to fair wear and tear. As the Lords Amendment stood at the present moment the local authority was to bear the whole expense of wear and tear, although the school rooms were only in their hands for a third, or at most a half, of the time. During the evenings, with the possible exception of three, the school would be in the hands of the managers, and also on Saturday, during holiday time, and on Sundays, during holiday time, and on Sundays. Was it just to say that the wear and tear attributable to concerts, balls, entertainments, and Sunday schools, exclusively in the interest of the management and the denomination, should be borne by the local authority and the ratepayers? Did the Bishops 1385 want them to keep up a kind of a concerthall and ball-room in each parish for the use of their denomination? If there was any wear and tear which they considered was due to the use of the school as a school, that might be paid for, but it should be confined to that. Then, who was to judge how much of the wear and tear was attributable to Sunday school or penny-reading uses, and how much today school use? At present no one was appointed to assess the damage, neither the Board of Education, the local authority, nor the managers. Were the managers going to send in the bill to the local authority? He contended that it was a matter for the local authority to decide, but at any rate someone ought to decide it. He submitted that the House was entitled to hear what the Government interpretation of the Clause was.
Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
To leave out the word 'all,' and insert the word 'such.' "—(Mr. Lloyd George.)
§ Question proposed, ''That the word 'all' stand part of the Lords Amendment."
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON () Manchester, N. E.
Would the hon. Gentleman say what he proposes should come afterwards, because this is rather important.
said he intended to move afterwards to insert the words "such damage as the local authority consider to lie due to fair wear and tear of the school."
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said he had been asked how the Amendment would read in connection with the rest of the Clause. The effect of the Amendment, as he took it, was this. As between the managers and the local education authority it would throw upon that authority the responsibility for some portion of the repairs. The general obligation to keep the school-house in repair was thrown upon the managers, and the Amendment of the Lords threw upon the local education authority the liability to make good to the managers such portion of the repairs as were caused by wear aiul tear from the use of the 1386 building as a public elementary school. How was the amount to be determined? If the two parties did not agree, obviously the question must be decided by some one. [An HON. MEMBER: The Bishop; and laughter.] The hon. Member proposed that it should be decided by one party to the controversy.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said that' that was not the question they were now dealing with. The hon. Gentleman suggested this question should be decided by one party to the controversy—the local education authority. The Clause, however, provided further on that any question arising under this section between the local education authority and the managers, should be decided by the Board of Education. It would fall on them to decide any such question.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON, who waa very indistinctly heard in the Press Gallery, was understood to say that he held that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs would not be unsatisfactory. It conceded, to a great extent, the principle for which the supporters of voluntary schools were contending. The practical application of it would be greatly to relieve the managers from the burdens which they laboured under. It had been his good fortune to have a very large acquaintance with the voluntary schools of this country, and he knew the position of the managers. He desired the House to understand how vital it was to the schools that the man gers should be relieved of even a portion of this expense. There were many cases where the expense of repairs exceeded the amount of the subscriptions, and knowing, as he did, most touching instances of the efforts made to keep schools going—Roman Catholic schools, Church of England schools, as well as schools of other religious bodies—he pressed on the House the duty of relieving them of some of these expenses.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said that what was proposed here was that it was to be the managers who were to spend the money, and the local authority was t 1387 find it. This could not be right, for the managers were not representative of the general body of ratepayers in any sense of the word. The local authority were not on the spot, and the question of wear and tear could only be known to the managers. He thought the House wished to know what were the views of hon. Gentlemen who represented County Councils and were advocates of the interests of the ratepayers of this change in the Bill, which threw on the ratepayers the obligation which it was the intention of the Government should be borne by the voluntary subscribers. He desired to know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite who were going directly to vote in favour of casting this obligation on the ratepayers, and make the masters of the expenditure, not the local authority, but the managers, had anything to urge in its favour. This was a very serious matter for the country districts. The man who lived in a £5 cottage would find his rates raised as it was, but the Government were going to make the local authorities find the money and not allow them to spend it. The conclusion that these people would draw was that they were going to pay an education rate they had never paid before, and were going to be allowed no voice in the spending of it. The persons finding the money ought to have control over the expenditure.
SIR JOHN DORRINGTON () Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury
quite agreed that the local authorities ought to have the control of this expenditure, and that was exactly what the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carnarvon effected. He had taken some interest in this question, and in Committee had moved a similar Amendment, because he thought the same principle as applied to landlord and tenant ought to apply here. For that reason he was very glad his hon. friend had moved this Amendment. He was quite aware that this change must throw an additional charge on the country, but he thought it was an equitable charge, and that it would not be a very large one, and he hoped the Amendment would be carried.
§ (6.0.) MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE () Somersetshire, E.
stated, as showing the opinion of the County Councils 1388 on the matter, that at the last meeting of the County Councils Association, a resolution was passed to the effect that in the opinion of the Councils no further charges should be thrown on the rates by this Bill. The great danger to the administration of the Bill in country districts would arise from the weight of the rate rather than from any other cause. He hardly agreed with his right hon. friend that the addition would be very slight. He conceived that the amount of additional burden thrown on the local authority would have some correspondence to the amount of relief afforded to the managers, and if it amounted to anything like 2s. a scholar, as was suggested in the House of Lords, it would mean an extra 1/2d. rate in the countv he represented. He should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member tor Carnarvon Boroughs, not only because of the danger involved in the additional rate, but also because of the endless field of dispute that would be opened up by the proposal in the Bill between the local authority and the managers. He could conceive of no more fertile source of dispute than the question of whether certain damage arose from fair wear and tear or from some other cause such as defective construction or unfair use. It was a most extraordinary thing that the local authority should have to pay for the fair wear and tear, and not for unfair damage done to a school. It was said that in case of dispute these matters would be referred to the Board of Education. He desired to relieve the Board of Education from any further burdens in this respect, and he was quite certain that that department did not wish its inspectors to have to decide between local authorities and managers as to whether certain damage was due to fair wear and tear or not.
§ MR. BRYCE
hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, as they would thereby remove a source of much trouble and friction. The fairest way would be to leave the local education authority to determine the matter; they were sure to deal with the question in a fair and liberal mariner. The feeling of the local authorities was the first thing to be considered, and when the House had their deliberate resolution ex- 1389 pressing their unwillingness that any further charge should be thrown on the rates, they might conclude, a fortiori, that they were exceedingly unwilling to have any further humiliation inflictede upon them by being subjected in the matter to the Board of Euducation. The Board of Education would be at a distance; the local education authority would be at a distance; but the managers, being on the spot, under the vague terms of the Clause, would be able to put almost anything they liked under the head of wear and tear. The whole weight of argument was in favour of treating the local authority with proper respect, and leaving this matter to their determination.
§ SIR GEORGE BARTLEY () Islington, N.
supported the proposed Amendment. From his experience in the Education Department, he thought it would be unnecessarily burdening that Board to throw upon it the work of deciding how much whitewash and paint was required in each of 12,000 schools. Complete justice would be done by leaving the matter to the determination of the local authority.
§ MR. JAMES HOPE () Sheffield, Brightside
pointed out that the difficulty referred to be previous speakers already existed in the Bill. Under sub-Section (2) of Clause 7, questions in dispute had to go to the Board of Education, and if some questions, why not all?
§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said the Amendment would make a considerable change in the Bill from the Catholic point of view. No doubt as between the different Protestant denominations the County Council or local authority would give absolutely fair play but if those belonging to the unpopular religion—which, of course, the Catholic religion was in England had to appeal to the local authority, this Amendment would make an enormous difference. It was said there would be an appeal to the Board of Education on all these matters. Whether that was so or not in this particular case he was not certain, but ven if it were, the same difficulty could then be thrown on the Board of Education, because they would have to decide as to every pot of whitewash or 1390 paint that was used on the school. The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boaroughs had suggested that the difficulty was insurmountable, whereas, as had been pointed out, the very same difficulty existed later on in the Clause. He could understand that many hon. Members were anxious that the matter should be dealt with in the nature of a compromise. He, however, had carefully watched the course of the debate, and had noticed that the Opposition, instead of being satisfied when Amendments were made, like the horse-leech simply asked for "more;" they divided against the Amendments as amended, and the Government, instead of gaining anything from yielding to the Opposition, simply involved themselves in further entanglements. If the Government were afraid of the constituencies, as had been alleged, they might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb. The Chief Secretary at Dover recently advised the House of Commons to "go blind" on this matter. They certainly had not been going blind that evening, as a considerable amount of light had been thrown by the tactics of which the hon. Member for Carnarvon was such a master. If Amendments such as these were to be accepted, what return were the supporters of the Bill to get. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed, but was not the House of Commons a sort of legislative Stock Exchange, where Members got one thing in return for giving up another? That, at any rate, was how Irishmen generally got anything. For himself, therefore, while appreciating the anxiety shown by the county authorities with regard to the rate, he respectfully hoped the Government would not yield in this matter.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the hon. and learned Member had suggested that although various Amendments had been accepted, the House were no nearer the conclusion of their labours. He would not argue that question, but he could assure the hon. and learned. Member that he had not recommended to the House the adoption of a single Amendment for any reason except that it was either absolutely innocuous or that it was an improvement to the Bill. No man accustomed to Parliamentary life 1391 would deny that there were cases in which Amendments of another character might be worth acceptance by the Government as part of a great compromise. But no such transaction had been suggested by the other side, and nothing of the kind had been adopted by the Government, so that the hon. Member for North Louth might make himself easy on that point. As to the actual Amendment before the House, there appeared to be on the Minsterial side a considerable body of opinion in favour of it. It was a matter that would have to be decided by the House for itself, but he confessed to a feeling of surprise that it should be thought a convenient thing to make the local authority the judge in its own cause, to decide on the precise amount which it was to contribute towards the carrying out of the legal obligation which would be thrown upon it if the main Amendment were accepted. Of course, if in practice the Board of Education were to have sent up to it for decision, week after week, quarrels between the education authority and the managers as to the exact quantity of paint or whitewash that was to be paid for, the burden would be intolerable. The education authority and the managers would, no doubt, come to a working arrangement as to the amount of damage done according to the share in the buildings which each party respectively enjoyed. There might be difficulties at first, but it would all work out right in the end. He must again remind the House that in the Bill as it was sent up to the House of Lords a precisely analogous question was left to be decided by the education authority. In sub-Section 2, of Clause 7, hon. Gentlemen would find provision made in regard to damage caused to furniture or to the room other than damage arising from fair wear and tear, and all disputes arising under Section 7 were to be determined by the Board of Education. Therefore, they had really already decided that the Education Department could deal with these questions. In the circumstances, subject to anything that might fall from other Gentlemen in the course of the argument, he would be disposed to say that, while the practical difficulties 1392 of the Amendment were not of such acharacter as to make it unworkable, it was really rather a serious thing, if the Amendment was to be taken at all, to turn the education authority into judges of their own financial liabilities.
§ SIR THOMAS ESMONDE () Wexford, N.
said he should certainly vote against the hon. Member for carnarvon's Amendment. The First Lord of the Treasury had clearly pointed out what were the facts of the case. In the event of a dispute as to what was fair wear and tear, the Amendment would not allow an appeal, but as the managers had a right of appeal to the Board of Education. He hoped the House would agree to continue that appeal and allow it to remain in the Bill. It was all very well to say that the Education Department could not attend to matters of this kind, but what was the use of a Department for Education if it could not settle such disputes. If this Amendment were accepted as it now stood, very few cases would come before the Education Department. He spoke on behalf of the Catholic schools of this country, and he hoped the House would refuse to make the local education authority the judge of tis own case, but allow in cases of dispute an appeal to the Board of Education. The local education authority was represented on the board of managers of the school, and that ought to be sufficient to prevent those disputes. It was not possible, on the hon. Member for Carnarvon's Amendment, to discuss the whole policy of the Lords Amendments. but this Amendment appeared to be the thin end of the wedge, and inasmuch as this question was one of vital improtance to Catholic schools, he should vote against the Amendment.
§ SIR HENRY FOWLER () Wolverhampton, E.
said he wished to enter a protest against the assumptions of the hon. Member for North Louth, in reference to the attitude of County and Borough Councils in England towards Roman Catholics in dealing with this matter. His hon. friend the Member for North Louth seemed to entertain the opinion that in Great Britain there was that strong line of administrative difference 1393 butween the Roman Catholic faith and the Protestant faith, which perhaps unfortunately existed to an extent in Ireland to which he himself was not competent to form an opinion upon. He was entirely opposed to the netion which the hon. Member appeared to entertain that the County Councils and the Borough Councils of England would allow their religious opinion to interfere with their administrative actions in regard to this Bill. He conceived it to be utterly impossible in the most PLrotestant county in England that any injustice would be done by English public men to any great community like the community of the roman Catholic faith, and no class of men would be more indignant at treating the Roman Catholics unfairly than those public men in the counties and boroughs of England. Therefore, he thought the Roman Catholic Members of this House might dismiss from their minds the idea that they would be subjected to any disability or disadvantage in the administration of this Act on account of their faith. The Prime Minister had assumed that there was going to be a conflict of authority upon points upon which he thought no conflict would ever arise. The hon. Baronet the Member for Gloncestershire had put the case quite fairly. He believed that the County and Borough Councils would regard this as a purely administrative matter, and they would do what was right between the conflicting parties. If they were to have an appeal to the Board of Education. which would mean the sending down of an inspector to inquire upon the spot in order to decide the damage done to a carpet, or a desk, or perhaps the carving of some boy's name on the furniture of the school, he thought they were using a very large hammer to crack a nut. He believed that the County and Borough Councils were quite capable of doing what was fair between man and man, and he should support the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon as an administrative improvement.
§ MR. CRIPPS () Lancashire, Stretford
said he quite agreed with everything that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He was one of those who voted against putting struc- 1394 tural repairs on the local authority, and he should certainly have to vote against the Lords Amendment as it stood. If the Education Board was brought in upon this question the only result would be that it would throw a large amount of expense of expense upon the localities concerned. He welcomed the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Carnarvon. and he was most anxious that it should be carried.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said he was surprised that the Government had was surprised that the Government had not jumped at this Amendment. What was the position which the Government took at the outset? It was that the managers out of funds provided by them should keep the school in good repair. The Secretary to the Board of Education stated that this was fair and reasonable, and the hon. Member for Stretford expressed the sincere hope that denominationalists would not try to minimise the obligation laid upon them. He thought it was a little hard that the Government had been driven by such hard taskmasters. The principle now laid down was that the local authority should should make themselves responsible for the rapairs. The Lords Amendment provided for a part of the repairs falling on the local authority, a principle which those on his side had resisted all along. He strongly recommended hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with their adversaries while they were in the way with them.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS () Glamorganshire, Mid
said he had heard the speeches of the hon. Member for Carnarvon. and the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tewkesbury Division, and he did not think that before in the whole of the discussions upon this Bill. they had found those two hon. Members in agreement, for they were the leaders of two entirely different schools of thought. His hon. and learned friend the Member for Carnarvon took radical views, while the right hon. Baronet took ultra Tory views, and consequently he had to ask himself what was the meaning of all this? He thought if meant that those who could not vote for the Amendment of the Lords, which was entirely against the bargain 1395 made in this House, were going to vote for the Amendment of his hon. It was perfectly true that if the Lords Amendment was going to be carried, the Amendment on it of his hon. friend was rather an improvement, because if minimised to some extent the amount of the repairs, and gave the local authority the opportunity of deciding the matter themselves. It was abundantly clear now, from the speech of the hon. Member opposite, that the Amendment was adopted on the other side—not by the Gvoernment—in order that hon. Members might have a bridge, and that they might be able to tell their constituents, whom they feared, that they could not vote for the Amendment of the Lords in its entirety. [Cries of "No."] Well they would see. They wished to be able to tell their constituents that they voted for the excellent Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Carnarvon. a strong opponent of the Bill. He entirely objected to this state of flux on the Amendment now before the House unless they had it on all the Amendments. On the Amendments which had come down from another place they ought to have the views of the Government definitely stated. It was not fair of the Government to say on the most improtant Amendment which had come down "We will give you an open hand." He gathered that the Prime Minister's private view was rather against this Amendment. His hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon had asked him, sotto roce, "Why was it accepted?" He thought he had pointed out most clearly that it would be accepted by the other side, because it made it easy for them to vote for the Lords Amendment. Under those circumstances, he would be compelled to vote against it.
§ MR. PLATT-HIGGINS () Salford, N.
said the Board of Education had been able for thirty years to assist the vountary schools in the matter of repairs, and he saw no reason why they should not continue to give that assistance.
*MR. DUKE () Plymouth
thought the Amendment should be accepted in the interests of peace and of education. He could not imagine anything more disastrous to the public life of the country 1396 than that there should be a period of strife extending over years between the managers of the non-provided schools and the local authority as to whether certain matters of repair, of white washing and painting, for instance, were to be paid for by one or the other, with an appeal to the Board of Education, not where the necessity of the case required it, but where there was friction between the two authorities. He did not know why the hon. Member for Carnarvon should have proposed this Amendment, but all he could say was there were excellent reasons why Members on that side of the House should support it. It might be that the hon. Gentleman proposed it with a view to the peace of those who were to administer education. He was confident it cust have the result of excluding from the area of friction between the managers of the non-provided schools and the local authority large and constantly recurring questions. The amount of repairs for which each was to be answerable was in itself a small matter, and if there were any independent tribunal to refer it to in the district, it would be quite an easy matter to settle. The Lords Amendment, however, might set up a source of irritation and friction between the managers and the local authority, and he should hail with satisfaction a proposal leaving it to the sense of fairness, if not generosity, of the local bodies and managers to decide.
§ SIR H CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth said that this is a small matter, or used some expression of that kind. I cannot get it out of my mind that the Bishop of Manchester—
said that what he stated was that the Amendment dealt with small matters, but that it might lead to a great deal of friction.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
it dealt with small matter! But I say that we must remember that the Bishop of Manchester estimated the grant to the vountary schools by his Amendment at no less than £350,000 a year. That is his estimate, but I do not endorse it. I think it is a considerably exaggerated estimate, but never mind. That is the estimate he put upon it, and 1397 he, being the author of the Amendment, ought to be an authority on the subject. I quite appreciate the liberal diversity of opinion on the question of tactics that has arisen between my hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon and my hon. friend the Member for MidGlamorgan. The whole situation we are in with regard to this Amendment from the Lords is grotesque in the last degree. We are discussing an Amendment which in itself is ridiculous. I had almost said it was the greatest imposture that could be perpetrated on the House of Commons. It is not the less of an imposture that it is perpetrated, as it were, with a wink and an intimation that we must not be alarmed because it is an imposture. When any Amendmentd is moved, I confess I bear in mind what will be the ultimate result after all the negotiations and manoeuvres with regard to this Clause are finished. How is it likely that this Amendment of the Lords will be met? when an Amendment like the one before us is moved, which will have the effect of mitigating and modifying the ultimate consequences of the Lords Amendment, then we come to the difficulty exemplified by the speeches of my hon. friends. On the one hand they, desire to make the ultimate evil as small as possible; on the other hand, if you make it as small as possible you, in a tactical sense, weaken your position for the purpose of the next debate and the division which is to come. I confess that I range myself with those who look to the ultimate result rather than the tactical consequence in this House. I have derived a good deal of amusement from the speeches made by some of my hon. friends opposite whom I could point to, and which disclose the true purpose of the action they are going to take. But let us bear in mind that this is an Amendment from the point of view of those who dislike the whole thing, who are opposed to the Bishop of Manchester's Amendment, and who think it is a
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Balfour, Rt.Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John|
|Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds||Bullard, Sir Harry|
|Agg-Gardner. James Tynte||Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Burke, E. Haviland-|
|Allen, CharlesP. (Glouc., Stroud||Barran, Rowland Hirst||Compbell, John (Armagh,S.)|
|Ambrose, Robert||Bigwood, James||Carew, James Laurence|
|Anstruther. H. T.||Boland, John||Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton|
|Atherley James, L.||Bond, Edward||Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire|
|Baldwin, Alfied||Brigg, John||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)|
§ breach of the bargain that was made. [Cries of "No!"] and who think that it is something in addition to the price that was to be paid.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
I will give the hon. Baronet the benefit of the word bargain; but I will still say that the Bishop of Manchester's Amendment is an addition to the price that was settled in this House and with which we were led to understand the friends of the voluntary schools were satisfied. It is on that ground that we object to it. It is because we think the arrangement was too beneficial to them before. Now we have an Amendment put forward with the view not only of putting the administration of the matter on a more reasonable and possible footing, but of mitigating the effect of what is proposed. While my eyes are perfectly open to the effect of the tactical results that will arise, I think the ultimate effect is of much more importance, and therefore I will vote with my hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon.
§ MR. BOUSFIELD () Hackney, N.
said the two halves of the right hon. Gentleman's speech were opposed to one another. It was quite clear that if this Amendment was carried the probability was that the Amendment from the Lords would be carried too. He hoped hon. Members would pause before they voted against the present Amendment.
§ (6.43.) Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 165; Noes, 194. (Division List No. 638.)
|Clancy, John Joseph||Keswick, William||Partington, Oswald|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Kimber, Henry||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Percy, Earl|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Knowles, Less||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Langley, Batty||Pummer, Walter R.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Lawson, John Grant||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Leamy, Edmund||Purvis, Robert|
|Crean, Engene||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Rea, Russell|
|Cullinan, J.||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Davenport, William Bromley-||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green|
|Delany, William||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Doogan, P. C.||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Rutherford, John|
|Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Duffy, William J.||Lundon, W.||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Egerton, Hon. A. De Tatton||Mac Donnell, Dr. Mark A.||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Sheehan, Dasniel Daniel|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan||MacNeill. John Gordon Swift||Smith, HC (Northumb. Tyneside|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r||Mac Veagh, Jeremiah||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)|
|French, Peter||M'Fadden, Edward||Sullivan, Donal|
|Field, William||M'Govern, T.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Fisher, William Hayes||M'Kean, John||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'n,N|
|Fletcher, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry||Mooney, John J.||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Flynn, James Christopher||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Gilhooly, James||Morrell, George Herbert||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Murnaghan, George||Tully, Jasper|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury||Murphy, John||Valentia, Viscount|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Murray. Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Hammond, John||Myers, William Henry||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Harrington, Timothy||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Healy, Timothy Michael||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||White, Patrick (Meath. North)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne|
|Hickman, Sir Alfred||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Hope, J. F.(Shettield, Brightside||O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid||Willoughvby de Eresby, Lord|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||O'Brien, Patriek (kilkenny)||Willox, Sir JohnArchibald|
|Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.) (Bath)|
|Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||O'Brien, Wiliam (Cork)||Wodehouse, Rt.Hn. E.R.(Batch)|
|Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)||O'Connor, James (Wieklow, W.||Wortley, Rt.Hon. C.B. Stuart-|
|Jameson, Major J. Eustace||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George|
|Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||O'Dpherty, William||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Jordon, Jeremiah||O'Dannell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Dowd, John||TELERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Griffith-Boscawen and Mr. Galloway.|
|Kemp, George||O'Kelly James (Roseommon, N.|
|Kennedy, Patrick James||O'Malley, William|
|Kenyon, Hon.Geo. T.(Denbigh)||O'Shaughuessy, P. J.|
|Kenjon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bryce, Rt.Hon. James||Dighy, John K. D. Wingfield-|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Buteher, John Geroge||Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles|
|Arnold Forester, Hugh O.||Caldwell, James||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph|
|Asher, Alexander||Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Doughty, George|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Causton, Richard Knight||Doxford, Sir William Theodore|
|Asquith, Rt.Hn. Hcrbert Henry||Cawley, Frederick||Duke, Henry Edward|
|Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Duncan, J. Hastings|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Chamberlain, Rt.Hn J.A.(Worc.||Dyke, Rt.Hon. Sir William Hart|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Chaplin, Rt.Hon. Henry||Edwards, Frank|
|Balearres, Lord||Chapman, Edward||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Doughlas|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Colomb, SirJohn Charles Ready||Emmott, Alfred|
|Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Colston Chas Edw. H. Athole||Evans, Sir FrancisH.(Maidstone|
|Bathurst, Hon. Alten Benjamin||Compton, Lord Alwyne||Faber, George Denison (York)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Finch, Frederick William|
|Bignold, Arthur||Cremer, William Randal||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Fitmaurice, Lord Edmond|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Crombie, John William|
|Bowles. T. Gibson (King'sLynn||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Flower, Ernest|
|Brassey, Albert||Davies, Alfred, (Carmarthen)||Forster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Dickson, Charles Scott||Fowler, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||M' Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Garfit, William||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn||M'Kenna, Reginald||Sinclair, John (Foriarshire)|
|Goddard, Danicel Ford||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Smith, Abel H. (Hert ford. East|
|Godson, Sir Augustns Frederiek||Markham, Arthur Basil||Smith, James Parker (Lanarls|
|Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Gore, Hon. S. F. Orunsby-(Line.)||Milvain, Thomasd||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Grant, Corrie||Moon, Fdward Robert Paey||Spear, John Ward|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Morganal. Lloyd (Carmarthem)||Spencer, Rt.Hn C.R.(Northants|
|Grey, Rt.Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)||Morley Charles (Brecon-hire)||Speneer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich|
|Hain, Edward||Morley, Rt. Hn. John(Montrose||Soevenson, Franeis S.|
|Haldane, Rt.Hon. Richard B.||Morton, Arthur H. Aymer||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Halsey, Rt.Hon. Thomes F.||Murray, Charles. I. (Coventry)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Harcourt, Rt.Hon. Sir William||Newnes,Sir George||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Hardie,J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil||Norton. Capt. Ceeil William||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Harmsworth, R. Leieester||Pease Herbert Pike(Derlington||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radelitte|
|Hateh, Ernest Frederick Geo.||Pemberton, John S.G.||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E,|
|Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-||Philipps. John Wynford||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Hayter, Rt.Hon. Sir ArthurD.||Piikington, Lient. Col. Richard||Thomas, David Altred Merthyr|
|Henderson, Sir Alexander||Powell, Sir Franeis Sharp||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings|
|Hohhouse, Rt. HnH(somerset,E||Pryee Jones, Lt,-Edward||Themas. J. A.(Glamorgan. Gower|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Quilrer, Sir Cuthbert||Thomson, F.W. (York. W.R.|
|Hoult, Joseph||Ratehff, R. F.||Thornton, Perey M.|
|Howard. J.(Midd.,Tottenham)||Rattigan. Sir William Henry||Tonlmin, George|
|Hudson, George Bicker-teth||Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dmmfries||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Jacoby, James Altred||Rickett, J. Compton||Wallace, Robert|
|Johns-tone, Heywood||Ridley, Hon. M. W(Stalybridge||Wallon, Joseph (Barusley)|
|Jone-David Brynmor (Swansea||Rigg Hichard||Warner, Thoma-Courtenay T.|
|Kearley, hndson E.||Ritehie, Rt. Hn. Chas, Thomson||Weir, James Gailoway|
|Kennaway. Rt. Hoa. SirJohnll.||Roberts. John Bryn (Eition)||Welby. L.t.-Col.A.CE(Taunton|
|Lawrenee, Sir huseph (Monmth||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Welby. Sir Charles G. E.(Notte.|
|Layland-Barralt, Frameos||Roberts, Samel (Shellield)||Whurton, Rt.Hon. John Lloyd|
|Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham||Robertson. Edmund (Dundec)||Whiteley. George (York, W. R.|
|Lees. Sir Elltott (Birkenhead)||Robson, William Snowdon||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Leese, SirJosephF.(Aeerington)||Rollit. Sir Albert Kaye||Wilson, Fred. W. (Nofrolk Mid.|
|Levy, Manrice||Round, Rt.Hon. James||Wilson, Henry J. York. W. R.|
|Lough, Thomas||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Lowe, Franeis William||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Lueas, Col. Franeis (Lowestoit||Saudys. Lieut. - COl. Thos. Myles||Yexall, James Henry|
|Lvttelton, Hoa. Alfred||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Maeartney, RtHn. W.G. Ellison||Sehwann, Charles E.||TELERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Lloyd-George and Sir John Brunner.|
|Maelona, John Cumming||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Maconochie, A. W.||Sharpe, William Ealward T.|
§ Proposed words inserted in the Lords Amendment.
Amendment made to the Lords Amendment
By inserting, after the word 'damage,'the words 'as local authority consider to be.'" (Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he was going to move to insert after "schoolhouse" the words "as an," so as to make it clear that the wear and tear was due only in respect of the use of the schoolhouse as an elementary school.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
asked the hon. Gengleman thought was the weakness of the words actually in the Lords Amendment from his point of view.
§ MR. SOARES () Devonshire, Barnstaple
moved to strike out the words in line 3 of the Lords Amendment, "for the purpose of a public elementary school." in order to insert "for educational purposes."
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON
rose to move the omission of the words "but this obligation of the local education authority shall throw no additional burden on any puublic funds."
§ MR. TREVELYAN
rose on a point of order. These words, he said, had been in confessedly to cover the question of privilege, and were net 1403 meant to stand. He therefore asked Mr. Speaker whether it was competent to move an Amendment, the only result of which would be to re convert the Lords Amendment into a proposal which would be contrary to one of the most cherished privileges of the House of Commons.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY
asked whether it was not in the recollection of Mr. Speaker that, on the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, 1898, he took this point in exactly similar circumstances, and was ruled against by the Chair.
I remember the hon. and learned Member did take a point of order on that occasion, but I forget whether it was exactly the same one. On that occasion the words inserted were struck out by order of this House, and the Lords Amendment, without those words, was left in the Bill. There can be no question of a breach of privilege arising out of something which we do in this House. The question is whether there is a breach of privilege by the House of Lords. If the Lords send down a Bill to a Committee which contains no breach of privilege, and we do something to it to put it into a different condition, that cannot be a breach of the privileges of this House.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
desired to raise another point of order. Assuming that these words were omitted, a burden would be imposed upon the ratepayers. Mr. Speaker had ruled on Report that no burden could be imposed on the ratepayers except in Committee of the House. He submitted it was not competent, therefore, to impose a burden on the ratepayers by a vote of this House without a recommittal of the Bill in respect of the particular matter to be considered. He ventured to submit that, if the House of Commons could not do this on its own initiative, the mere fact that the House of Lords had committed a breach of privilege did not confer jurisdiction on the House of Commons to do a thing which it could not do of itself, and that there must be a recommittal of the Bill before they could consider this Amendment.
That is not so The rule is by the hon. Gentleman corectly stated as to the Report stage in this House. But, as regards the Lords Amendments, it is different. If the result of an Amendment in this House of a Lords Amendment is to create a charge which was not in the Bill when it went up to the Lords, that is perfectly legitimate, It has been done over and overagain.
Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
To leave out the words 'but this obligation of the local education authority shall throw no additional charge on any public funds.' "—(Sir James Fergusson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords' Amendment."
§ MR. TREVELYAN
hoped that, if this Amendment were in order, the House would not adopt it, but would pass the proposal as it came down from the Peers, in its naked and original absurdity. As the Clause stood it meant nothing. It meant that an obligation was placed on the local education authority, and that the local education authority was told that it was not to have funds out of which to discharge that obligation. If they struck out these words they practically submitted themselves to be the victims of the farce that had been played upon them by the Bishops, and he thought it was better, as a protest in favour of their privileges, to keep this Clause whole, impossible and nonsensical. If they tamely submitted another place to insert Amendments of this kind they reduced their privileges in the matter of money questions to a nullity. If such a thing were allowed now, it would form a precedent upon which the other House could do anything. Suppose the House of Peers were to propose to reduce the income tax by a penny in the £. What was there to prevent their saying, "Provided the revenue be not thereby diminished?" What was there to prevent their doubling the Corn Tax, and saying it should throw no greater burden on the tax-payers? This had been done upon the instruction of the Bishops. They had used their ungracious opportunity in the other House, where there was no representation of any other religious section interested in the Bill, to take all they could get; but in this instance they had 1405 found, in obtaining something for the Church. they had committed a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons, and when they found their doubtful power slippling away, they had induced the temporal powers to insert the two lines now proposed to be left out, in order to gain their ends. He hoped the House would resist the Amendment.
*MR. WANKLYN () Bradford, Central
said he had only one objection to the Amendment, which was that it was a Bishops' Amendment. He had de monstrated on the Third Reading that this was not a Bishops' Bill, but a Bill based on the Memorandum of Mr. Foster, of 1869. In Bradford they had long since been educated to understand that every school which complies with the requirements of the Education Department, and has a Conscience Clause, is entitled to full aid from either the rates or the taxes, or from both.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
said he thought he might be allowed to bring the House back to the question before it, which did not require to be discussed at much further length. He had already described what the whole Amendment seemed to him to be—an absurdity. It asked the House to agree to a farce. There was a precedent to which his hon. and learned friend the Member for North Louth had referred, that of 1898, but the difference between that precedent and the present case and it appeared to him to be an essential difference—was that in 1898 words were put in which took away the sting of a breach of privilege from a proposal which people concerned in the Bill desired to see carried into effect, the proposal of a desirable thing. It became apparent in the other House, however, that after all it was out of order, because it involved a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons, and this ingenious method was adopted to circumvent that difficulty. But that was a very different matter from the present proposal, which was known to be highly controversial, and which by this manocuvre had been brought into the House of Commons when otherwise there would have been no opportunity and no place to discuss it. What were they to do when these underlined words were brought before 1406 them? He thought the course for those who held his views to take was to leave the words in, to leave them, as his hon. friend had said, in their naked deformity, and in their original absurdity.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman give such advice to the House, because he had told them that these words were absurd and a farce, and yet recommended their retention. Without going to the other extreme, and adopting the modest phrase of his right hon. friend, who said that to cut out the words would perhaps improve the Amendment, he did not think the House, whatever they thought of the substantial Amendment, ought to embody in the Bill deliberately what they regarded as an absurdity or a farce. The Amendment was not the Government's; every one knew that the Government were beaten in the other House. While hon. Members might disagree altogether with the proposal made by the Bishop of Manchester, he did not think it was consistent with proper procedure that they should deliberately embody in a statute that which they declared publicly that they regarded as an absurdity and a farce.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said either the House did or did not cherish its rights and privileges, and thesubstance of this matter was that the Amendment before the House, as adopted by the House of Lords, was substantially a breach of the privileges of this House. He thought they were entitled to something more than the dialectical answer vouchasafed by the First Lord of the Treasury. It behoved them to be careful lest while indulging in this play of putting in words in the other House and deleting them in this House one of the mose cherished principles of this House were lost. He regretted that the Prime Minister, who was also the Leader of this House, and ought, therefore, to be the chief protector of its privileges, should make himself a partys to the farce they were now going through, and was assisting the other House to destroy the peivileges of this House.
COLONEL PLEKINGTON () Lancashire. Newton
said that, as a member of the House of Commons, he felt, as soon as he saw it on the Paper, that this was one of the most improper Amendments that had ever been put into a Bill. It ought either to be rejected as it stood or passed as it stood. If the latter course were adopted it would be an Amendment sent down from the Peers, and no reflection could be cast upon this House of Commons. That an English House of Peers should send down an Amendment, which, if passed, would be an absolute absurdity, was a course unworthy of any Chamber. As Englishmen they expected to see both private and public business done straightforwardly, and, although he had been a loyal supporter of the Government, he should certainly vote against the proposal, which he felt was practically an insult to the House of Commons. If they allowed the original Amendment to be passed by the means suggested, probably the House of Lords would act in this the Government should have departed from the Bill as it left the Commons, and he was surprised that no other protest had been raised. Had he not raised a protest he felt that he should have been disgraced as a Member of Parliament.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said that, as in the minute that remained to the House before it susperded, he would point out exactly what took place in 1898. So far from that being a minor matter, as the Leader of the Opposition had suggested, there was a very strong direction to the House of Commons by the House of Lords. First of all there was the direction "that the words underlined were proposed to be omitted by the Commons." Those were the same words as the Amendment before the House, and then came the direction "that these words in italics were to be inserted by the Commons."The proposal was to transfer from the Grand Jury in Ireland the power to give compensation for malicious injuries in a certain very limited class of cases to the Judge, and the House of Lords extended that jurisdiction to every form of malicious injury, involving, so far as the Irish 1408 Members were concerned, a most monstrous and objectionable proposition. And yet that was carried without a word of objection from the whole Liberal Party. It was then pointed out that the practice adopted by the Lords had been adopted again and again.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
joined in the protest of the hon. Member of the Newton Division at the insult the House had received. The House should remember that in the ordinary course a Clause of this kind could not be inserted at any stage of the Bill without stopping the Bill and setting up a Committee of the whole House to consider the question. That was the proper, and, as he read the Standing Order, the only possible method. The House of Lords had carried an Amendment which was found to be a breach of the privileges of this House; they then put a false nose on it and sent it down; and they were now told that if they took off the false nose the breach of privilege was no longer there.
§ It being half-past Seven of the Clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded to interrupt the Business.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOUR
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker with held his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ The Debate stood adjourned until the Evening Sitting.