§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith, in the Chair.)
§ Clause 7: —
Another Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 59, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words, 'shall, where the local education authority are the Council of a county, have a body of managers consisting of a number of managers not exceeding four appointed by that Council, together with a number not exceeding two appointed by the minor local authority. Where the local education authority are the Council of a borough or urban district, they may, if they think fit, appoint for any school provided by them such number of managers as they may determine.
'(2) All public elementary schools not provided by the local education authority shall have a body of managers consisting of a number of trust managers not exceeding four appointed as provided by this Act, together with a number of managers not exceeding two appointed (a) where the local education authority are the Council of a county, one by
that Council and one by the minor local authority; and (b) where the local education authority are the Council of a borough or urban district, both by that authority.
'(3) One of the managers appointed by the minor local authority, or the manager so appointed, as the case may be, shall be the parent of a child who is, or has been during the last twelve months, a scholar in the school.
'(4) The "minor local authority" means the Council of any borough or urban district, or the Parish Council or (where there is no Parish Council) the parish meeting of any parish which appears to the County Council to be served by the school. Where the school appears to the County Council to serve the area of more than one minor local authority, the County Council shall make such provision as they think proper for joint appointment by the authorities concerned.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
In line 8, after the word 'schools,' to insert the words 'maintained but.' "—(Mr. Heywood Johnstone.)
§ Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
§ (9.0.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
, continuing his speech, said he thought the term, "school not provided by the local education authority," covered all classes of the schools that would be maintained by the old education authority. If he understood the Bill, no school would have a right to any grant. At the present moment a school earned its grant and received it from the Education Department, but the right to the grant was now to cease. The money would, instead, be paid to the local education authoritiy. He submitted that the control under the Bill was effective, and trusted, therefore, that the Amendment would not be pressed.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)
said that under the scheme of the Bill there was no such thing as a public elementary school which was not maintained by the local authority. Under the eighth clause, all public elementary schools were to be maintained by the education authority, but his hon. friend desired to entirely remodel that, and to say that a day school might elect to remain out, and still be a public elementary school, receiving the Government grant, and being subject 201 to the control of the Education Department. If that was really his idea, it was a bad policy, and entirely contrary to the scope of the Bill. He hoped that the Amendment would not be persisted in.
§ MR. M'KENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)
thought the Amendment a very proper one, inasmuch as it gave an option to voluntary schools to remain exactly as they were. It would create a third class of maintained schools, which would receive the grant through the local authority, but would not be maintained out of the rates. They would have to depend on voluntary subscriptions instead of on the rates. It would test the bond fides of the supporters of those schools, because it would enable them to have their exclusive denominational teaching by the simple method of putting their hands in their pockets. The Attorney General had not said one word on the merits of the Amendment; he had only argued that it would not carry out the mover's intentions, and declared that it was bad. What was the reason for saying it was bad? If it were accepted, it would simplify the subsequent procedure on the question of management, for they would then be able to argue with great force that where voluntary schools were unwilling to subscribe anything for themselves they ought not to be entitled to two-thirds of the control.
§ MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)
could not understand anyone who valued popular control supporting such an Amendment. The effect of it would be to enable schools which were not necessitous to keep out of the county system while remaining in receipt of large sums of public money. They had already passed a clause making the education authority responsible for all secular instruction, and yet, although it would have to hand over the grant, it would have really no representative on the management of the school.
§ DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)
hoped that the Amendment would either be withdrawn or rejected by the Committee. There was a vital and urgent 202 principle in the Bill, and this Amendment would kill it. He was tired of the way in which the majority of the school children were being put off with inferior education because of the parsimony which was created by the present voluntary system. If this Bill failed to pass, then it would be the duty of the Liberal Party to put before the country a scheme under which all schools would be maintained out of public funds and be under proper popular control. He was opposed tooth and nail to the system of the schools deriving their support from voluntary contributions. It was desirable to get rid of education by charity, as in the case of voluntary schools. To permit voluntary school managers to contract themselves out of the Bill in order to avoid interference should not be tolerated. Cardinal Vaughan had said, "Let the schools remain poor but free." There was no educational freedom in poverty. He went to a voluntary school as a boy, and remembered its transfer to the "godless" School Board. He remembered well the additions immediately made to the equipment and the apparatus of the teaching staff. Whereas there was one old Bible for every three boys under the original régime; under the new each lad had a brand-new Bible. This Amendment would enable the voluntary school managers to do exactly the thing they declined to permit the School Board to do—viz., to contract themselves out of their communal obligations. He would never agree to that, for it would mean that education would continue to starve, because Church persons wanted to avoid interference. He saw by a Return issued to the 31st August, 1899, there were 12,940 voluntary schools in country districts; of these, 709 had no voluntary contributions whatever, and existed on the meagre Government grant, compelling the teachers to submit to terms which were not at all fair; 483 schools received less than 1s. per head per child per year from voluntary sources; 1,045 between 1s. and 2s. 6d.; and 2,046 between 2s. 6d. and 5s. If the Amendment were carried, this penurious system would be continued, for the schools would be contracted out of the Bill in order to avoid the School Board rate.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I should like to ask whether the Amendment is in 203 order, stating as it does that certain public elementary schools shall be withdrawn from the control of the education authorities.
§ MR. M'KENNA
It applies to the election of managers; it has nothing to do with the control of the local authority, which will remain untouched so far as secular instruction is concerned.
The Amendment has been discussed on the presumption that it is going to except from the operation of the Bill certain schools. If the hon. Member intends to introduce other consequential Amendments, he should have put them on the Paper.
§ MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE
did not quite understand the objection. The scheme of the Bill was that all public elementary schools should be maintained, as well as provided, by the local education authority. The scheme of his Amendment was that when the school was in the first place not provided by the local education authority and chose not to be maintained, but was content to rely on the Government grants which it earned, the second provision of the right hon. Gentleman as to the board of management should not apply to it.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I am not aware that there is any Amendment down dealing with those subsequent provisions.
What does the hon. Member propose to do with a school not maintained, in view of this subsequent provision?
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
But it is provided that all public schools shall be maintained, and there is no Amendment down to that.
§ MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE
None is necessary. They are public elementary schools within the meaning of the Education Act, 1870, and are entitled to grants under the Code.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
Have we not agreed that the local education authority shall have-all the powers and duties of the School Board, and control secular education in all public elementary schools, whether provided or not? In view of that, is the Amendment in order?
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
My hon. friend says that no Amendment to Clause. 8 will be necessary. If no Amendment is put down, there will be no such thing as a public elementary school not maintained.
§ MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE
I should like to ask whether it is necessary to put down a whole series of consequential Amendments before they are reached—to put down the whole scheme before one can move a preliminary Amendment.
I should say certainly. I think this Amendment shows how necessary it is to do so, because it is impossible to find out what the meaning of this Amendment standing by itself is. I understand that the hon. Member wishes to make an exception in the case of schools not to be maintained. They are to be under the control of the local authority, but they are to retain their present body of managers. I do not understand how they will get any school grant unless some further Amendment is made.
§ MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE
Having studied the Amendment, I am not able to suggest where an Amendment should come in, or what sort of Amendment.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
If no Amendment is in order unless the Amendments consequential to it are on the Paper, the Amendment of the Prime Minister is out of order. In the Amendment occur the words, "Managers appointed as provided in this Act," but there is not a single consequential Amendment on the Paper. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Horsham. Division is out of order, so is the Prime Minister's.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
I am only using that as an illustration. I submit that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Horsham is absolutely in order.
Further elucidation of the Amendment of the hon. Member is necessary, and I do not see how the Committee can be asked to accept it without further debate.
§ MR. M'KENNA
I think it can. Under it there will be three classes of schools. Some will be provided and some will be aided, while the third class will not be maintained, and it is proposed to leave these in the position of appointing their own managers.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the Amendment was one which the Government could not possibly accept. The scheme of the Bill was to provide a national system of education, and as he understood the Amendment, it would except certain schools from that system. That he could not agree to.
§ (9.35.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he wished to raise a point of order upon the whole question before the House, namely, the Amendment of the Prime Minister.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said if the Prime Minister's Amendment was not the main question, he should like to know what the main question was. This was an Amendment to an Amendment, and he submitted that he was entitled to raise a point of order on the main Amendment before the Committee. If he was out of order in doing that, then the whole discussion was out of order. He submitted that the discussion was out of order, and nothing was in order before the Committee, because the Government had put down an Amendment which contained words which were incomplete in themselves with reference to a consequential Amendment which was not before the Committee. It was most important for the consideration of this Amendment that they should have the consequential Amendment before them. In the Amendment occurred the words, "Managers appointed as provided in this Act," but there was not a single consequential Amendment on the Paper. The question as to how those managers were to be provided was the whole essence of the controversy. They might be provided in such a way as to meet all the objections of hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House, and, on the other hand, they might be provided in such a way as would not meet those objections. He reminded the Chairman that earlier in the debate he compelled the hon. Member for East Mayo to bring the whole Amendment before the Committee. The hon. Member proposed that in 8,000 parishes there should be an exception, and the Chairman ruled that that was not sufficient without taking into consideration the whole scheme. He submitted that the Government were exactly in the same position in regard to their scheme for these 20,000 parishes. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Horsham was out of order, so was the Prime Minister's.
I think I ought to say, first of all, that the hon. Member for Carnarvon ought to have taken exception to this Amendment at the beginning of the discussion. [Opposition cries of "Oh, oh!"] I think at least hon. Members ought to do me the courtesy of listening first to what I have to say when they ask my views. The second objection is that we are not 207 discussing the Amendment, but an Amendment to an Amendment. When we reach the words complained of, I think the hon. Member will be entitled to raise this question. I may say that even then, in my opinion, this point really is not the essence of the whole Amendment, and is really only a detail. I agree that it is necessary when an Amendment is brought before the Committee that the general principle and essence of the Amendment should be before the Committee.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON
thought the Amendment would provide for the consideration of a certain class of schools which were not specially mentioned in the Bill, and which would require special treatment. He wished to know if it was really intended that charity schools should come under the general scheme, and annually receive their grant from the new authority, and he also wished to knew whether they would be subject to the same clause in regard to management as denominational schools. Some of those schools were purely charity schools while some were charity-cum-religion schools and others charity-cum-industry schools. He wished to know whether these schools would have an opportunity of escaping this kind of control, or whether the Government intended to provide for these charity schools in some special way. He wanted to know how these schools were to be treated in relation to the authority and the managers, and whether they would receive special consideration under the Amendment.
§ MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)
said he wished to emphasise the question which had just been put to the First Lord of the Treasury by the hon. Member opposite. This was a somewhat awkward place to introduce this question, but he saw no other opportunity of getting the difficulty cleared up. He had in his mind buildings provided by private charity with private teaching both secular and
§ religious. They were not voluntary or provided schools, and they were not public elementary schools. He believed that it was held that these schools were strictly elementary schools, the only difference being one of method and not of subjects. What he wanted to know was, if these schools were taken over by the local authority and maintenance provided out of the rates, would they in every case have to accept a form of management in accordance with the scheme now before the Committee? Would they have to take their four trust managers and two managers nominated by the local authority, or had the Government in view the management of these schools under some other scheme? This was a question which was exciting much anxiety, and he should be glad to get this difficulty out of the way.
§ THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST, Cambridge University)
said the questions raised by the hon. Member for Morley and the hon. Member for North West Ham were wholly-irrelevant to the Amendment. The Amendment dealt with public elementary schools, and neither deaf and dumb schools nor charity schools were public elementary schools. Therefore, they did not come within the scope of the Amendment.
§ MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE
objected to being named as a teller, and said his name had not been handed in at the Table.
§ (9.48.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 19; Noes, 299. (Division List No. 333.)211
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Horniman, Frederick John||Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n|
|Bond. Edward||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Jacoby, James Alfred||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Moss, Samuel|
|Dunn. Sir William||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Fuller. J. M. F.||Sackville. Col. S. G. Stopford-||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Seely, Maj. J. E. B(Isle of Wight||Mr. Heywood Johnstone|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West||Spencer, RtHnC.R.(Northants||and Mr. M'Kenna.|
|Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Joyce, Michael|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F||Donelan, Captain A.||Kenyon, Hon Geo T. (Denbigh|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Doogan, P.C.||Keswick, William|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||King, Sir Henry Seymour|
|Allen, Chas. P. (Gloue., Stroud||Doughty, George||Labouchere, Henry|
|Anson. Sir William Reynell||Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Douglas. Charres M. (Lanark)||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.|
|Arnold- Forster, Hugh O.||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th|
|Arrol. Sir William||Duncan, J. Hastings||Lawson, John Grant|
|Ashton. Thomas Gair||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart||Lee, ArthurH (Hants, Fareham|
|Bailey. James (Walworth)||Edwards, Frank||Leese, Sir. Joseph F (Accrington|
|Bain. Colonel James Robert||Emmott, Alfred||Legge. Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Balcarres. Lord||Farrell, James Patrick||Leigh, Sir Joseph|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J, (Manch'r||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie|
|Balfour, Capt C. B. (Hornsey)||Fenwick, Charles||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.|
|Balfour, RtHn Gerald W(Leeds||Fergusson. Rt. Hn. Sir J (Mane'r||Levy, Maurice|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Ffrench, Peter||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Bathurst. Hon. Allen Benjamin||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lloyd-George, David|
|Beach. Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks||Finch, George H.||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine|
|Bell. Richard||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Fisher, William Hayes||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Bignold, Arthur||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth|
|Bigwood James||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lundon, W.|
|Black. Alexander William||Flower, Ernest||Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison|
|Boland, John||Flynn, James Christopher||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Bolton. Thomas Dolling||Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.||Maclver, David (Liverpool)|
|Boscawen. Arthur Griffith-||Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas.J.|
|Bonsfield. William Robert||Gardner, Ernest||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Brigg, John||Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond.||Maconochie, A. W.|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Gilhooly, James||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Goddard, Daniel Ford||M'Kean, John|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.||Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Burns. John||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Milvam, Thomas|
|Butcher, John George||Grant, Corrie||Montagu. G. (Huntingdon)|
|Buxton. Sydney Charles||Gray. Ernest (West Ham)||Mooney, John J.|
|Caldwell, James||Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury||More, Robert Jasper(Shr'pshire|
|Cameron, Robert||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Morgan, David J (Walthamstow|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hall. Edward Marshall||Morley. Charles (Breconshire)|
|Cavendish, V.C. W(Derbyshire||Hamilton, Rt HnLordG (Midd'x||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Cawley, Frederick||Hamilton. Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry||Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hammond, John||Mount, Willliam Arthur|
|Chamberlain, J. Austin (Wore'r||Hardy, Laur'nee (Kent, Ashf'rd||Muntz, Sir Philip A.|
|Channing. Francis Allston||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Murnaghan, George|
|Chapman, Edward||Harms-worth, R. Leicester||Murray, Rt H nA. Graham (Bute|
|Charrington. Spencer||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Churchill. Winston Spencer||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Myers, William Henry|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Haslett, Sir James Horner||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Clave, Captain Percy A.||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||Newdigate, Francis Alexander|
|Coehrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Hayden, John Patrick||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)|
|Cohen. Benjamin Louis||Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Collings. Rt. Hon. Jesse||Helme, Norval Watson||O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid|
|Colomb. Sir John Charles Ready||Henderson, Sir Alexander||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Higginbottom. S. W.||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Hobhouse. Henry (Somerset. E.||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.|
|Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)||Holland. Sir William Henry||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Hope. J. F (Shetheld, Brightside||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Craig. Robert Hunter||Hornby. Sir William Henry||O'Mara, James|
|Cranborne, Lord||Hoult, Joseph||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Crean, Eugene||Houston. Robert Paterson||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Cripps. Charles Alfred||Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Cross. Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)||Howard, J (Midd., Tottenham)||Parker, Sir Gilbert|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Davies Alfred (Carmarthen)||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Pearson, Sir Weetman D.|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham||Jebb. Sir Richard Claverhouse||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Davies. M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Perks, Robert William|
|Delany. William||Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Jones, William(Carnarvonshire||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Plummer, Walter R.||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Walton. Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East||Warde. Colonel C. E.|
|Pretyman, Ernest George||Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Price, Robert John||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Purvis, Robert||Soares, Ernest J.||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Rankin, Sir James||Spear, John Ward||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Rea, Russell||Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)||Whiteley, H(Ashton und. Lyne|
|Reid, James (Greenock)||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Remnant, James Farquharson||Sullivan, Donal||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Renshaw, Charles Bine||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Renwick. George||Talbot, Rt Hn J.G. (Oxf'rdUn'v.||Wilcox, Sir John Archibald|
|Rickett, J. Compton||Taylor, Theodore Cooke||Wills, Sir Frederick|
|Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.|
|Ritchie. Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr||Wilson, John (Durham. Mid.)|
|Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Thomas, JA(Glam'rgan, Gower||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath|
|Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)||Thornton, Perey M.||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Robson, William Snowdon||Tollemache, Henry James||Woodhouse, Sir. JT (Huddersf'd|
|Roche, John||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edward M.||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Rolleston, Sir John F. L.||Toulmin. George||Wylie. Alexander|
|Ropner, Colonel Robert||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Royds, Clement Molyneux||Tritton, Charles Ernest||Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.|
|Runciman, Walter||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Sadler, Col. Samuel. Alexander||Tully, Jasper|
|Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)||Ure, Alexander||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)||Valentia, Viscount||Sir William Walrond and|
|Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Wallace, Robert||Mr. Austruther.|
§ (10.2.) MR. ALFRED HUTTON
moved—To insert in line 9, after 'schools' the words 'conducted in a schoolhouse or premises.' The clause would then read—' All public elementary schools conducted in a schoolhouse or premises not provided by the local education authority shall.…'His object was to provide that only those people who had made the sacrifice of providing the buildings in which to carry on the denominational teaching should retain the supreme control of the schools. He took so e encouragement in moving the Amendment from the speech the First Lord of the Treasury made in the afternoon, in which he stated that the great claim for control and management of the denominational schools was that the denominationals had made great sacrifices in building the schools. There were several ways in which schools had been built and provided besides those referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. For instance, there were schools which had been built by people who had a special interest in their neighbourhood or village. Those schools were builtand sometimes endowed, and they were put under trustees, among whom there might have been the clergyman and the churchwarden ex officio. They were not put on the trust to make the schools particularly denominational in character, but it had often happened that the schools had 212 become, by force of circumstances and long usage, denominational under the dictation and management of the clergyman and the churchwarden. There were many schools in that position, although there was nothing in the conditions of the trust or the endowments to justify their being made of a denominational character. Among the schools to which he referred were those which had been provided by railway companies. The railway companies had not provided the schools in a denominational interest, but for the purpose of avoiding rates. There were a great many voluntary schools provided up and down the country with the object of avoiding rates, and although, by falling into denominational hands, they had become denominational, they were built for the purposes of education of an undenominational character.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
In line 9, after (he word 'schools,' to insert the words 'conducted in a schoolhouse or premises.'"—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words lie there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he could hardly conceive a case in which the words proposed by the hon. Member 213 would make any difference in the effect of the Clause. There were, however, cases just conceivable in which they would have precisely the opposite effect to that which the hon. Gentleman desired. For instance, a schoolhouse provided by the local authority might be burned down, and someone might lend a building for carrying on the school. The school would then be conducted in a building not provided by the local authority, and thus the Amendment would have an effect contrary to that which the hon. Gentleman desired.
§ MR. EMMOTT (Oldham)
said that the object of his hon. friend clearly was that only bonâ fiae denominational schools should come within this provision. The right hon. Gentleman had not understood the Amendment aright.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)
said the Amendment was one which deserved consideration. He understood the object of his hon. friend to be to deal with voluntary schools under undenominational management. It was quite a mistake to suppose that there were no schools of this kind in the country, or that they were a mere handful. He had an Amendment; on the Paper to provide that if there was an undenominational school under a trust deed used for the purposes of this Act it should be treated in the same way as a school provided by the public authority. It was quite clear that where there was an endowment the result of the generosity of former donors who had not attached any condition whatever to the trust deed, the school was, in effect, of the same class as schools provided by the public authority.
§ MR. ERNEST GRAY
said that the Committee was entitled to know the full effect of the Amendment. They were in the greatest difficulty, because they were told that certain words were to have no separate sense, and no effect without subsequent words.
§ MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)
said that if the Committee was in any difficulty it arose from the pernicious practice of discussing one Amendment in its relation to some other Amendment.
*MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden)
said he thought he could make the position clear to some hon. Members. There were a large number of schools in certain districts which had been founded, not for the purpose of promoting denominational education, but with the view of securing adequate instruction to the children who attended them. Many colliery owners, for instance, found it more economical to establish schools and manage them than to allow themselves to be rated for their maintenance by the public. There were thirty-seven such schools in the county of Durham alone. It often happened that in parishes the only individual who took a keen interest in education was the clergyman; and in the case of his own firm, when a certain colliery was closed, a school was handed over to the clergyman. Circumstances and situations varied, and it was absurd that advantage should be taken of them to secure denominational education when the schools were not founded for such a purpose. What was wanted was that, as these schools were not provided on denominational lines, they should be looked upon now as public schools.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON
said the object of the Amendment he now moved was to distinguish between schools founded for denominational purposes and those founded for other purposes. As the Clause stood, no distinction would be made between these two classes of schools.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
In line 8, to leave out the words 'not provided by the local education authority,' and insert the words 'which are held in trust to be conducted in accordance with the doctrines and principles of any particular denomination.'"— (Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ SIR JOHN GORST
said he could find no reason why schools founded on other than denominational grounds should be treated with less consideration than those in which denominational teaching was given. He should claim that, not being schools provided by the local authority, the trustees should have a voice in the appointment of managers to carry out the purposes of the trust. He hoped the Committee would reject the Amendment.
§ the Council had practically exposed the case of the Government by this objection. There must be some other reason besides denominational teaching, else why should there be managers appointed by the trustees when no denominational teaching was given? The control of the secular education was to be with the education authority, and there could be no reason for the parson, churchwarden, and other ex officio trustees being on the management of schools which had not one jot or tittle of the character of denominational schools.
§ (10.38.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:— Ayes, 274; Noes, 122. (Division List No. 334.)219
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Line.)|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Compton, Lord Alwyne||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Cranborne, Viscount||Grenfell, William Henry|
|Arrol, Sir William||Crean, Eugene||Gretton, John|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton||Hall, Edward Marshall|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Crossley, Sir Savile||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hambro, Charles Eric|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r||Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Mid'x|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Delany, William||Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nd'rry|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds||Devlin. Joseph||Hammond, John|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Dickson, Charles Scott||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd|
|Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Beach. Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks||Donelan, Captain A.||Harris, Frederick Leverton|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Doogan, P. C.||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.||Haslett, Sir James Horner|
|Bignold, Arthur||Doughty, George||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.|
|Bigwood, James||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Boland, John||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley|
|Bond, Edward||Duke, Henry Edward||Henderson, Sir Alexander|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Higgin bottom, S. W.|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir. William Hart||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Faber, George Denison (York)||Hornby, Sir William Henry|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Farrell, James Patrick||Hoult, Joseph|
|Bull, William James||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Fergus-on, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r||Howard Jno. (Kent, Faversham|
|Butcher, John George||Ffrench, Peter||Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil|
|Carew, James Laurence||Finch, George H.||Hudson, George Bickersteth|
|Carson. Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse|
|Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire||Fisher, William Hayes||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore'r||Flower, Ernest||Joyce, Michael|
|Chapman, Edward||Flynn, James Christopher||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh|
|Charrington, Spencer||Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.||Keswick, William|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Gardner. Ernest||King, Sir Henry Seymour|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Gibbs, Hn A G. H. (City of Lond.||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Gilhooly, James||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)|
|Cochrane Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'ml'ts||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Gore, Hn. G R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Lawson, John Grant|
|Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm||Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Nicholson, William Graham||Seely, Maj. J.E. B (Isle of Wight|
|Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.||Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesbam||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Smith, HC(North'mb, Tyneside|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)|
|Lowe, Francis William||O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Spear, John Ward|
|Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry)||Stanley, Lord (Lanes).|
|Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||O'Malley, William||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Lundon, W.||O'Mara, James||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Sullivan, Donal|
|Macartney, Rt Hn. W. GEllison.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.|
|MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Parker, Sir Gilbert||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Maclver, David (Liverpool)||Parkes, Ebenezer||Tollemache, Henry James|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n||Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.|
|Maconochie, A. W.||Penn, John||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Pierpoint, Robert||Tully, Jasper|
|M'Kean, John||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Valentia, Viscount|
|M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Plummer, Walter R.||Vincent, Col. SirC. E. H. (Sheff.|
|Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.||Power, Patrick Joseph||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.||Pretyman, Ernest George||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Melville, Beresford Valentine||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Middlemore, Jhn. Throgmorton||Purvis, Robert||Welby, Lt. -Col. A. C. E(Tunton|
|Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)|
|Milvain, Thomas||Rankin, Sir James||Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-L'ne|
|Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Reid, James (Greenock)||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Remnant, James Farquharson||Wills, Sir Frederick|
|Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)||Renshaw, Charles Bine||Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)|
|Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Renwick, George||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Mooney, John J.||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Morgan, David J (W'lthamstow||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford||Roche, John||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Mount, William Arthur||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.||Wylie, Alexander|
|Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Ropner, Colonel Robert||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Murnaghan, George||Round, Rt. Hon. James||Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.|
|Murphy, John||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Gr'h'm(Bute||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Sir William Walrond and|
|Myers, William Henry||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Nannetti, Joseph P.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Duncan, J. Hastings||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Dunn, Sir William||Horniman, Frederick John|
|Bell, Richard||Edwards, Frank||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.|
|Black, Alexander William||Elibank, Master of||Jacoby, James Alfred|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Emmott, Alfred||Jones, David Brynmor(Swans'a|
|Brigg, John||Fenwick, Charles||Jones, William(Carn'rvonshire|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Labouchere, Henry|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry||Lees, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Fuller, J. M. F.||Leigh, Sir Joseph|
|Burns, John||Furness, Sir Christopher||Levy, Maurice|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Caldwell, James||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Lloyd-George, David|
|Cameron, Robert||Grant, Corrie||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)|
|Causton. Richard Knight||Griffiths, Ellis J.||Mansfield, Horace Rendall|
|Cawley, Frederick||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Moss, Samuel|
|Cremer, William Randal||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Moulton, John Fletcher|
|Davies, Alfred. (Carmarthen)||Harwood, George||Newnes, Sir George|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan||Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-||Norman, Henry|
|Partington, Oswald||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Paulton, James Mellor||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Pearson, Sir Weetman D.||Soares, Ernest J.||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'thants||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Perks, Robert William||Strachey, Sir Edward||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.|
|Price, Robert John||Taylor, Theodora Cooke||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Priestley, Arthur||Tennant, Harold John||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Rea, Russell||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.||William, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Rickett, J. Compton||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.|
|Rigg, Richard||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings||Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R)|
|Roberts, John Byrn (Eifion)||Thomas, J A (Glamorgan Gower||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Toulmin, George||Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd|
|Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Robson, William Snowdon||Ure, Alexander|
|Roe, Sir Thomas||Wallace, Robert||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Runciman, Walter||Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.||Mr. Alfred Hutton and|
|Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)||Mr. M'Kenna.|
§ (10.55.) MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)
said he wished to move the Amendment standing in his name, which was to insert, after the word "authority," the words "and not being Church of England schools as hereinafter defined." He had placed on the Table a definition clause, which he would propose later: but before that he trusted they would have from the right hon. Gentleman a definition of the new term he had introduced into the Amendment, namely, "trust managers." He would then obtain some enlightenment which might induce him to modify his definition. The object of the Amendment was to assert the possibility and the propriety of exceptional treatment in the case of Church of England schools. When he indicated the nature of his Amendment a few nights ago, an hon. Member opposite declared that he had delivered an anti-State Church speech, and that his object was to penalise the Church of England. There could be no more ludicrous perversion of his purpose than that. He did not in any way intend to raise the question of Disestablishment by his Amendment. On the contrary, he took his stand on the fact that the Church of England was by law established, and in that respect differed from all other Churches. He recognised the State connection of the Church of England, and based on that the exceptional treatment for Church of England schools which he now asked for. So far from wishing to fetter the Church of England, the object of the Amendment was to secure greater freedom, in the shape of more control by the laity. The main ground of his proposal was that he discriminated between the Church of England schools and all other schools, because of the connection 220 of the Church of England with the State. The Church of England differed from all other Churches in this respect—that its doctrines, its institutions, and its practice all existed as a matter of positive law. There was no other Church of which that could be said, not even the Church of Rome. He would quote, in support of his contention, a statement issued by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Salford, who was now Cardinal Vaughan. He said that he thought the contention just that all schools in connection with the Church of England should be considered as State schools, and that, therefore, they should be managed like other State schools under the Education Act. He did not go so far as that himself. He preferred to limit his Amendment to more modest proportions. He did not propose that Church of England schools should be placed on the same footing as ordinary State schools. He preferred a, modified proposal, under which the laity of the Church of England should have additional control. The Amendment had been suggested to him, not by Nonconformists, but by laymen of the Church of England, and he hoped, therefore, that hon. Members who represented the laity of the Church of England would support his proposal. The laity had some right to complain when they found Church schools carried on by managers whose interpretation of Church or England practice did not commend itself to them. There was no Church more free from dogmatic restrictions than the Church of England. It was the most free Church in Christendom in that respect. It was in the interests of the laity that their wishes and beliefs, and opinions of Church of England doctrine and practice should be respected more than they were 221 by many clerical managers. He did not think that the Church party in this Mouse could claim to speak on behalf of the Church of England as a whole. Certainly he did not regard them as entitled to speak on behalf of the laity of the Church of England, in whose interests he moved the Amendment. He did not think there was any other Church in the country in which distrust of clericalism was so deeply implanted in a large portion of the laity as in the Church of England.
It might be asked if there was really any need for the special treatment which he proposed. He believed there was such a need. He would not discuss questions as to doctrine and practice. All parties and opinions were represented in the Mouse, and if he condemned one particular doctrine as being contrary to the spirit of the Church of England, he would probably have to say something which would offend others. Therefore, he would say nothing as to that, but he would give one instance of the sort of thing which he believed the laity disliked and distrusted. There had been placed in his hand by members of the Church of England, for the purpose of being mentioned in this debate, the story of the withdrawal of some 200 children from a Church school, on account of the character of the doctrines and practices inculcated in connection with that school by the predominant manager—the clergyman of the parish. The correspondence revealed a dispute on the question whether the managers had violated the Conscience Clause. The point was that the parents of these 200 children, being members of the Church of England, had been driven to take advantage of the Conscience Clause [An HON. MEMBER: What is the name of the school?] The school was the Michaelfield school. Michaelfield was a place in Yorkshire; it was close to Leeds, and he was sorry that the hon. Member for North Leeds was not there, because he might be able to give detailed information about the case. That was not the sort of thing which would commend itself to the laity. All he proposed tonight was that there was a case for exceptional treatment of Church of England schools, because of the connection between the Church and the State. He would 222 propose a consequential Amendment, that every elected churchwarden of the parish should be an ex officio member of the new Board of Trust Management. The churchwarden was an ancient ecclesiastical officer of the Church of England, and his position was distinctly recognised by law. It was as clear and as undoubted, though not as important, as that of the clergyman of the parish. The rule as to the election of churchwardens was that the vicar appointed one churchwarden and that the parishioners elected the other—although sometimes the clergyman appointed the two. It was not a case in which there was uniformity of practice, as there was a great variation of local custom, which would have to be taken into account in the Amendment he would propose later. He was not sure that there were many restrictions as to the religious belief of persons who might be elected churchwardens; and he believed it was possible for a woman to be a churchwarden. He did not see why Nonconformists generally, whether they had a school of their own or not, should object to his proposal. It neither affirmed nor disaffirmed the principle of disestablishment. He hoped, therefore, that hon. Members representing Nonconformist interests might see their way to consider, and, if possible, to adopt, the proposal. But his main appeal was to the laity of the Church of England, in whose interests this Amendment was brought forward. It was to them he looked for support. The Church of England was a Church as by law established, and, if there was one thing more certain than another about it, it was that it was a Protestant Episcopal Church. He believed that the laity of the Church of England were impatient of clerical control in church matters, and, still more, in the management of schools. He would appeal to hon. Members opposite to remember that their Party had been to a large extent implicated in practices which had been condemned. It had been said, and he believed it to be true, that the headquarters of ritualism were in the high places of the Tory Party. They should not allow themselves to be associated with such practices, and he would appeal to hon. Members opposite to resist the system which had arisen, so far, at least, as the schools were concerned. He begged to move,
Amendment proposed to the proposed 'Amendment—
In line 9, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words 'and not being Church of England schools as hereinafter defined.'"— (Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
§ (11.15.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the hon. Gentleman began his speech by quoting a Roman Catholic bishop on the legal position of the Church of England, and he ended by an attack on ritualism. Neither of these topics had very much; to do with the Amendment. Perhaps he did not know much about the high places of the Tory Party, but as far as his knowledge went, ritualism had very little to do with them. The object of the hon. Gentleman was one for which he had constantly expressed his sympathy, and one which this Bill was largely designed to carry out, and would carry out; that was to increase the lay element in the management of voluntary schools. They were told that a great many schools were entirely managed by clergymen, owing to the fact that the clergyman was the only person in the parish who took an interest in education. In future, the whole of the secular work would be under the control of a body popularly elected, and as far as the local management of the schools was concerned, the clergyman would probably henceforth in most cases be only one-sixth of the body responsible for the management of the school; and if the body of management was increased to twelve, the clerical element would be even further diluted. The hon. Member proposed to supplement the efforts made by the Bill to bring about lay representation, and with that object he drew a distinction between the Church of England and every other denomination to the disadvantage of the Church. Whereas Roman Catholics or Wesleyans were to have four out of the six managers of their schools, the Church of England was to have only three. Why should the Roman Catholics be treated better than the Church of England? The hon. Gentleman quoted a Roman Catholic bishop, but that was not a sufficient authority for the House to draw a distinction in favour of Roman 224 Catholics and against the Church of England. Let the Committee consider the machinery by which the hon. Member proposed to carry his Amendment into effect. The hon. Gentleman wished to introduce an additional lay element on the governing body by making the elected churchwarden a. member. If he desired to increase the elected members of the governing body of church schools, which he thought would be grossly unfair to the Church, he might, at all events, have chosen a simple and workmanlike machinery for carrying out that object. He had, however, chosen a most clumsy and antiquated machinery. As the hon. Member said, an elected churchwarden need not be a member of the Church of England; he might be a Nonconformist or a Roman Catholic; the only thing he might not be was a Jew. Why were they to make this distinction between the parishioners who might be on the governing body and those who might not? There was another objection in, the present clumsy and expensive system of electing the people's churchwarden. It was the most expensive and absurd, method of election that could be well supposed. Were they going to have a Parish Council election and also another election for a churchwarden? Who was going to pay for it? He understood that the cost would fall on the Church rate, but the Church rate could no longer be compulsorily collected, and, therefore, it might fall by legal process on the unfortunate vicar, who might be sent to prison because he could not pay the cost of the election of a man to the governing body in order to control himself. The proposal was obviously absurd. If they were to increase the elected body, let them say so plainly; let them do it in connection with Church of England, Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, and other voluntary; schools; but do not let them select one church, and abandon every principle of fair play regarding it. Let them not burden that Church with such a ludicrous method of adding to the elected members of the governing body of its schools by such cumbersome: and inadequate machinery. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment to a division, and that the Committee would not waste further 225 time over a scheme which he was certain was impracticable, and which, he thought, he had persuaded the House was also absurd.
§ *MR. MOULTON (Cornwall, Launceston)
said that it was a great pleasure to be in complete agreement with the Prime Minister. There was a Latin quotation which spoke of everything that was unknown being supposed to be magnificent. That was suggested to him by hearing a Scotchman speak of the method of electing churchwardens in England. He opposed the Amendment because he was thankful to say that they had reached that state when the Church of England was spoken of as a denomination, and he did not wish any Amendment on the Opposition side to move it from that place to a special one. It would be a very bad example if they suggested in any way that it should be subjected to restrictions because it was the Church by law established. Let them by treating it fairly prepare for the time when it would not be so.
§ (11.30.) MR. CHARLES McARTHUR (Liverpool, Exchange)
said he wished to support the Amendment, which he thought was worthy of more consideration than the Prime Minister had given it. He desired to recognise with satisfaction the popular control which would be given under the Bill; but he was also desirous of seeing a greater amount of popular control, and he thought the Amendment pointed out a way in which further popular control might be given, without altering the denominational character of the managing board. He failed to see how the Amendment would be a disadvantage to the Church of England. It did not propose to deprive Church of England schools of one of their denominational managers, because in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the churchwarden would be a member of the Church of England. There were good reasons why the Church of England schools should be treated in an exceptional way. At the present day the position of the Church of England afforded ground for very obvious criticism. They all knew that the religious difficulty was at the bottom of all the trouble in connection with the Bill.
226 But the religious difficulty was not entirely a Nonconformist grievance. They had a Church of England grievance, which was not identical with what was called the Nonconformist grievance, but which was quite as serious. However unworthy, he represented in this matter many hundreds of thousands of people who were sorely troubled by what was going on in their Church of England schools. He thought on that Clause, and on that Amendment especially, he would be in order in asking the Committee to consider the serious objection which many members of the Church of England had at the manner in which their schools were carried on. They felt that there should be some additional safeguard to prevent these schools from being abused for improper purposes. The parents sent their children to the schools in order that they might be brought up in accordance with the doctrines and principles of the Church of England, but in a large number of the schools the children were taught the doctrines and tenets of the Church of Rome instead. They were taught to believe that the chief service of the Church was the mass, and they were also taught the doctrine of transubstantiation.
§ MR. CHARLES McARTHUR
said he thought he would be in order in giving some of the reasons why members of the Church of England thought the protection afforded by the Conscience Clause was insufficient, and that there should be some guarantee that the Church of England schools should be conducted on Church of England lines. The great grievance of Church of England people at the present day was that children in Church of England schools were not properly instructed in the doctrines of the Church of England, but were taught the doctrines of another Church. The children were taught to worship the Virgin, and they were taken to illegal services. The Conscience Clause was not applicable to these cases.
§ MR. CHARLES McARTHUR
said the Amendment proposed a large amount of popular control in connection with Church of England schools. If some butter method of securing that end had been proposed, he would have been glad. It was necessary that something should be done, and as the present proposal embodied the mildest possible form of additional protection that could be conceived, it ought to receive the careful attention of the Committee.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire. Lichfield)
said the Amendment was a most important one from a Churchman's point of view, and he hoped it would be pressed to a division. He failed to see how it could in any way injure the Church of England to have one of its own lay officials put into this office as a guarantee that the laity of the Church should be represented on the managing body. It had been suggested that in some cases the churchwarden would be a Nonconformist. Those were, he thought, the very cases in which a Nonconformist ought to be on the Committee, because if the Church of England was in such a minority that it could not elect one of its own members as churchwarden, surely the Nonconformists ought to have some thing to say in regard to the only school in the parish.
§ SIR BRAMPTON GURDON (Norfolk, N.)
asked the Vice President for a legal definition of a trust manager. In the case of schools managed under trust deeds the managers had a legal status, but there were many schools, the property of the largest landowner in the parish, which were really managed anyhow, and, though certain persons were recognised by the Board of Education as managers, they had no legal status whatever. He could find no definition of the term in the Bill, and it was difficult to vote on these questions without some explanation.
§ MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)
thought the Committee were entitled to some information as to the cases in which the number of managers would, be raised to twelve.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said the Amendment was really a most important one, as it had revealed the fact that the Government themselves did not know exactly what they were proposing. The Prime Minister had declared that the Bill would increase the lay as against the clerical element on the managing bodies, but, as a matter of fact, it would make the clergy even more independent of the laity than they had hitherto been. By practically every trust deed, the managers were appointed by the subscribers, and if the clergyman wanted to get the control of the school into his own hands, he had only to find men who sympathised with his views, or who would be prepared to subordinate their ideas to his. He contended that under the Hill the managers would be elected in the future in the same way as in the past—a few subscribers nominated by the parson would do it.
§ MR. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)
said it would depend upon the trust deed, He was a manager of a voluntary school, but he was not appointed by the subscribers.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
asserted that the common form of trust deeds of the National Society provided that the parson should be a manager ex officio and the rest elected by the subscribers. It could not be contended that the whole of the laity in any parish would have a voice in the appointment of managers. Until the Government chose to tell the Committee — who were at present in the dark on the matter—what was going to be done, it must be assumed that the subscribers would do it; and to contend that more representation would be given to the lay element was absurd. Did hon. Members opposite desire to trust the laity of their own Church? If so, that was the object of the Amendment. If they were to have denominational education, he would rather trust the laity of any Church than the parsons of every Church; there was more likelihood of fair play. Why was it that even in parishes where she had a minority of the population, the State Church could build and maintain a school? Because she was able to call on the Nonconformists to maintain 229 her ministers for her. The schools, though nominally of the Church of England, were really parochial schools. They were not built entirely out of the subscriptions of members of the Church of England, and many of them were erected under something very like false pretences. ["Divide."] It required little intelligence to cry "Divide" when unpalatable arguments were being adduced, but proposals which had never been placed before the electors were not to be carried by shouting. His second point was that they ought to have a representation of the laity. His hon. friend was not proposing to elect a churchwarden for the first time, and he thought this was a very fair Amendment. As long as the Church of England was a State Church, they were entitled to claim a representation not merely of the clergy but of the laity as well.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N.W.)
said that for the information of the Committee he might state that a model trust deed provided that the election, appointment, and dismissal of teachers should be in all respects under the management and control of the Committee, which consisted of the minister for the time being of the said parish, his curate or curates, if he should appoint any, the churchwardens, if members of the Established Church, and other persons and subscribers, being members of the Established Church. These conditions supported entirely the argument used upon this point by the hon. Member for Carnarvon.
§ (12.3.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 107; Noes, 274. (Division List No. 335.)233
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Harwood, George||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Gloue, Stroud||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Helme, Norval Watson||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Holland, Sir William Henry||Runciman, Walter|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Horniman, Frederick John||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B)|
|Beigg, John||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Jones, William(Carnarvonshire||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Labouchere, Henry||Tennant, Harold John|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Caldwell, James||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Levy Maurice||Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lewis, John Herbert||Toulmin, George|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Lloyd-George, David||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Cremer, William Randal||Lough, Thomas||Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Dewar, John A. (lnverness-sh.||M'Kenna, Reginald||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Morgan, J Lloyd(Carmarthen)||Whiteley, George(York, W.R.)|
|Edwards, Frauk||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Elibank, Master of||Moss, Samuel||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Emmott, Alfred||Newnes, Sir George||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Fenwick Charles||Norman, Henry||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.||Partington, Oswald||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Paulton, James Mellor||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Pearson, Sir Weetman D.||Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herb. John||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Price, Robert John|
|Grant, Corrie||Priestley, Arthur|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||Rea, Russell||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Griffith. Ellis J.||Rickett, J. Compton||Mr. Warner and Sir|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Rigg, Richard||Brampton Gurdon.|
|Hardie, J. Keir,(MerthyrTydvil||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Doogan, P. C.||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir. John E.||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lawson, John Grant|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Lee, Arthur H.(Hants. Fareham.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Duffy, William J.||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)|
|Arkwright John Stanhope||Duke, Henry Edward||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie|
|Arrol. Sir William||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Willam Hart||Leveson Gower. Frederick N. S.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Llewellyn, Evan Henry|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Faber, George Denison. (York)||Loder. Gerald Walter Erskine|
|Bain. Colonel James Robert||Farrell, James Patrick||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r)||Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J.(Manc'r||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Ffrench, Peter||Lowe, Francis William|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Finch, George H.||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Fisher, William Hayes||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th|
|Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lundon, W.|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Flynn, James Christopher||Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Forster, Henry William||Macdona. John Cumming|
|Bignold, Arthur||Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.|
|Bigwood, James||Gardner, Ernest||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Boland, John||Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H(City of Lond.||Maconochie, A. W.|
|Bond, Edward||Gilhooly, James||M'Kean, John|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts||Manners, Lord Cecil|
|Brodrick, Colonel Montagu||Gore, HnG. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfries-sh|
|Bull, William James||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Bullard Sir Harry||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Butcher, John George||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Milvain, Thomas|
|Carew, James Laurence||Grenfell, William Henry||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Carlile, William Walter||Gretton, John||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Guthrie, Walter Murray||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (D'rbyshire||Hall, Edward Marshall||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Morgan, David J (Walthamstow|
|Cecil. Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Hambro, Charles Eric||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford|
|Chapman, Edward||Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry||Moulton, John Fletcher|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hammond, John||Mount, William Arthur|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Hardy, Laurence (K'nt, Ashford||Muntz, Sir Philip A.|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Murnaghan, George|
|Clive. Captain Percy A.||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Murphy, John|
|Cochnane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute|
|Cogan Denis J.||Haslett. Sir James Horner||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Newdigate, Francis Alexander|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H Athole||Hayden, John Patrick||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Cox. Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway. N.)|
|Cranborne, Lord||Higginbottom, S. W.||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Crean, Eugene||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid|
|Cripes s Charles Alfred||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Cross. Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Hornby, Sir William Henry||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Hoult, Joseph||O'Connor. James(Wicklow, W.)|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Davenport, William Bromley-||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham||Hudson, George Bickersteth||O'Malley, William|
|Delany, William||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||O'Mara, James|
|Devlin, Joseph||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Dewar, Sir T. R. (TowerH'mlets)||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Joyce, Michael||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Keswick, William||Parker, Sir Gilbert|
|Dillon, John||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley|
|Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Seely. Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Shef'ld;|
|Pretyman, Ernest George||Seton-Karr, Henry||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Purvis, Robert||Simeon, Sir Barrington||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Quilter, Sir Cuthbert||Skewes-Cox, Thomas||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Randles, John S.||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C E(Taunton|
|Rankin, Sir James||Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks||Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne|
|Redmond, William (Clare)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Reid, James (Greenock)||Spear, John Ward||Wills, Sir Frederick|
|Remnant, James Farquharson||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Renwick, George||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)|
|Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Robertson, Herbert (Hackhey)||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Roche, John||Sullivan, Donal||Wylie, Alexander|
|Ropner, Colonel Robert||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Round, Rt. Hon. James||Talbot, Rt Hn J G (Oxf'd Univ.||Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.|
|Royds, Clement Molyneux||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edv. M.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Sassoon. Sir Edward Albert||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward||Sir William Walrond and|
|Scott. Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Tully, Jasper||Mr. Anstruther.|
Amendment made to the proposed Amendment—
In line 9, by inserting, after the word 'shall,' the words 'in place of the existing managers.'" —(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
§ *(12.20.) MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland)
moved that there should be two sets of managers, one for the religious education, the other to secure that the control of secular education should be in the hands of the people. He said this was another attempt at compromise on the question. One form of compromise had already been rejected by the Government this afternoon. The object of his Amendment was to make perfectly clear what the Government had expressed to the House to be their intention, namely, that the control of secular education should be in the hands of the people. That control which was proposed hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House considered to be in the main a sham. All that had been put forward hitherto by the supporters of the Church of England had been an offer that, whilst still keeping control of the voluntary schools in their hands, they would allow the denominations to have some access to the schools and some opportunity of teaching their children. A great many on this side of the House sincerely recognised the denominational claim, but they said that, in the first instance, it must be laid 234 down definitely that public control was to be granted. That was done by his. Amendment, and it went further. Having created a secular Committee in the interest of public control, it created a religious Committee, consisting exclusively of the present trust managers who wished to have an opportunity of providing denominational education for the children of parents who were dissatisfied with what they got under the system of popular control. He could not help thinking that this was a compromise which might be eventually accepted. It was a compromise based on an example to be found in some of our Colonies. There popular control was complete, but in some cases, such as Manitoba and New South Wales, there was recognition of the right of the parent to have denominational teaching, if he wanted it—the right of the denomination to come into the school and teach. This was an attempt to give that right, or at any rate, to give it in the case of existing denominational schools. The objection, which would be raised to his proposal was that the denominations, in virtue of the fact that they had built these schools, had a higher and superior claim to control them, and that they had the right to appoint the teachers. He reminded the Committee that in an enormous number of cases the denominations only did so with the knowledge and consciousness that the State was going to maintain them except in the mere matter of bricks and mortar. He would put this question to the Church people. 235 When would their claim terminate? How long after the State had begun to provide the whole maintenance of these schools, and five-sixths of the whole expenditure of the year, was the claim on the part of the Church to have the management in virtue of having built the schools to outweigh the fact that the State was providing the money for their maintenance? It was perfectly obvious that the time must come when the claim of the State must become predominant. It appeared to some hon. Members that that claim was already the preponderating one.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
In line 9, to leave out all the words after the words 'a body of,' to end of sub section (2), and insert the words 'secular managers appointed in the same way as in the case of schools provided by the local education authority, and another body of religious managers appointed as at present under the trust, who shall, if dissatisfied with the religious teaching provided by the secular managers, be entitled to make arrangements for the provision of religious teaching distinctive of their denomination during a period of not less than half an hour at the commencement of every school day for the children of such parents as ask for it in writing. The local education authority shall be required to take such steps as are necessary to facilitate is such arrangements."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'managers' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he did not think the plan proposed by the hon. Member for Elland was a practicable one. He could not imagine that it would conduce to any educational or religious interests, or to the harmonious working of the schools. He was sure that, in whatever direction the much desired compromise between the contending parties might be found, it would not be on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE
said there was no doubt there were some difficulties in the way of the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend. This was only one of the numerous Amendments to be moved from that side of the House which expressed their very strong feeling that the whole question of the management of the schools not provided by the 236 local education authority had not been adequately thought out and provided for by the Government. He had not risen so much to discuss the details of the Amendment, as to make a very strong appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether they had not reached a stage at which the right hon. Gentleman should make some statement showing that he would take time to consider his position, instead of embarking the Committee on long controversies, and that he would allow this matter to stand over to a later stage in the autumn session.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that he did not intend to ask the Committee to try and finish these controversies that night. That, he thought, would be unreasonable.
§ * MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)
said he thought the wording of the Amendment was not as simple and clear as it might be made in order to indicate the purpose his hon. friend had in view; but he thought that it was a reasonable and fair compromise. The First Lord of the Treasury had clearly not grasped the scope of the Amendment, and he begged his attention to it. It was in substance practically the same as the suggestion repeatedly made, after the passing of the Act of 1870, by the most advanced group of educational reformers, and notably Dr. Crosskey the Chairman of the Birmingham School Board, with a view to arrive at an equitable solution of this very difficulty. What they suggested, and what this Amendment offered to secure, was that the denominational managers should retain absolute control of the building, and the right to maintain and direct in their own way their distinctive religious teaching at any time outside the time-table of the secular curriculum of the schools. The school would pass under the complete control of the elected authority for all secular teaching, exactly as by the right hon. Gentleman's proposals it would pass under the new local education authority. In this way all that was essential to the maintenance of this specific religious teaching would be secured, while there would be a real chance of welding together and bringing into a single coordinated system all the schools of a rural district. It seemed to him unsatisfactory if they did not attempt, by some uniform system of management, to bring 237 all the schools into line, and this could be done with security to the denominational character of the school by some such Amendment as this.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON
said that the First Lord of the Treasury must admit that the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend was not meant, and would not have the effect of undenominationalising the voluntary schools. Nonconformists had no desire to destroy the denominational teaching in denominational schools; and they did not think that, if the teachers were under public control, denominational interests would go by the Board. What they wanted to secure was public control over all secular education. When they came to these new schools, he thought that
§ was a plan which the Government might reasonably adopt, reserving the legitimate control of the people in regard to secular education. Nonconformists had no desire to destroy the denominational teaching in the denominational schools, but the public control of secular education must be secured. It was no part of their demand to say that there should not be any denominational teaching. Perhaps he might be allowed to say that, in his opinion, the Cowper-Temple Clause had preserved religious teaching in this-country so far as it was desirable.
§ (12.48.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 237 Noes, 86. (Division List No. 336.)239
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Crossley, Sir Savile||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Harris, Frederick Leverton|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Davenport, William Bromley-||Haslett, Sir James Horner|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Delany, William||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Devlin, Joseph||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley|
|Arrol, Sir William||Dickson, Charles Scott||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset, E.|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Dillon, John||Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside|
|Balcarres, Lord||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Hornby, Sir William Henry|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Doogan, P. C.||Hoult, Joseph|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Howard, Jno. (Kent, Faversham|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Duffy, William J.||Hudson, George Bickersteth|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Duke, Henry Edward||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Jessel, Capt. Herbert Men on|
|Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants. W)||Joyce, Michael|
|Bignold, Arthur||Faber, George Denison (York.||Keswick, William|
|Boland, John||Farrell, James Patrick||King, Sir Henry Seymour|
|Bond, Edward||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Lambton, Hon. Frederick W m.|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Ffrench, Peter||Law, Hush Alex. (Donegal, W.|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th|
|Bull, William James||Finch, George H.||Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Fisher, William Hayes||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Carlile, William Walter||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.||Flynn, James Christopher||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Forster, Henry William||Llewellyn, Evan Henry|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Gardner, Ernest||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine|
|Chamberlain, J Austen (Wore'r||Gilhooly, James||Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham|
|Chapman, Edward||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Loug, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)|
|Charrington, Spencer||Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop||Lowe, Francis William|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Grenfell, William Henry||Lundon, W.|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Gretton, John||Macartney, Rt Hn WG Ellison|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Guest., Hon. Ivor Churchill||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Guthrie, Walter Murray||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Hambro, Charles Eric||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Cranborne, Lord||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'sx||Maconochie, A. W.|
|Crean, Eugene||Hammond, John||M'Kean, John|
|M 'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Plamer, Walter (Salisbury)||Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Manners, Lord Cecil||Parkes, Ebenezer||Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)|
|Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfries-sh.||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Melville, Beresford Valentine||Power, Patrick Joseph||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Pretyman, Ernest George||Sullivan, Donal|
|Milvain, Thomas||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Purvis, Robert||Talbot, Rt Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.|
|Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Randles, John S.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Rankin, Sir James||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire||Redmond, John E. (Waterford||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Morgan, David J. (Walthamsto.||Reid, James (Greenock)||Tully, Jasper|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Remnant, James Farquharson||Valentia, Viscount|
|Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)||Renwick, George||Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield|
|Mount, William Arthur||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Murnaghan, George||Roche, John||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Murphy, John||Ropner, Colonel Robert||Welby, Lt. -Col A C E (Taunton|
|Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute||Round, Rt. Hon. James||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)|
|Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Whiteley, H (Ashtonund. Lyne|
|Nannetti, Joseph P.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.|
|Nicholson, William Graham||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Wodebouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Nicol, Donald Ninian||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Seely, Maj. J.E B. (Isle of Wight||Wylie, Alexander|
|O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid||Seton-Karr, Henry||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.|
|O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside||TELLER FOR THE AYES—|
|O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Smith, Jame Parker (Lanarks.||Sir William Walrond and|
|O'Malley, William||Smith, Hon. W. F.D. (Strand)||Mr. Anstruther.|
|O'Mara, James||Spear, John Ward|
|Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud||Harwood, George||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh||Helme. Norval Watson||Runciman, Walter|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Holland, Sir William Henry||Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Horniman, Frederick John||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Caldwell, James||Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Tennant, Harold John|
|Cremer, William Randal||Leigh, Sir Josepi||Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Levy, Maurice||Thomas. David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Lewis, John Herbert||Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings)|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Lloyd-George, David||Thomas, J A (Glamorg'n, Gower|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||M'Kenna, Reginald||Toulmin, George|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Edwards, Frank||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Elibank, Master of||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Emmott, Alfred||Moss, Samuel||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Moulton, John Fletcher||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.|
|Fitzmanrice, Lord Edmund||Norman, Henry||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Paulton, James Mellor||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Gadstone, Rt Hn Herbert John||Pearson, Sir Weetman D.||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid|
|Grant, Corrie||Price, Robert John||Wilson, Henry J. (York. W.R.|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Priestley, Arthur||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Rea, Russell|
|Harcourt. Rt. Hon. Sir William||Rickett, J. Compton||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil||Rigg, Richard||Mr. Trevelyan and Mr.|
|Harmworth, R. Leicester||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)||Alfred Hutton.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ (1.0.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said they had now come to the words, "Consisting of a number of trust managers not exceeding four, appointed as provided by this Act." He submitted that this was the very essence of the whole clause. Upon the way these managers 240 were provided would depend the whole of the controversy between the two sides of the House. If this proposal were carried, there was nothing to prevent the First Lord of the Treasury bringing forward a provision that the whole of these managers should be elected directly 241 by the ratepayers. Upon this question depended the attitude of both parties in the House in regard to this subject. The whole controversy turned upon the way these managers were to be provided. They were now Being asked to discuss a clause without knowing the method by which the managers were to be provided, and they were asked to discuss it in the dark. He submitted, as a point of order, that the Government were not entitled to proceed with this Amendment without first submitting their proposals with regard to the provision of managers.
In the first place I do not think that this matter is of the essence of the clause, as I stated earlier in the debate. As a matter of fact, however, the Government have hande in their proposals. [Opposition crises of "Oh, oh!" and An HON. MEMBER: Where are they?] They are in my hand at the present time, along with some manuscript Amendments which have been handed in.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that this was a very remarkable proceeding. Two or three hours ago he submitted a point of order, which was ruled against him, and he accepted that decision. He was told that later on was the proper place to raise his objection when they came to deal with the composition of trust managers. He found that in the meantime the Government had tabled their proposals. He made no further comment on that, but he submitted that they could not possibly discuss the question of the composition of the trust managers without knowing what trust managers were. The very words "trust managers" were new in law. He was not aware that those words occurred in any Education Act or any other Act, and no explanation had been given as to what they meant. How could they discuss this subject without knowing what the proposals of the Government were? He thought it was quite obvious that the right hon. Gentleman could not ask the House to discuss words which at the present time were perfectly meaningless. The whole question depended upon what was provided. The right hon. Gentleman might provide something which met all their objections raid he might not. Was it treating the Committee fairly to ask them to discuss a proposal like this, 242 which was not on the Paper even in out line? Were the subscribers only to be the managers, or were the ratepayers or the laity to be included? He did not think the right hon. Gentleman could have thought out the proposals he had handed in during the course of the discussion. The composition of a body which was to manage 14,000 schools was not a matter which the right hon. Gentle man could think out while attending to the debate. If these new proposals had only been thought out in the course of the-last two hours, he suggested that the Government should take more time to consider a question upon which the future success of their scheme would depend. In the interests of the House of Commons and the Bill itself, and in the interests of of fair play, he did not think the Government ought to invite the House to discuss a project which was not before them, and which was to be "hereinafter provided for" This was not treating the Committee fairly, and he submitted that the right hon. Gentleman should now report progress in order that they might have time to consider what his proposals really were. He therefore moved to report progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said that if his hon. and learned friend had convinced the right hon. Gentleman, he had no desire to go on, and he would, spare the Committee the few minutes which he should otherwise occupy in stating the reasons why the Government should agree to this Motion. They were a little surprised at the objection being ruled out of order, because when they had moved Amendments which referred to some subsequent clause they had been called upon to produce such clause in order to show what "hereinafter provided for" meant. Here they had an elaborate Amendment before them which omitted what was the most material part of the Amendment. One would have thought that this particular point was the most material thing, and that it would have been put upon the Paper earlier, so that they would have known how these managers were to he appointed. With regard to the appointment of the minority of the managers, it was specifically stated how they wore to be 243 appointed, but when they came to the four managers who were to constitute the statutory majority, nothing whatever was told them. The Government had evidently not made up their minds upon this point until the present moment, and now they were being asked to discuss how these four managers were to be appointed without anybody having any idea as to the way in which the Government proposed they should be appointed. Was it reasonable that they should be called upon to discuss this question without any information as to the character of the Government proposals? If the present proceeding was in order, a Motion to report progress was the proper method of dealing with it. It was unreasonable to be called upon to discuss the Amendment as to the character of the persons who were to be governors of 14,000 schools. He hoped that before next Friday the Government would let the Committee know what their scheme was.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire had added anything material to what was said by the hon. Member for Carnarvon. He thought the plea that progress should be reported because the Government had ill-used the House was unjust, as there had never been any concealment as to these denominational managers. They had argued throughout the whole discussion that those managers were to be nominated, and every speaker who had taken part in the debate knew that that was so. Therefore, that was the material, and the only material thing, for the present discussion. If the hon. Gentleman opposite would glance down all the alternative schemes which still remained on the Paper he would see that they all turned on the fact that hon. Members opposite desired to see the number of denominational managers diminished and the number of the elected managers increased. There had been no concealment whatever in the matter, and everybody had known exactly what they had to deal with. The only reason for the delay was the problem presented by the strange condition and variety of the trustees of the schools. He could tell the Committee now what the broad outline of the Government proposals was. He frankly admitted that the Clause 244 was framed with the idea of leaving trust deeds, as far as possible, alone.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
It would be necessary to appoint trustees, as far as possible in conformity with the traditions of the school, to fit in with this Clause.
§ SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)
asked about schools owned by individuals where there were no trust deeds.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that if there were no trustees it would be the duty of the Board of Education to frame trusts.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he was glad to see that the hon. Gentleman was so anxious that the owners of voluntary schools should retain their rights. He was, however, afraid that the Committee would not do much effective work in connection with this matter that night, so he should accept the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.