§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 9:—
§ (2.40.) MR. M'KENNA (Monmouth shire, N.) moved that the consideration of the Clause should be postponed. He said his reason for doing so was very simple. The Clause deals with the provision of new schools. As the Bill originally stood, finance was dealt with in a sub-Section of Clause 8; but it had now beer postponed. Before they considered the provision of new schools they ought tc: know what financial arrangements the Government proposed to make to assist the local authority in providing the schools, and consequently Clause 9, he thought, ought to be postponed until the question of financial arrangements had ‡ been considered. Moreover, the Committee had not yet on the Paper the alterations in Clause 9, which, it was obvious from the Prime Minister's reference at Manchester to the power which Nonconformists would have of building schools out of public funds, would be required. He was sorry to have again to quote that speech, but the right hon. Gentleman, in that part of it dealing with the large number of advantages which Nonconformists were going to derive from the Bill, asked if they (the Nonconformists) would not hail with acclamation a Bill which enabled them, for the first time in ‡ our history, to build, out of public funds, schools according to their own views or even their own prejudices. But according to the Bill, as it stood, the cost of the buildings was to be provided by the Nonconformist bodies themselves. Did the First Lord intend to adhere to the policy which he thus set out at Manchester? It was quite clear that the Clause, as it stood, did not carry out that policy, and that something very different must be substituted for it. Hence he suggested the postponement of the consideration of the Clause, to enable the Government to produce their Amendments. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman had put down an Amendment to Clause 1409 13 which would enable the local authority to find a certain portion of the funds required for building new voluntary schools, but it was absurd to say that a denomination should have the power to set up a denominational school, until the financial intentions of the Government were fully before them.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That Clause 9 be postponed."—(Mr. M'Kenna.)
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)
said he could not, of course, accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. With regard to the financial point of view, the policy of this Clause was quite irrespective of any decision that might be come to with regard to the financial Clause, which they would have to discussiater. With regard to the second point, as to the view he expressed at Manchester, he did not know whether it was his fault, but lie had heard statements on that matter with which he could not agree. He had not seen that portion of the report which the hon. Member had quoted, but what he intended to express was quite clear. Like the case of a town like Preston, where the whole place was covered by voluntary schools; it was impossible to lay down a general rule and say that there should be no rate-provided schools at all. If the Nonconformists objected, for instance, to the teaching in the denominational schools, they would be wholly without a remedy, and that remedy was proposed by this Bill. He hoped the hon. Member would not press the Motion.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)
thought there was a good deal to be said in favour of the postponement of the Clause. The Government proposed to give £900,000 yearly towards educational purposes in addition to the grants already made, and it was exceedingly important before Parliament parted with that money they should ensure that it should be used for the reduction of rates and to secure increased efficiency. They were now coming to, he would not say the most important Clause of the Bill, but certainly the most obnoxious part of it. If the Government wanted to pass a 1410 good Bill surely they would put the interests of education generally throughout the country before those of sects. Could they not allocate a portion of this sum for the purpose of getting rid of the miserable, squalid little schools which now covered the country districts? He would remind the Committee that when the whisky money was given, the first thing that was done in the Welsh counties, under the wise guidance of Mr. Acland, was to pool the money for the purpose of creating a building fund. It was now within the power of the Government to do more for education in certain poor districts than had been done for thirty years. Would the Government now agree to allocate part of the money to be voted under the Bill for the purposes of Clause 9, and see that it was devoted to building purposes. What was the difficulty now in rural districts? It was not that the people failed to realise that the present state of the schools was detrimental to the interests of education, but it was the fact that any attempt to provide new buildings crushed the ratepayers oven more than the maintenance rate. The cost of building was prohibitive. Let the Prime Minister face this problem now, and introduce into the Clause a provision allocating a portion of the, £900,000 for building purposes. Let him agree to set aside £200,000 or £300,000 with the object of building new schools in rural districts and in the poorer districts of large towns. That would do far more for the cause of education than the present Clause, which was calculated to embitter and extend the area of sectarian strife. As he had said, the whisky money in the Welsh counties enabled the creation of a building fund out of which substantial grants were made to assist in the building of new schools. He hoped the Prime Minister would not treat this as a dilatory Motion, but look on it as one which was calculated to convert a pernicious into a fairly good working Clause.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea, District)
, as another reason for postponing the consideration of the Clause, pointed out that they had not yet determined the constitution of the Education Committee. That was to be done by Clause 12, which was of a most extraordinary 1411 character, because the local education authority, about which they heard so much in the debates on Clause 8, was only to act in certain cases of its own motion. According to Clause 9, as he construed it, the local education authority would only be able to act through the local committee, and the Clause evidently contemplated disputes, and even litigation, between the local education authority and persons who
§ wished a new school to be provided. Surely, then, they ought to determine the constitution of the Education Committee before deciding how the new schools were to be provided.
§ (2.55.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 64; Noes, 115. (Division List, No. 455.)1413
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee|
|Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud||Hayne, Rt. Him. Charles Seale-||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Shackleton, David James|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Holland, Sir William Henry||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.|
|Bell, Richard||Horniman, Frederick John||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Brand, Hon. Arthur G.||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Jacoby, James Alfred||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea||Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants|
|Burt, Thomas||Kearley, Hudson E.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Kinloch, Sir John GeorgeSmyth||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.|
|Caine, William Sproston||Labouchere, Henry||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Caldwell, James||Lambert, George||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Cameron, Robert||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Wallace, Robert|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Leng, Sir John||Wason, Eugene|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Lewis, John Herbert||Weir, James Galloway|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Lloyd-George, David||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Lough, Thomas||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||M'Crae, George||Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Fenwick, Charles||Price, Robert John||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.||Rea, Russell||Mr. M'Kenna and Mr. Trevelyan.|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset. E.)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Cranborne, Viscount||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Horner, Frederick William|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Crossley, Sir Savile||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Denny, Colonel||Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Bain, Col. James Robert||Durning-Lawrance, Sir Edwin||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Fisher, William Hayes||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Malcolm, Ian|
|Bignold, Arthur||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Maple, Sir John Blundell|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Flower, Ernest||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n|
|Bolnois, Edmund||Forster, Henry William||Middlemore, John Throgmort'n|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Gardner, Ernest||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Garfit, William||Mount, William Arthur|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute|
|Carew, James Laurence||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Parker Sir Gilbert|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Percy, Earl|
|Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Hain, Edward||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Chapman, Edward||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Purvis, Robert|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Staly bridge)|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Haslett, Sir James Horner||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson|
|Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E (Taunton|
|Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|Royds, Clement Molyneux||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks).|
|Rutherford John||Thorburn, Sir Walter||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Seton-Karr, Henry||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Sharpe, William Edward T.||Walker, Col. William Hall||TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —|
|Simeon, Sir Barrington||Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.||Sir Alexander Acland-|
|Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.||Warde, Colonel C. E||Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
(3.12.) THE CHAIRMAN
The first Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Carmarthen, seems to me to be already provided for, because the Committee has handed over to the now local authority the powers of the School Boards under Section 18 of the Act of 1870, one of which is to provide such school accommodation as is necessary. The only distinction is that between the words "adequate" and "necessary." The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs is not necessary. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North Camberwell seems to me to raise the same point as the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Carmarthen.
§ DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)
said that the Amendment he desired to move simply set out the preparatory statement in the Act of 1870, before the scheme was set forth. He thought it was highly desirable that that statement should be inserted before they proceeded to the discussion of the Clause. The greater part of Section 18 of the Act of 1870 was repealed, and what remained referred only to the provision of schools by School Boards; whereas the Bill contemplated the provision of schools by the local education authority "or any other persons." He therefore thought it desirable that the preparatory statement should be inserted.
I think that is provided for by the third schedule of the Bill, which states—(5) The following provision shall have effect in lieu of Section 5 of the Elementary Education Act, 1891.
said it was now proposed to repeal that part of the Act of 1870 which made it incumbent on the Local authority to carry out its powers.
The hon. Member will see that the way in which it is proposed will re-enact Section 5; and he can move to alter that when we get to the schedule. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division stands on the same ground; and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby seems to me to be a negation of the Clause, besides being contrary to what the Committee has already passed in Clause 8.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
said he wished to move an Amendment to omit "where," the first word in the Clause, in order to insert "It shall be the duty of."
§ MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W. R., Elland)
said that the governing words in the schedule were "without payment of fees," which did not refer to school accommodation at all.
If the hon. Member does not like these words, he can propose to strike them out when the schedule is reached.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said the position was that they desired that new school accommodation should be provided by the local authority, whereas the scheme in the Bill proposed it should be provided 1415 by the local authority, "or any other persons." Surely, therefore, the Amendment of his hon friend to insert "It shall be the duty of," was in order.
Those words are already in the Bill. By Clause 6, the Committee has incorporated Section 18 of the Act of 1870, which says that a School Board shall provide such school accommodation as is necessary.
Yes, in their opinion. The words are as clear as possible. If the hon. Member objects to the words "or any other persons," he can move to strike them out when they are reached.
I attach importance to my ruling. The Amendment of the hon. Member for West Denbighshire is in order.
§ MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.) moved to omit the words "the local education authority or any other," and to insert "any." The object of the Amendment would be perfectly clear. He was glad it had been laid down from the Chair that Clause 6 of the Bill, as amended, made it perfectly clear that the local education authority would be responsible for the provision of adequate public elementary school accommodation. The Amendment did not in any way affect any other persons taking the initiative; that would be raised by a later Amendment, but he wished to make it clear at the outset that his Amendment, taking it for granted that the local education authority would be responsible for providing adequate school accommodation, and that any other persons had the right of initiating new school accommodation, laid it down that the local education authority should be withdrawn from rivalry and competition, and be made the sole arbitrator in the case of any conflict or dispute. He did not think his Amendment was in any way out of harmony with the spirit and the tenour of the Bill, so far as it had 1416 proceeded. What was the present position? The denominational schools were to remain, for the present at all events, in our educational system; and a bargain had been arrived at by which the supporters of the denominational schools received certain advantages, certain local Government grants being given to the counties. But when they came to the question of providing new school accommodation, he thought a new issue was raised; and he did not think that it was out of harmony with the sprit of the Bill that, in that matter, the local education authority should be the supreme judge and sole arbitrator in all questions of dispute. So far as they had gone, it had been laid down that the local education authority was to have complete control of secular education; that it was to prescribe a standard of excellence in the schools; and that it was to be responsible for raising and spending the education rate. He put it to the Committee, was it unnatural, given that condition of things, that the local education authority should be the authority to decide in a case of dispute with regard to the necessity of providing further school accommodation? He proposed the Amendment on one or two main grounds. First of all, if it were accepted he thought it would avoid a great deal of friction which might arise under this Bill between the education authority on the one hand and the managers of schools and other persons who might desire to build schools on the other. Under the operation of Clause 8 as at present drafted they would have the spectacle of competition between the local education authority and private persons; there might be the ten ratepayers brought in, and finally the appeal to the High Court. Must that not be a somewhat humiliating position for any local authority constituted such as those under the Bill? The real crux of the question was, was the local education authority in these matters to be trusted or not? The hon. and learned Attorney General had stated that the desire of the Government was to trust the local education authority. The point therefore was whether the local education authorities were to be only a kind of magnified School Board, or were they to be bodies which, by reason of their responsibility, would draw to their service the most experienced elements of public life 1417 in this country. His object all along had been to strengthen the hands and heighten the responsibility of these local education authorities, and that was the object which underlay all the Amendments he had moved. In his opinion the success of the Bill when passed would largely depend upon the success that would be attained in bringing good men to the service of the local education authorities. If these authorities were to be the representation of the best judgment, the best experience of the life of the counties, then they must be given such powers as would make it impossible for them to be led into competition with bands of private individuals who desired to build schools. He moved the Amendment with the sole object of making it clear, whatever the form of the Clause might eventually be, that it would not be possible for such authorities as this to be brought into rivalry with private individuals. He begged to move.
In page 3, line 36, to leave out the words, 'the local education authority or any other,' and insert the word 'any.'"— (Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'the local education authority' stand part of the Clause."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)
said he cordially agreed with the desire the hon. Member had expressed that the services of the best men should be available for these local education authorities, but he did not think there was anything in the Clause as it stood which would conflict with the attainment of that object. The Clause dealt with the provision of new schools, and it was quite obvious that it must depend on the circumstances of the locality what class of schools should be provided. It might be that in some districts what was now called a board school would be built, and in others what was now termed a voluntary school. What the hon. Gentleman proposed was to do away with all check in the provision of new board schools, and leave it
§ simply at the option of the local authority to provide new board schools, whatever the effect might be upon the voluntary schools of the district. He could not agree, and hoped the Committee would not agree, with the object set before it. As a matter of fact, this Amendment would not carry out the object of the hon. Member, because the "persons" would include the local authority. So that even if the Amendment were passed it would be futile.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
, upon a point of order, asked whether, if this Amendment were disposed of, it would invalidate an Amendment on the next page to strike out "All other persons."
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)
said he understood the object of the Amendment was to prevent friction between the local education authority and the managers. His hon. friend pleaded that if the local authority, the ruling authority of the district, thought fit to make provision, it should not be affected by the recommendations that were laid down in Clause 9. He thought the Government might meet the Committee to that extent, because so far as existing voluntary schools were concerned, they were placed in a stronger and more unassailable position than they were be-fore. They pleaded for a little more liberty for the extension of the public system of elementary schools. It was not a Nonconformist system. Many of the teachers of the School Boards were Churchmen. They pleaded for a system like that in vogue in Scotland, and he hoped the Government would consider the advisability of meeting them a little in that way, and of giving more freedom to the local education authorities in the provision of new public elementary schools.
§ (3.28.) Question proposed.
§ Committee divided:—Ayes, 145 Noes, 87. (Division List, No 456.)1421
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bailey, James (Walworth)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Arnold-Forster, Hugh O||Bain, Colonel James Robert|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)||Flower, Ernest||Parker, Sir Gilbert|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds||Forster, Henry William||Percy, Earl|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Galloway, William Johnson||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Gardner, Ernest||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Bignold, Arthur||Garfit, William||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Bill, Charles||Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)||Purvis Robert|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Rankin, Sir James|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Bull, William James||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hain, Edward||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Carew, James Laurence||Hamiiton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm||Rutherford, John|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Heaton, John Henniker||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Helder, Augustus||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Hogg, Lindsay||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Chapman, Edward||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Johnstone, Heywood||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Kemp, George||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester).|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Valentia, Viscount|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Denny, Colonel||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.|
|Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Macdona, John Cumming||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Wharton, Rt Hon. John Lloyd|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Williams, Rt HnJ Powell-(Birm|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Malcolm, Ian||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Maple, Sir John Blundell||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Mount, William Arthur||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robts. Penrose-||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute||Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edwd. Algernon||Myers, William Henry|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Fenwick, Charles||M'Crae, George|
|Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Mansfield, Horace Rendall|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry||Fuller, J. M. F.||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||Middlernore, John Throgmort'n|
|Bell, Richard||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Brand, Hon. Arthur G.||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Newnes, Sir George|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Burt, Thomas||Holland, Sir William Henry||Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Horniman, Frederick John||Price, Robert John|
|Caine, William Sproston||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Priestley, Arthur|
|Caldwell, James||Jacoby, James Alfred||Rea, Russell|
|Cameron, Robert||Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Kearley, Hudson E.||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Shackleton, David James|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Lambert, George||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Davies, Alfred, (Carmarthen)||Leng, Sir John||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Lewis, John Herbert||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Lloyd-George, David||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Dunn, Sir William||Lough, Thomas||Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants|
|Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr||White, Luke (York, E. R.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax||Mr. Herbert Roberts and|
|Wallace, Robert||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)||Mr. Edwards.|
|Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Hudd'rsf'd|
|Wason, Eugene||Yoxall, Henry James|
§ (3.38.) MR. TREVELYAN
, in moving the omission of the words "or any other persons,'" said the Amendment was one of the most important that could be moved inasmuch as its object, with certain consequential Amendments, was to secure that all new schools provided out of public funds under the Act would be built by the public authority. The scheme of the Government was nominally to give equal facilities to different sects to provide new schools. The various Churches were to be permitted under certain circumstances, if they could find the funds, to build schools in different districts- He wished to dwell upon one minor evil of that proposal. The Church of England was already complaining that she would not be able to find the money for the repairs to her existing schools as required by the Bill. Eight hundred voluntary schools had not a single penny of subscriptions, while 700 more had subscriptions only to the amount of 1s. per child, and yet upon the shoulders of these schools was to be imposed for all time the duty of providing for repairs. Surely it was a very dangerous thing, in addition to this obligation, to permit the Church to build schools in districts where she did not now possess them. The only way in which the Church could provide for repairs at present was by calling in aid from other districts, so that the result of this proposal of the Bill would be that, in order to build new schools—which would be one of her main objects—the Church would draw upon those very resources which ought to be tapped for the purpose of repairs for existing schools. That, however, was a minor evil. The chief consideration was that, if the Clause were passed in its present form, it would instantly become the ambition of the clergymen of every religious community to find funds to build schools wherever they could get the permission of the Board of Education to do so, and in every little village there would be a competition between the different sects. It had already been stated that if the Church of England built schools under 1422 this Clause the Wesleyans might find it necessary to compete with them, and possibly would build several hundred schools. The prospect opened up by that statement was anti-National and odious. Children ought not to be separated into little lots of different sects brought up in schools in which they were taught to dislike the children in other schools—
§ LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)
Can the hon. Member give an instance of a school in which the children are taught to dislike the children in another school?
§ MR. TREVELYAN
contended that the mere fact of the children being segregated into different sets according to their religion was practically bound to foster such a feeling. In an earlier debate he cited the case of a village in which the Nonconformists and the Church clergyman quarrelled over the appointment of a teacher, with the result that the Nonconformists set up a separate school of their own. Up to that time the village had been perfectly united so far as the goodwill of the people was concerned and no ill-feeling had existed between the different religious sects; but the very fact of two schools having been established—as would be done in dozens of villages under this Clause—had set up a denominational rivalry, and the village was torn from top to bottom with religious differences. That was bound to happen. If they gave this permission it would involve building, in numbers of parishes, schools by different denominations. Further, they objected because, as the law stood under the administrative conditions under which it must work, there was no doubt that special advantages were given to the sectarian schools as against schools provided by the public. In the first place, it would be to the advantage of the local authority to allow the different sects 1423 to build schools in preference to themselves because they would not then have to provide them out of the rates. That was a direct bribe to erecting sectarian schools in preference to erecting schools by the public. Further, the Education Department, by the very words of the Bill in the 10th Clause, would be bound rather to prefer sectarian schools to schools erected by the public authority, because one of the things which the Board of Education had to take into consideration was the economy of the rates, and if it could get schools built by a religious community instead of out of the public purse that would be economy of the rates, and if there was a question of bias in the mind of the Education Department it would clearly be in favour of the sectarian schools. For these reasons it appeared to him that not only were they to have a system perpetuated under which more and more sectarian schools would spring up all over the country, but they were actually to have an advantage given to the building of sectarian schools as against schools built by the public. He thought this was an altogether wrong system. They believed in a national system of education under which the schools were in the hands of the public, and they did not look forward to having England breaking out into a sort of rash of sectarian schools which the denominationalists could scratch until the whole system was in a state of irritation. They saw in this part of the Bill another encouragement to the setting up of sectarian schools, and this was protested against prior to 1870, when it was alleged that special facilities were being given for the building of sectarian schools. One of those who denounced that policy vigorously at that time was the Colonial Secretary, who protested against the giving of public grants for the building of these schools. The Government were not now proposing public grants but a far more insidious thing, for they were asking denominationalists to subscribe money for the building of sectarian schools and promising to maintain them ever afterwards out of the public funds. He hoped the House would seriously consider this question before consenting to an increase of this dual system.
In page 3, line 36, to leave out the words, 'or any other persons.'"—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I think the hon. Gentleman opposite was not far wrong when he said that the issue raised by this Amendment was a clear and important one, indeed, it cuts very deep into the fundamental question underlying the scheme on which the system of education is carried on, and probably we shall have to go into the Division Lobby because we entertain a different view as to the principle upon which religious teaching should be carried out in our elementary schools. The hon. Gentleman's proposal is quite simple. It is that even if voluntary schools are to be tolerated where they exist now new voluntary schools are not to be tolerated in the future, and that every provision for future education must be made out of the rates by the local authority, and must, of course, be subject to those limitations which affect the schools. In other words, the hon. Gentleman lays it down as a fundamental principle that, at all events, in all cases of future provision we should only provide them under the limitation of the Cowper-Temple Clause. This is a significant speech to listen to, after the statement made by a colleague of the hon. Member from Wales on the last Amendment, seeing that he desired to see the Scotch system adopted. The view taken now by the hon. Member is precisely the opposite, for he wishes to see the English School Board system, which is profoundly contrasted with the Scotch system in this respect, made the universal system, so far as the provision of new schools is concerned. I think the hon. Member will admit that that accurately represents what he proposes. So strong was the hon. Member upon this point that he thought it fit and proper to describe any system which tempered the English form of rate-provided schools with an admixture of voluntary schools as anti-national and odious. I absolutely differ from the hon. Member, for reasons which I believe very fundamental, and which I will state in a very few words. I have to repeat 1425 here words which I have uttered before on the platform and elsewhere, and say that, in my view, it is a tolerable and even a good system to say what we do in Scotland, that the public shall provide elementary schools for the community, but in providing those schools they are not to be hampered by any restrictions as to the religious teaching in those schools, which should be left to their own discretion and to their judgment to see that the teaching shall be suitable to the children of the district.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
The English system of providing schools is that, where there is a deficiency not to be met in any other way it shall be met by rate-provided schools, but that in those schools the education authority for the district whether School Boards, as it is now, of County or Borough Councils, as under this Bill, are to be limited in their discretion as to the education to be provided, and however much the parents of those children, or large sections of them, desire a particular kind of religious education, they are not to have it unless it is in conformity with the Cowper-Temple Clause. I hold that system as an absolutely intolerable one, unless you temper it with the voluntary schools, and holding that view as regards the whole scheme of English education, it is as clearly necessary to provide scope and room for the voluntary school education of the future as it is to preserve the voluntary schools already erected for the purpose of meeting this peculiar need. That, Sir, is the whole case in a nutshell. If I am to be told that the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite is that the Cowper-Temple Clause to which, I understand, they attach such great importance, is to be abandoned as far as all rate-provided schools are concerned, I admit that the force of my contention would be largely in the air. Is that the view we are to have pressed upon us, and is that what would be given by the general body of hon. Gentlemen opposite without any undue delay or prolonged discussion?
§ SIR EDWARD GREY (Northumberland, Berwick)
You must give us the 1426 Scotch system as a whole. I understand the right hon. Gentleman is offering us only a morsel of the Scotch system.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
We are now providing that schools will have to be provided in future for the growing needs of the child population. If all schools to be provided out of the rates are to be limited by the Cowper-Temple Clause, then you must give room in this future provision for the voluntary schools; but if you say that this future provision is to be made out of the rates, and not under the limitation of the Cowper-Temple Clause, then I admit that the argument I have addressed to the House loses a great deal of its force. I do not believe that that is the view of the great body of Nonconformist opinion in this country or of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have always understood that they attach something almost in the nature of superstitious veneration to the Cowper-Temple Clause, that they had invented something in the nature of a new orthodoxy under the shadow of that Clause, and that they regarded every form of religion outside it as anti-national and odious and verging upon superstition. If I am assured on authoritative grounds that the whole Nonconformist body have turned right round in the twinkling of a moment and abandoned the Cowper-Temple Clause altogether as regards rate-provided schools, I shall be very glad to consider the development of a situation which, to me, is so new and so unexpected.
§ (4.0.) MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)
thought there were many other objections to this Clause, and many other arguments in favour of this Amendment, which would be sufficient to condemn the Clause, without bringing in the religious question at all. He must say one word about the way the Prime Minister brought in the case of Scotland. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman was playing fast and loose in this matter. He was always asking, "Will you have the Scotch system?" and when they asked, "Will you give the Scotch system?" he immediately escaped. There were good and sufficient reasons why the Scotch system was not given. He was not entitled to say what the Nonconformists in England, or the English laity collectively, as against the 1427 clerical body, thought of it. He was not prepared to say whether the laity generally, or the Nonconformist section of them, would accept the Scotch system instead of the Cowper-Temple Clause, but he thought he might safely say that they would not accept the abolition of the Cowper-Temple Clause except upon the condition that the Scotch system was brought in in its entirety; that was to say, that everywhere, in town and country, it should be within the reach of every child, and that there should be a popularly elected body, like the School Board, to administer the schools of the country. He was quite prepared, for his own part, to believe that if that was the case the religious difficulty would come to an end, because that difficulty was a plant which did not thrive in the atmosphere of popularity. The open sun and air of a popularly elected body would put an end to those troubles, quarrels jealousies, suspicions and animosities which thrive under a sectarian system. The Scotch Members would be able to confirm what he said when he stated that there were practically no difficulties, quarrels, and troubles arising under their system in Scotland. The reason was that it was all public. The School Boards were responsible to the electorate, and if there was any attempt to abuse the power given to them to give instruction according to what was called "use and wont," that would be immediately rectified by the asking of questions of the elected members of the School Boards, and all those troubles and difficulties would disappear. The right hon. Gentleman disliked the Cowper-Temple Clause. It was disliked because it corresponded to the facts of the case, namely, that ninety-nine out of every 100 English parents of the laity desired that their children should read the Bible and receive religious instruction based on the Bible, and that they desired nothing more. [An Hon. MEMBER: "HOW do you propose to prove that?"] Of course it was one of those assertions that might be made on one side or the other. He had never seen a particle of evidence produced that English parents desired anything more. There had been every opportunity, occasion and motive during the last six months to produce that 1428 evidence, but it had not been forthcoming. He would give his hon. friend another illustration. At the present moment there were more than a million Anglican children in board schools. Most of these children had within their reach sectarian schools, where they could obtain definite and distinct dogmatic instruction if they wanted it, but they preferred board schools. He supposed that everyone in this House who had taken the trouble to inquire could find places within his own knowledge, in which a very large proportion of the children in board schools and unsectarian schools were the children of Anglican parents. He remembered a case of a very large unsectarian school where one-third of the children were of Church of England parents, and where there were large numbers of voluntary schools within very short reach of the homes of these parents. He had not the slightest doubt that he was within the mark in saying that ninety-nine out of every 100 English lay parents preferred, or, at any rate, were well satisfied, that their children should receive religious undogmatic instruction under the Cowper-Temple Clause. The same thing was put by the Secretary to the Board of Education when he said, on Friday last, that English parents who had not the Scotch keen eye for differences in doctrine were willing to take the theology as they found it. He thought the English parents were right. Why? Because, like sensible people, it was Bible instruction they wanted for their children in elementary schools.
§ MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Brightside)
Are not the Scotch parents who desire the Shorter Catechism sensible people?
§ MR. BRYCE
Scotch parents care very little whether it is taught or not. He could give instances from his own city where it was not taught at all in schools, and no complaint was made. In most cases in Scotland the old habit of teaching was followed, but no trouble ever arose. In many cases where it was not taught, compared with cases where it was taught, equal satisfaction and peace prevailed. That went to confirm what he had stated, that everything 1429 worked well where there was a popular elective system. He passed from the religious aspect of the subject, into which he had only been led by the remarks which fell from the right hon. Gentleman. He could not let the remarks about the Cowper-Temple Clause pass without saying that the reason why that was followed was because it corresponded to the facts of the case. It gave the children what the parents wanted, and what the children were able to profit by. If they wanted dogmatic instruction superseded at a later stage by all means let that be done. They were dealing here with children under fourteen years of age. There were three grounds which he thought were sufficient to recommend the Amendment to the House. The first was that the Clause as it stood was in the last degree disparaging and injurious to the local education authority. They were calling a new local education authority into being. They were purposing to give it great and wide powers. They were endeavouring to induce persons of influence, importance, and public spirit, to enter its service. In the last Clause the Committee inflicted great indignity upon them by subjecting them to an appeal to the Board of Education on a large number of questions in which they differed from the managers. They were now carrying that further, because they were asked by this Clause to say that the local authority should have no privilege, advantage, or preference in proposing to provide schools over a number of people in the locality who might desire to do it. They could not pay a worse compliment to the local authority than by not giving them the right of being the persons to provide the schools. His second objection to the scheme of the Clause was that it was proposed to multiply small schools, and to aggravate one of the greatest evils of the existing system. On this side of the House they had not ceased since the Bill was introduced to dwell upon the inconvenience in any national system of education of having two sets of schools over a whole town, standing in different relations to the local authority, and which, because kept up independently of each other, must tend to weaken one another. In how many parts of the 1430 country had they not at this moment two or three schools within a radius of two miles, each of which was weak and imperfectly staffed, each of which had deficient buildings, and where what was wanted was consolidation? One reason why the board schools in the town had been so much more efficient than the schools in the country was that they could be equipped on a larger scale. If by this Clause they allowed a certain number to say that there was a necessity to provide a new school for sectarian purposes—instead of enlarging the existing school, and in that way strengthening it, giving it better financial support, and a better staff—they perpetuated the existing evil. He appealed to hon. Members, whatever their opinion on the religious question, and whatever they might think of the value of giving sectarian dogmatic instruction, to remember at any rate that on the educational side the case against this scheme was very strong. They wanted to bring the schools together rather than to keep them apart. They wanted to organise them on a comprehensive plan. They wanted each in an area to subserve a common purpose, but it was proposed to drive them farther from that great aim by the multiplication of small schools. Really he could not convey sufficiently to the Committee his sense of the inefficiency, waste, and needless expense which would be incurred if they followed out this plan. He was bound to say that he thought this proposal threw a very sinister light on the whole purpose and motive of the Bill. They had been constant told that the great reason for the Bill was that the denominations were already in possession of the schools and that they could not ask the ratepayers to incur the great expense of building a large number of new schools, and that they could not take the existing schools without compensation, which would be a ruinous expense to impose on the rates. That was put forward as the main justification of the Bill. But surely that justification entirely failed when they came to this Clause, because here it was proposed to do the thing afresh and make it more difficult than ever by creating new vested interests, and raising up further obligations. Therefore, when he looked at this Clause he thought he saw the true purpose, motive, and origin of the Bill. He thought the argument about 1431 vested interests was a fictitious one put forward to conceal the motive behind, which was to strengthen the hold of sectarian sm on the country. By this Clause the Government were multiplying vested interests, and multiplying all those difficulties which were to come up in the future. It was not the way to get rid of them. For his part he did not think this system could last. If the right hon. Gentleman and those who agree with him succeed in getting rid of the Cowper-Temple Clause he believed they would be doing the worst possible service to the religious education of the people. He believed the Cowper-Temple Clause was the sheet-anchor of religious education in the schools in this country. He was just as much attached as the right hon. Gentleman or the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich to the desirability and importance of retaining a religious atmosphere in the schools, but he was sure that if this contest on the religious difficulty was kept alive, and if they were to have the same strife for the next thirty years as they had had for the past thirty years the issue would be the complete secularisation of the schools. In the United States and in the British Colonies that was the solution of the problem at which they had arrived. The Cowper-Temple Clause afforded a common basis for religious education in the board schools—a common basis in this sense: that under it the common truths of Christianity were imparted to the children. And archbishops and bishops had declared that the religious education given in the board schools had been of the utmost possible value and afforded the best possible foundation for the Christian life.
§ MR. BRYCE
said he could only maintain that the testimony seemed to him conclusive, because if these eminent prelates had shared the opinion of the noble Lord they could not have spoken as they did about the religious teaching in the board schools. He repeated that the best chance of preserving a religious atmosphere in our schools was the preservation of the Cowper-Temple Clause, and that if it fell it would be followed 1432 by the secularisation of the schools altogether. He would set forth in a few words his objections to the Clause and his reasons for supporting the Amendment. It was a disparagement of the local authorities by placing them on a level with private persons, and by denying them the function of meeting the growing necessities of public education in the localities, the wants and feelings of which they understood. It was a perpetuation of sectarian strife, and an aggravation of the tendency that existed to divide children into groups upon no other ground than the religious opinions of their parents—and he believed that in that respect it was an injury to the minds of the parents themselves. And, lastly, it was educationally objectionable because it would put a national system of education further out of sight, for it would multiply vested interests and involve unnecessary expense, while it would waste the efforts of men zealous for educational reform in keeping up the number of small weak schools instead of devoting their best energies to concentration.
§ (4.25.) SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)
said he could assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen that the profound religious peace and excellent religious instruction in the schools were not due in any way to the Cowper-Temple Clause. That was not operative in the schools; it was a dead-letter. What did secure religious peace and excellent religious instruction was the common sense exercised by the teachers and managers notwithstanding the interference of Parliament to give to the children in the schools under their authority that sort of religious instruction which the parents of the children desired. He entirely agreed with the statement made the other day by the First Lord that provisions such as those in this Clause are absolutely unnecessary. The religious difficulty would disappear from Parliament and the platform, as it had done from the schools, if the House would consent to trust the new education authority with the power and the duty to make dispositions that all the children in the country were given the religious instruction desired by their parents.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
asked what the right hon. Gentleman meant by saying that the Cowper-Temple Clause was the sheet-anchor of religious instruction in the schools?
§ SIR JOHN GORST
said that the right hon. Gentleman had maintained that this Clause was a dark conspiracy on the part of the Government to promote sectarian interest. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be surprised to know that the procedure which took place at the present time in many parts of the country was in exact accordance with the provisions of this Clause which had filled the mind of the right hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment with such gloomy views. It was generally supposed that the School Board had the proper right to provide additional accommodation and to decide at what cost the alterations or additions were to be made. There was the conspicuous case, some years ago, of the Barry Docks, where the population had rapidly increased on account of the docks, and a very large portion of that population was Roman Catholic. The School Board of Barry Docks, which was an excellent body and had done its work supremely well, in the exercise of its right to supply all the schools which were under the sheet-anchor of religious instruction, were not able to make any provision whatever for the Roman Catholic population. That did not, however, prevent the Roman Catholics from building a school of their own, but they had to provide the whole cost of the school from their own contributions and subscriptions. By the Act of 1870, the Board of Education determined, when there was a deficiency of accommodation, how that deficiency should most advantageously be supplied, and from that time the system had gone on without any friction. It must be remembered that 1434 England and Wales were now covered with schools, and the necessity for new schools only arose from the natural increase of population in the large centres of population and from the shifting of population from the centres of the town to the suburbs. It might be more convenient in such cases to extend the existing accommodation by enlarging the school than to build a new school altogether; and very seldom had the action of the Board of Education caused any friction with the local education authority. It was an experiment which worked without any friction whatever, and which certainly was not open to the strong denunciations which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen and the hon. Member who moved the Amendment thought fit to utter. One point in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite deserved the attention of the Committee. Nothing could be more mischievous than the multiplication of small schools, but the operation of this system did not create small board schools, and if the Board of Education was as vigilant in the future as it had been in the past the right hon. Gentleman might dismiss from his mind the idea that this system would ever lead to the multiplication of small board schools. He could not see how it would be possible to do what was eminently desirable—consolidate the number of small schools- but if this Bill did not amend the law in that respect, it at all events would make it no worse. The new schools which would be created by this Clause would never in any case add to the number of small schools at present existing. Only in those very rare cases where denominational bodies were competing for the erection of a school would such schools be erected, and in those cases such schools would not add to the multiplication of small schools.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment desired to set up the clear issue that the provision of school places should be national and not sectional. He argued that the Act of 1870 took many steps in that direction, but it had three very serious shortcomings. It did not create the authority necessary for this purpose, 1435 and when it did create the authority the area was very small. What the Act of 1870 ought to have said was— "We will give generously and handsomely to all existing voluntary school places, but from this time forward every new school place provided shall be provided by the public authority only." What the Act of 1870 did say, and the right hon. Gentleman below the gangway seemed to think that this Bill would leave things where they were, was— "There shall be a school place suitable and efficient for every child." That Clause was repealed under this Bill, so that this Bill did not leave things where they were.
§ SIR JOHN GORST
said that it had been stated since this Bill had been brought in, over and over again, that there was a mistake made in the repeal section, that that mistake would be set right, and that the duty of providing school places for every child would be thrown on the local authority.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said he was very glad to hear the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment did not cover it it should be made to cover it. Ho pointed out that the Act of 1870 further said that if volunteers wished to make provision they should be allowed to do so, but that if they did not make provision within a specified time a public authority should be called into being which should do so, and, further, that if the public authority did not carry out this duty the authority should be declared in default and that a new authority should be elected and the locality charged with the expense. That was also to be repealed. Therefore, on the face of it, it was inaccurate to say that this Bill left the matter where it was. The substantial difference was this: both before and after the Barry School Board 1436 incident the position was that the local authority and other persons were on equal terms with regard to the administration of schools under the Act of 1870. In this case they were not on equal terms. The preference under the scheme contained in Clauses 9, 10, 11, was given to the voluntary schools. Why could not they adopt the Scotch system as it stood with regard to this matter? Lord Young's Act of 1872 laid down definitely that if there was a deficiency of school places in a particular district the local authority should provide them. Why could not that be adopted? Why should it not be a public duty? The scheme was set out in great detail in the Act, and the remarkable thing was that, in Clause 28, if the School Board on making its provision for school places did not go the length which the Scotch Board of Education thought it ought, the Board of Education could propose a larger scheme. That shewed the very wide difference between the systems.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
asked whether the hon. Gentleman meant the Scottish system in its true and full sense. Did he propose to throw upon the public education authority provided in this Bill the duty of providing new accommodation, and that they should not be subject to anything in the nature of the Cowper-Temple Clause?
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said if the scheme was that nobody had a right to meet the deficiency but the public authority, that system would satisfy him.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said it was essential to know, in order to understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, when a new school was provided by the local authority was it to be under the Cowper-Temple Clause or not?
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said he had several times expressed the opinion that the Cowper-Temple Clause should be modified. Let them have popular control, and the Cowper-Temple Clause, which was more or less a hedge which the Nonconformists had set up against the Church, might be swept away. As an instance of the great delay which would arise by allowing provision for new 1437 schools to be made by persons other than the local authority, he would instance a case that took place at Streatham—a case which, in his opinion, might be multiplied over and over again. Religious bodies in their zeal desired to stake out a claim which they were unable to work thoroughly—to cover areas which they had no power to cover. In March, 1895, the School Board for London, after many years, obtained sanction to provide school places at Streatham, and early in 1896 the School Board Committee came to the House for powers. In June, 1896, a deputation from the managers of the St. Leonard's school at Streatham waited upon the School Board Committee and asked them not to build a school, as they were themselves prepared to build it. The School Board consented to wait till October, l896, and undertook if this particular body had begun to build the school to withdraw all their sanctions. October, 1896, came and the school was not begun. These people, with all their zeal for missionary work, were unable to find the money. By Christmas, 1896, nothing had been done. The School Board then consented to wait until October, 1897, to see if these persons could build the school, and finally in 1898, after three years delay, the school had to be built by the School Board. Since 1870 the denominational system had doubled the accommodation for children in schools, but for the reason he had given they had not done their work thoroughly—they had not properly cultivated the area marked out. Under the Act of 1870 the voluntary subscribers had doubled their contributions, but instead of those contributions being, as they were in 1870, half the cost of the children educated, they were now only one-seventh. Clause 5 of the Act of 1870 was now to be repealed, also Clause 18, and in their place they were to have Clause 9 of this Bill. In his opinion the provision of new schools by other than the local authority was a bad and vicious system; it should be a national obligation. The religious question could be arranged, and should not be mixed up with the provision of new schools. It was preposterous that a public authority should have to wait for provision of 1438 public schools until they found that nobody else desired to provide them. No limit of time was fixed within which those estimable people were to discharge the obligations they entered into, and he repeated the question he had so often asked during these debates—Where did the educational interests of the children come in? He invited attention to an extremely able article which appeared in The Times last April, in which the writer, who appeared to be intimately acquainted with the whole administrative system, showed that the provisions in Clauses 8, 9, and 10 struck deep at the roots of efficiency, and appeared to be drafted to give volunteers the first chance of providing accommodation, in order that control of religious instruction might be retained by them. He strongly objected to reliance on private agency before the public authority could act.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
read Clauses 9 and 10 as containing direct incentives to the authority to favour the voluntary proposals out of regard to economy of rates. It was essential that from that day forth the provision of school places should not be left to volunteers, and that all new places should be a public charge, provided for out of public funds.
§ (5.0.) MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)
said it had constantly been stated that one of the great hardships connected with education, especially in villages, was the practical impossibility of Non conformists having a school such as they desired in their religious interest. This Clause enabled such schools to be established, thus doing away with that grievance, and he was therefore greatly surprised that the Opposition should object to the proposal. Surely it was only reasonable, if there was a bonâ fide desire in a particular place for a Church of England, Roman Catholic, or other school, that the persons desiring it should be allowed to provide it if they were prepared to pay the expenses themselves. The position taken up by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, that every new school-place should be provided by the 1439 local authority, would mean in practice that if a few more places were required in any district a new school would have to be built, because it would be impossible to expand or increase the size of the existing voluntary schools. That, he thought, would he a most unreasonable restriction. The Clause carried out the avowed desire of the Government to provide as fairly as possible for all denominations, and, bearing in mind the extensive and violent attacks which had been made with reference to the single school parishes, the Government in this proposition were entitled to expect the support rather than the opposition of the other side.
§ MR. ROBSON (South Shields)
asked where was the necessity for this Clause if, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, the substance of the scheme proposed thereby had already been in operation for six years, and was therefore in conformity with the existing law.
§ MR. ROBSON
apprehended that the practice of the right hon. Gentleman had not been against the law. If then the Clause was unnecessary why was it in the Bill at all? By looking at the Clause one could see why it was there, and it gave a very pertinent and complete answer to the query of the hon. Member for the Stowmarket Division, viz., what was the preference given to voluntary schools by Clause 9? According to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, the existing system enabled any denomination to appeal to the Board of Education and to get a denominational school. But it did not permit any denomination to hamper the local authority in the provision of a school which according to its judgment, checked and inspired by the popular will, was necessary, and that was what this Clause would invite and provoke a denomination to do. Where ever the local authority proposed to discharge its most elementary function and provide a new school in any district, it was to be at the mercy of ten sectarian 1440 ratepayers, who would have power to hang up a scheme for at least three months, and for some further indefinite period until the Board of Education had held an inquiry, the children in the meantime going uneducated—or, as was more likely, Clause 10 coining into operation, by which another singular preference was given to denominational schools. He spoke with some uncertainty as to the construction of that Clause, but at the end there was a provision that any school in existence containing thirty scholars should not be deemed to be unnecessary. So that in practice, without proposing to found an elementary school, a denomination might establish a school and get thirty scholars into it, with the result that it would be a school on the ground, and would have to be taken as necessary, the provision of a school by the local authority under Clause 9 being thus prevented. That observation would fall to the ground if the Clause was intended to mean schools in existence at the passing of the Act—not at the date of the inquiry under the Clause—but if his instruction was correct it was clear that the local authority would never have to provide a school at all. In the past it might have been difficult, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, to induce members of a denomination to provide an elementary school, as they would have had to maintain it, but when they were relieved of the burden of maintenance a very different state of things would probably obtain, and there was much more likelihood of a rush of persons desirous of occupying the ground to the exclusion of the local authority. After the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, the Committee were more than ever entitled to demand a clear statement as to what, under existing circumstances, the necessity for this Clause really was. A further point was that the First Lord of the Treasury had again and again challenged the Opposition to say whether or not they desired the adoption of the Scottish system, and, if so, to what extent, and to what proportion of the schools they desired to see its principle applied. That was a very fair question, but it justified the inquiry—What did the Government think of the 1441 Scottish system? Were they prepared to offer it? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had declared that the system really operated in England, that the Cowper-Temple Clause was a mere form, and had practically no substantial application. And why? Because the common sense of the English people had so arranged matters that they did—Cowper-Temple Clause or no Cowper-Temple Clause—succeed in giving to the children the religious teaching their parents desired. That apparently was what was done in the board schools. If that was the case, they had the Scottish system in the board schools. But if it was applicable and applied there, and the parents were satisfied with the religious teaching so given, it became yet more important to know what the Prime Minister thought of the Scottish system, because that system—which the right hon. Gentleman was understood to favour to a certain extent—entirely superseded the denominational system; it did not supersede religious teaching, but it did supersede sectarian control, and that was the position of the Liberal Party.
§ MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON (Hackney, S.)
contended that for the purpose of the hon. and learned Member's argument it was immaterial which construction he placed upon Clause 10, because if a school was in existence before it became a school at all it must have been authorised under Clause 9.
§ MR. ROBSON
said that was not so unless it was built as a proposed elementary school. If, without being proposed as such, it was simply built and peopled with thirty scholars, it became, under Clause 10, a school already in existence, and as such had to be deemed necessary by the Board of Education.
§ MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON
said that such a school could not be one "actually in existence" having the necessary average attendance "as computed by the Board of Education;" it would be absolutely outside the system. In reply to the argument that delay would be caused by others than the local authority being allowed to build new schools, he would quote a case in which much delay 1442 was prevented. In Basingstoke there happened to be a school built for use as a Sunday school, but also with a view to its becoming, if necessary, an ordinary elementary day school. The Basingstoke School Board required further school accommodation, and the Church of England, to which this school belonged, immediately offered the building to the Board, by whom it was gladly accepted. If the present Amendment were accepted such an arrangement would be made impossible, and the children would have to wait a year, or perhaps two years, before the necessary accommodation could be provided.
§ (5.15.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that so far as Wales was concerned the Welsh Members would close with the Prime Minister, if he would give them the Scotch system. He did not think that the control of religious teaching should be in the hands of the County Councils, covering as they did considerable areas, but that that power should be given to parish authorities. They had heard it said that the Cowper-Temple Clause was a great safeguard for the Nonconformists. It was said to have been introduced originally in the interest of the Nonconformists, and notably it was said by the Prime mister and the Colonial Secretary that it was introduced to protect the Nonconformist minority. He was glad, however, that the Prime Minister, for the first time, made no pretext of that kind now, but if this was something to protect Nonconformists he did not think the Prime Minister should thrust upon them a blessing which they repudiated, It was perfectly clear that the Clause under debate was not introduced on behalf of the Nonconformists but simply and purely to promote a system of sectarianism which they protested against. It was only part and parcel of a system which the Bill was intended primarily to promote, namely, the sectarian system. The right hon Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University said there was no religious difficulty in the board schools.—
§ SIR JOHN GORST
said he applied that remark to all schools. He had challenged the House many times to name a single instance where a 1443 single Nonconformist child was excluded from the teaching profession, and he had never been able to find one.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he had asked the late Vice-President of the Council for a return showing how many Nonconformists were head teachers in the Church of England schools. He could point out these instances in the advertisements in the Church Time. All that could be said about it was that these teachers were members of one persuasion, and that was according to the trust deeds of the school. The Prime Minister had said that this was simply legalising the practice of the Education Department in the past. If it were the practice it was illegal, and therefore this Clause was simply legalising an illegal practice. Not long ago it was declared illegal for the School Boards to carry on evening schools and higher grade schools. The Committee could consider the difference between the attitude of the Government towards the illegal practice in helping sectarianism and an illegal practice when it helped education. Instead of carrying out an illegal practice which would be of benefit to the country, they brought in a Bill to destroy the power of board schools and put an end to the beneficent system. When it was an illegal practice in the interests of sectarianism, the Government brought in a Bill which not only legalised but extended the sectarianism. This was a very dangerous and pernicious Clause. The hon. Member for South Shields had pointed out the danger that in the future the burden of these schools would fall upon the rates, and this would be an inducement for them to go on establishing more sectarian schools. Take a rural parish with a population of about 1,000 or 1,200, with about 100 children in the school. In future, in such a parish it would be possible for a sect to say that that school did not represent their views, and therefore they could set up a school of their own at the other end of the parish. Where would the building come from? Hon. Members were aware that there was hardly a Nonconformist 1444 chapel or a Church of England where there was not a little schoolroom attached, and all they had got to do was to adapt that schoolroom for a day school. In this way there could be set up an in numerable number of little schools which would destroy education and promote sectarian strife. In the parish he had given as a typical concrete case, forty children would go to one school and sixty to the other. That appeared to be a direct inducement to set up rival schools for sectarian purposes. But what would happen to education? Instead of having one fairly good schoolmaster at £120 a year—it might not be a good salary, but it was fairly good in the rural districts—they would get two second or third rate masters or mistresses who would each receive £70, £75 or £80 a year, bringing up the amount paid altogether to £l60. This would mean that the equipment fund would be impoverished and education would suffer. On the whole, the children of the parish would suffer for the benefit of the two rival religious communities. That was a very bad system which was being promoted by the Bill. Supposing there was abundant accommodation at the present moment for all the children of the parish, and one of the sects said, "Our children are not fairly taught the doctrines of their parents in the school," could they go to the Education Department and say, "We want another school set up"?
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said if it ought to be done it should be done, and if it ought not to be done it should not be I done. They had to make one of two elements predominate. If it was the educational interest the sectarian interest ought to go down, and if they considered the sectarian interest was the more important, then the educational interest ought to go to the wall, but the Government could not run both. It was frankly neither one thing nor the other, and the result would be that education must suffer. In such a case as that which he had described they would get poorer teachers and equipment, and they would throw a greater burden on the rates of the parish, but the 1445 sectarian interest would benefit. Which was to be predominant in the Bill? They had a right to know. It seemed to him from the Bill as if it were the sectarian interest. Something had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge about the fact that there was no religious difficulty in the schools, and that they should trust to the common sense of the managers and teachers. He agreed that as a rule the teachers taught the catechism in the way least offensive to the Nonconformist children in the school. He made that admission frankly, but that would not be the case if this Clause got into operation. Why? The Low Church moderate clergyman would not want to set up a rival sectarian institution. He would be satisfied with the kind of teaching given in the parish school. It was the aggressive new man who was not satisfied at all with what was going on. As a matter of fact the clergyman of the low moderate type did not bother very much about it. He would give a quotation from the Report of the National Society, which showed really how little clergymen of that type worried about it. Dr. Reynolds, reporting on a school which he inspected, said this question was put to a pupil, "What instruction have you had in religious knowledge?" and the answer was "None;" the child was further asked "By whom was it given?" and the answer was, "By the vicar." That really represented the only definite dogmatic religious instruction given in thousands of these schools. He was not referring now to what the schoolmaster did. As a rule he confined himself to the reading of Scripture, and explaining the historical aspect of the passages read. In a good number of those schools these dogmas which they heard so much about were not thrust upon the children, but hon. Gentlemen opposite said, "You must teach these dogmas, otherwise the religious instruction given is no good." He had received a pamphlet written by Canon Moberly. When the pamphlet was first alluded to, he had thought it was written by Mr. Moberly Bell, but he had found that Mr. Moberly Bell had not exchanged thunder for theology. After reading that pamphlet it had struck him that this was Canon 1446 Moberly's Clause. It was true that at present the Church did not teach dogma in the schools, because she preferred dominion to dogma, and knew that the moment she thrust it upon the country that dominion would be withdrawn. This gentleman, who had three or four schools under his charge in a district, had advised the people not to be led by the satellites of Satan and enticed into joining leagues. But here was Clause 9, which would give the opportunity to the Canon Moberlys in the future. The result would be strife in the parish, not between High Church and Nonconformity, but between High Church and Low Church, which disliked each other more than they disliked the Nonconformists. The moderate Low Church clergyman would not set up a school to create strife, but the strong aggressive sacerdotalist would. He appealed to the Government not to destroy the efficiency of the schools by further endowing theology.
§ (5.45.) MR. MIDDLEMORE (Birmingham, N.)
said he did not entirely like the Amendment as it stood, but he was quite prepared to welcome it. The Clause as it stood seemed to him to be an altogether amazing one. It conferred the right of appeal on any ten ratepayers whoever they might be. It called in the Board of Education to judge in the matter. Ho could not help calling that dethroning the local authority and enthroning the Board of Education in its place. That was a very grave matter indeed. What was the local authority for? Surely it existed to build its own schools, and control its own money, certainly to say what its own people wanted, and to carry the wishes of its own people into action. What functions were they going to leave to it? It would have to finance the new schools which the Board of Education permitted or compelled it to build. It would also have to finance the schools which were built against its own wishes. The Government had not brought forth an authority; they had brought forth an abortion. He doubted whether the local authorities would bear this, and he did not think they ought to do so. If they refused to administer the Act, and tore off this blister placed upon their body, he, for one, should not blame them. The Clause 1447 would, in his opinion, create very great discord in the community to which it applied. Why? There would always be an appeal when a new school was wanted—it could not be otherwise—and there would probably be a society formed for the purpose. When the appeal was made the grandmother in London would put on her clogs and shawl, and go down to them and tell them what schools they ought to have, what were their own personal wishes, and how to spend their money. She ought never to have left London. The late Vice-President of the Council had said that the local authorities knew their own business far better than the Board of Education could tell them. Now the Government seemed to have got rid of his views and to have adopted precisely opposite principles. He believed the chief result would be to set the local authority and the voluntary schools by the ears and to make co-operation difficult, or even impossible, in the future. It would drive moderate Churchmen like himself to believe that the only way of establishing a national system of education was to supersede the denominational schools. It would bring the voluntary schools and the local authority into collision; it would bring the weaker into collision with the stronger, and the weaker would be destroyed. He dreaded extreme Churchmen far more than he dreaded the hon. Member for Carnarvon. The hon. Member for Carnarvon made a direct attack on the Church schools, but those extreme gentlemen made a direct attack on the State. The risk of danger seemed to be that moderate men like himself would be compelled to join their forces with men like the hon. Member for Carnarvon and make common cause with them. That certainly was not his wish, but profoundly as he differed from the hon. Gentleman in all matters of Unionism and Imperialism, he was being driven from his own side. It was not on the question of Unionism but on educational matters that he was being driven from his moorings, utterly against his will. He heartily hoped that if the Government did not accept the Amendment they would make such radical alterations in the Clause as would make it possible for him—which it was not now—to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill.
§ SIR EDWARD GREY
said he thought the discussion of the Clause and the Clause itself were very good illustrations, if the Government would only think of it, of how the determination of the Government to secure, and even increase dogmatic teaching was imperilling the real interests of education. He could not make out whether the new Clause was a new departure or not. The right hon. the First Lord spoke of it as a new departure, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University said that it only allowed to be done what was done already. If it was so, there was no concession in it. There had been unanswerable speeches showing that in so as far this Clause operated at all it would operate in the direction of making it easy for a district to have two bad schools instead of the one good one which now existed. That would make things worse for the future of educational reform. To multiply the two sets of schools with two sets of staffs would be to increase the intolerable controversy which must exist as long as they had two sets of schools side by side. What he wanted to point out was that the First Lord seemed to be fencing with the Scottish system. The whole course of the discussion pointed the moral in the direction of the Scotch system. But they could not have the Scotch system in half-a-dozen pieces. It could not be applied to one set of schools and not to another. The two great principles in the Scotch system were liberty in religious teaching everywhere and public control and management everywhere. These things should always go together, and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider his opinion that the Scottish system was not suited to the English people. There would be no real progress in educational reform until they got rid of the religious difficulty, and it was only by a Government bold enough to adopt the Scotch system in its integrity that they would get rid of the religious difficulty. The right hon. Member for Cambridge University said that the religious peace in the schools was owing to the common sense of the teachers, but that was because the teachers softened the dogmatic teaching imposed upon them. 1449 He agreed with the right hon Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, that the great majority of the parents of this country would be content with plain Bible teaching for their children. [An Hon. MEMBER: "HOW do you know?"] How did the hon. Gentleman opposite know that the majority of the parents wanted denominational teaching? It was because the children were in denominational schools, but then the parents had no other choice at present than to send them there. As long as they bad denominational control of the schools so long should they have the Cowper-Temple Clause. The right hon. Member for Cambridge University had given an instance where the religious difficulty had arisen at Barry Docks, and where the Board of Education had to intervene. A Roman Catholic school had to be established, but it was not recognised for some time. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that some time ago he had quoted the case of Barra, in the Hebrides, where the Scotch system had solved the religious difficulty at once. The right hon. the First Lord should adopt the logical conclusion of his own scheme. There were side by side in this country two systems which were intolerable from the point of view of a great many people The First Lord said that the School Board system under the Cowper-Temple Clause would be intolerable without the denominational system alongside it. On the other hand, many people thought that the denominational system would be intolerable without the schools under the Cowper-Temple Clause. [Mr. BALFOUR: "Hear, hear."] But these two intolerable systems did not make one tolerable system; and this Clause would tend to perpetuate the existing difficulties by multiplying the two different kinds of schools. Until it was recognised that the dual system must go it was impossible to make progress with educational reform.
§ (6.0.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that the right hon. Baronet seemed to share the delusion of the Member for North Birmingham that this Clause was aimed simply at multiplying denominational and voluntary schools. The Clause was not intended to have that effect, and it 1450 would not have that effect. It was intended to give, and what it did give, was a liberty which did not now exist—a liberty of establishing a denominational school or a provided school in districts where, under the present system, they could not be erected. Whatever the requirements of the district might be, if voluntary schools were available no other kind of school was possible. If this Bill were not passed they could not have a provided school at all. So long as the voluntary schools could provide accommodation they could not get a provided school. Even if there were a School Board it could do nothing, however much the population might prefer a board school, so long as there were a sufficient number of places in the existing schools. The system which imposed such arbitrary limitations was not good. There was a well - known case in which the school was Roman Catholic and adequate for the wants of the whole population, though the majority of that population was Protestant. It was not in the power of the Education Department or any one else to provide other school accommodation for the Protestant children of that district. In Preston at present the whole school accommodation was provided in voluntary schools, and, except for this Clause, the new education authority under the Bill would have no power to provide a school, however much the people of Preston might desire it.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
That made no difference where the whole ground was already covered. His hon. friend the Member for North Birmingham had got it into his head that this Clause was put into the Bill to please extreme Churchmen. He could assure his hon. friend that he held no brief for extreme Churchmen, who were perfectly well able to defend themselves, but he wished to destroy the absurd limitations to existing powers, and this Clause did that with fairness to the voluntary system and to the provided school system. Both had their freedom of action increased by this Clause, and there was no reason why it should act more in 1451 favour of one system than the other. He hoped it would operate to provide such a system of education as would suit the general wishes of the parents.
§ * MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)
Thought the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were based on a misconception. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was based upon future accommodation rather than the present. What the right hon. Gentleman said was that where the ground was covered by a School Board or voluntary school, a school of another type could not be set up. But the Committee must have regard to the future; to the growth of population and the new school places to be provided. While the plan of the right hon. Gentleman would relieve the present difficulty it would do so only by creating a greater difficulty for the future.
§ * MR. YOXALL
Those who wished to establish a denominational school in an area already covered by board schools could do so already, because the right hon. Gentleman below the gangway had told the Committee this afternoon that no power rested with the Education Department under the Act of 1870 to veto the erection of a denominational school in these areas, although all former presidents and vice-presidents, and all former legal authorities, held the contrary opinion. The disability was only in the establishment of board schools. There was no demand to justify this Clause, which had been inserted at the bidding of a few clerical persons and a few lay persons more clerical than the clerics. If this Clause were passed the few difficulties now experienced would be reproduced all over the land in an aggravated form. With regard to the adoption of the Scotch system he pointed out that the reason why the system acted so well in Scotland was because among the Protestants of Scotland the difference of dogma was very slight. They differed as to Church government but not with regard to dogma. The Protestants of this country differed interminably in a way quite different to what was the case in Scotland. The Scotch system would if adopted greatly increase the difficulties, and for that reason he preferred to adhere to the Cowper-Temple 1452 Clause. The friction set up by the new Clause would cause in every locality a warfare between the clericals and the local authority, which in the end would be bound to end in the nullification of this new Clause.
§ * SIR WILLIAM MATHER (Lancashire, Rossendale)
asked the Prime Minister how he could reconcile a statement made in his speech at Manchester with the principle involved in this Clause and in Clause 10. The statement made at Manchester was to the effect that the Bill would give a power to the people, never enjoyed before, should the circumstances of the district require it, to build out of public funds a school which should suit those whom the voluntary and denominational schools of the district did not suit. That was a very specific statement, and one which, if not contravened by Clause 10, would be a very satisfactory settlement of the dispute. But under Clause 9 it would be impossible for the local education authority to proceed at once, in compliance with a demand to supply this educational want, if it had to adopt the tedious method provided. No doubt it was the intention of the Prime Minister to constitute an education authority based on public opinion absolutely responsible for the secular education of the children. But under the Clause the local authority could not build a school without consulting some other bodies, and eventually going to the Education Department, and if they could not do so without these restrictions, that was certainly not progressive education. This could not be a national system of education. He advocated that the local authority should be given power without any limitation whatever as to new schools, leaving the existing denominational schools to be dealt with on their own merits.
§ * MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)
pointed out that, as far as the Wesleyan Methodists were concerned, the proviso enabling them to erect small denominational schools in the little towns and villages was directly opposed to the educational policy of that Church, although it was true that a small section of the officials of that Church had been completely misleading the Education Department as to the feeling of the great 1453 body of the Methodist Church. The proviso might, if passed, unquestionably be used with rather startling effect against the voluntary schools established throughout the country under the control of the Anglican Church. In a village in Kent, near which he formerly lived, he had to tell the clergyman of the parish, the vicar of Bickley, that he might find it necessary to build a Wesleyan school because the clergyman had improperly treated a boy who attended that school, and also the Wesleyan Sunday school. But no sooner had he told the clergyman that he would build a school than the difficulties disappeared; the boy was re-instated, and matters went on as before. In a village in Lincolnshire the Conscience Clause had been abused. Opposite the national school there was a vacant piece of land which was put up for auction. He bade for the ground, and it was conveyed to him. No sooner did the vicar of the parish hear that he had bought the land for the purpose of building a competing Free Church school than there was a complete change in that school as to the operation of the Conscience Clause It was clear, therefore, that the existence of this proviso would to some extent help the Free Churches, who could threaten to put up competitive schools, and so bring to book the Anglican clergy, and people of hat class, who had brought great discredit on the cause of education. In the village of Dorchester, in Oxford-shire, there was only one school, with about seventy Dissenting children. These children were made to bow down to the crucifix which was erected in the school, and they were marched to Mass. There were two methods of dealing with that state of things. It the Government retained this provision in the Bill the method by which the Free Churches could bring that clergyman to book was by erecting a Free Church school, running it for twelve months, gathering into it more than thirty children, and saving to the Department, "You must now recognise us as a Nonconformist school under the Bill."
§ * MR. PERKS
said it would be far better for the community not to have a sectarian wrangle between different sects in the village. It would be preferable for the local education authority, who had already the control of secular education, to set up that competitive school rather than that there should be a public inquiry, involving serious sectarian strife, to decide whether the school should be Wesleyan, Roman Catholic, or Anglican. One ot the largest denominations in the country—the Wesleyan Methodists—did not desire this Clause. The overwhelming majority of that body wished the new schools to be provided, not under the control of a sectarian authority, but under the control of the local public authority.
§ MR. M'KENNA
asked what would be the effect if this Amendment were ac-accepted? Would it be that the local education authority would alone be able to provide the school? He thought the effect of the Amendment, if accepted, would be that the local education authority would have the decision as to whether it, or some other persons, should provide the school. The only issue was as to who should decide by whom the new school was to be established. That was a very simple issue, and. if really understood, he believed the Committee would come to the conclusion that the Amendment ought to be accepted. Why should the local authority rather than the Board of Education decide? Because the local authority represented the locality and the parents, and was a better judge of the needs of the locality than the Board of Education could be. The Board of Education had to decide the matter according to the three conditions in Clause 10, and these conditions had been shown to favour the "other persons" as against the local authority. But that was not the worst point. If the Board of Education decided in favour of the "other persons" there was absolutely no provision in the Bill to compel them to carry out the decision of the Board, although it was proposed by an Amendment to Clause 11 to render it obligatory an the local authority to provide a school if ordered by the Board. The consequence of the want of such a power with regard to the "other persons" 1455 would be months, perhaps years, of delay, and meanwhile the school provision in the district would be insufficient and inefficient. The sufficiency of the supply was not to be determined by the Board of Education, consequently small schools would be multiplied. Under these circumstances it was surely far better to leave the local authority, if it was to be an authority at all, to decide questions of this sort. In the interest of the Education of the locality he urged that that the Amendment should be accepted.
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)
said that this Amendment was practically the Clause; on its acceptance or otherwise depended the whole meaning of the Clause. When introducing the Bill, the First Lord of the Treasury laid great stress on Clauses 9 and 10, as remedying the Nonconformist grievance in the villages; it was therefore necessary that the right hon. Gentleman should understand why the Nonconformists did not like the Clause under consideration. In the first place, they preferred good education to sectarian division. They would rather have their children educated in a Church school, with all its Church atmosphere, than in a less efficient sectarian school, such as might be provided under this Clause. A village with just over sixty children might be equally divided between Church and Nonconformity, and it would be possible to have there two schools with only one teacher in each. Personally he would
§ rather his child ran the risk of the Church atmosphere in one school with two teachers, because it would be a more efficient school, than have such an unfortunate division in the village. As far as the grievance of the Nonconformists was concerned, this Clause, as a remedy for that grievance, might be eliminated from consideration altogether. As to the provision of Church schools in a district in which there were only publicly provided schools, what did the Clause amount to? In such a case there were no vested interests, and there was no question of great sacrifices having been made by Churchmen in the past. It simply put it into the power of a denomination, by merely building the shell of a new school, not necessarily required, to plant the entire cost of maintenance on the ratepayers. That was not good either for the Church or for education. He supported the Amendment, not from the point of view of the Church or of Nonconformity, but because he desired to have thoroughly good education in the villages. The Clause, as it stood, distinctly tempted any fraction of the community, whether Anglican or Nonconformist, to spoil the education of a district in the interest of their particular sect, and for that reason he should vote for the Amendment.
§ (6.43.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 111. (Division List No. 457).1459
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bond, Edward||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry|
|Aird, Sir John||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Chapman, Edward|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Boulnois, Edmund||Charrington, Spencer|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Bousfield, William Robert||Clare, Octavius Leigh|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex||Clive, Captain Percy A.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Cohen, Benjamin Louis|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Brymer, William Ernest||Compton, Lord Alwyne|
|Balcarres, Lord||Bull, William James||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Burdett-Coutts, W.||Cripps, Charles Alfred|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Butcher, John George||Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasgow||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds||Carew, James Laurence||Crossley, Sir Savile|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Cubitt, Hon. Henry|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Davenport, William Bromley-|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)||Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire||Denny, Colonel|
|Bignold, Arthur||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.|
|Bigwood, James||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon|
|Bill, Charles.||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich||Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Rankin, Sir James|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Johnstone, Heywood||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Kemp, George||Remnant, James Farquaharson|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Kenyon, Hon Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Keswick, William||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Lambton, Hon Frederick Wm.||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.||Robinson, Brooke|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r||Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Finch, George H.||Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Rutherford, John|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Fison, Frederick William||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln|
|Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Lowe, Francis William||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Flower, Ernest||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks|
|Forster, Henry William||Lucas, Reginald. J. (Portsmouth||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Macdona, John Cumming||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich|
|Gardner, Ernest||Maconochie, A. W.||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Garfit, William||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts||Malcolm, Ian||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Gore, Hn G R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Maple, Sir John Blundell||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir. John Eldon||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Talbot, Rt Hon J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Morgan, David J (Walthamst' w||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Morrell, George Herbert||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Grenfell, William Henry||Morrison, James Archibald||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Guthrie, Walter Murray||Mount, William Arthur||Valentia, Viscount|
|Hain, Edward||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield|
|Hall, Edward Marshall||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute||Walrond, Rt Hon Sir William H.|
|Hambro, Charles Eric||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Middx||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Myers, William Henry||Webb, Col. William George|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Nicholson, William Graham||Welby, Lt. -Col. A. C. E (Taunton|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway N.)||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Llovd|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Peel, Hon Wm Robert Wellesley||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)|
|Helder, Augustus||Pemberton, John S. G.||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Henderson, Sir Alexander||Percy, Earl||Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart-|
|Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E||Pierpoint, Robert||Wylie, Alexander|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Horner, Frederick William||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Pretyman, Ernest George||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Howard. J. (Midd., Tottenham||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Purvis, Robert|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Pym, C. Guy|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick|
|Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud||Causton, Richard Knight||Griffith, Ellis J.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Channing, Francis Allston||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton|
|Asquith, Rt Hon. Herbert Henry||Cremer, William Randal||Harmsworth, R. Leicester|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Dalziel, James Henry||Harwood, George|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.|
|Bell, Richard||Dilke, Rt. Horn Sir Charles||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Dunn, Sir William||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Edwards, Frank||Horniman, Frederick John|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidst'ne||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.|
|Burns, John||Fenwick, Charles||Jacoby, James Alfred|
|Burt, Thomas||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Foster Sir Walter (Derby Co.||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Caine, William Sproston||Fuller, J. M. F.||Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth|
|Caldwell, James||Furness, Sir Christopher||Labouchere, Henry|
|Cameron, Robert||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Lambert, George|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Partington, Oswald||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E|
|Leng, Sir John||Pearson, Sir Weetman D.||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Perks, Robert William||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings|
|Lloyd-George, David||Philipps, John Wynford||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.|
|Lough, Thomas||Pickard, Benjamin||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Price, Robert John||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.|
|M'Crae, George||Rea, Russell||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)||Wason, Eugene|
|Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Robson, William Snowdon||Weir, James Galloway|
|Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Mather, Sir William||Schwann, Charles E.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William||Shackleton, David James||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)||Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.)|
|Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd|
|Morley, Rt. Hn. John(Montrose||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Moulton, John Fletcher||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Newnes, Sir George||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Norman, Henry||Soares, Ernest J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Spencer, Rt Hon C. R (Northants||Mr. Herbert Gladstone and|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Strachey, Sir Edward||Mr. William M'Arthur|
|Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
§ (6.53.) DR. MACNAMARA
said the Amendment he desired to move was to insert after the word "school," in line 37, the words "or to enlarge any existing public elementary school." He admitted that these words would cover the enlargement of a voluntary school or of a provided school, but what he was anxious to secure was that, if the denominationalists desired to enlarge a public elementary school, as no doubt they would do under this scheme, they should go through the whole process of appeal, examination, and investigation, the same as any other body. The new scheme of this Bill would set up a new basis for providing school places. While there might be a deficiency of places of a certain kind, there might be a large excess of places in other schools, but the question which would determine the point would be whether there was a need of places of a particular kind.
In page 3, line 37, after 'school,' insert ' or to enlarge any existing public elementary school.' "—
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
I understand that the point is that, without building a new school, in the popular sense, there might be such a considerable enlargement in existing schools as to put a burden upon the rates for maintenance That is a matter which must be dealt with in some form, and what I 1460 would suggest is, that it might be better to introduce at the end of the Clause some words to provide that, in case of enlargement, the Board of Education should determine whether, for the purposes of this section, the enlargement is such that it ought to be treated as a new school. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right when he says that the present Bill produces a new condition of things with regard to enlargements, and he contends that the operation of the Clause in regard to the provision of new schools might be evaded by enlarging existing schools. I would suggest that it would be better to say that the case of the enlargement of a school should be dealt with by the Board of Education, and if they are of opinion that the enlargement is such that it should be treated as a new school, then they could take that course. I think that would meet the hon. Gentleman's contention. In that case I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)
pointed out that there was ample power now to enlarge schools, and therefore putting in these words would simply limit the enlargement of the schools by the provisions of this Clause. He certainly could not support his hon. friend's Amendment.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
said it seemed to him that this was just one of the cases in which the local authority ought to have power to enlarge its schools without going to all this trouble. The Attorney 1461 General had made a suggestion on this point, but the First Lord of the Treasury now appeared to withdraw that suggestion. This appeared to him to be a fast and loose way of doing things. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh. oh," and "No, no."] This Bill was so drawn that a very great deal of the time which they had had to spend discussing it had been due to the extraordinary way in which the Bill was drafted, and the want of information which those interested in the measure displayed in regard to all questions connected with elementary education.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said that what he wanted to prevent was the unnecessary enlargement of voluntary schools, and he understood that the Attorney General agreed that something would have to be done in this respect.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said he gathered from the remarks of the Attorney General that something would have to be done. He did not want the local education authority to have any veto of an un-reasonable character put upon it, but he did want to prevent the unnecessary multiplication by enlargements of denominational schools. He appealed to the Attorney General to do something in this matter, and in the meantime he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. M'KENNA
said they were all agreed that there ought to be power to restrain the unnecessary enlargement of voluntary schools. As the Clause stood at present they could increase them to any size they liked, and in this way they might attract from the provided schools the children who would otherwise have continued to attend those schools. On the Opposition side of the House,
§ they thought the provisions should apply to the non-provided schools also. He understood the Attorney-General to say that if his hon. friend proposed an Amendment dealing with the non-provided schools the Government would be disposed to accept it. If that was not understood he would much prefer to go to a division on this Amendment. Before the Amendment was withdrawn he desired to know if the Government would accept an Amendment at the end of the Clause which would allow of an increase of a building amounting practically to the provision of a new school.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said he, had made a suggestion with a view to shortening debate which had been made an excuse for prolonging it.
§ MR. M'KENNA
said that answer would not be likely to shorten debate He asked the hon. Member for North Camberwell if he would at the end of the Clause move an Amendment to allow of discussion. ["No, no."]
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ (7.3.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause from the word" propose, 'in page 3, line 37, to the word "school,'' inline 40, both inclusive, stand part of the Clause' be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause from the word "propose" in page 3, line 37, to the word "school," in line 40, both inclusive, stand part of the Clause ' be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 222: Noes 107. (Division List No. 458.)1465
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Bain, Colonel James Robert||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Balcarres, Lord||Bignold, Arthur|
|Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden||Baldwin, Alfred||Bigwood, James|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r||Bill, Charles|
|Archadale, Edward Mervyn||Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Blundell, Colonel Henry|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)||Bond, Edward|
|Arnold-Furster, Hugh O.||Banbury, Frederick George||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bartley, George C. T.||Bousfield, William Robert|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)|
|Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn)||Grenfell, William Henry||Parker, Sir Gilbert|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Peel, Hn Wm Robert Wellesley|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Guthrie, Walter Murray||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Hain, Edward||Percy, Earl|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Hall, Edward Marshall||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Bull, William James||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hambro, Charles Eric||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Butcher, John George||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Carew, James Laurence||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Purvis, Robert|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Pym, C. Guy|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Randles, John S.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Heaton, John Henniker||Rankin, Sir James|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Helder, Augustus||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Henderson, Sir Alexander||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Chapman, Edward||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hogg, Lindsay||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Roberts. Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Horner, Frederick William||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham||Robinson, Brooke|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Rutherford, John|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Johnstone, Heywood||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Cork, Sir Frederick Lucas||Kearley, Hudson, E.||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh||Seton-Karr. Henry|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Keswick, William||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich|
|Davenport, William Bromley-||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Denny, Colonel||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M' Taggart|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.||Lowe, Francis William||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Lytteton, Hon. Alfred||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Macdona, John Cumming||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Maconochie, A. W.||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)||Malcolm, Ian||Valentia, Viscount|
|Finch, George H.||Maple, Sir John Blundell||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E(Wigt'n||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Fison, Frederick William||Middlemore, John Throgmort'n||Warde, Col. C. E.|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Morrell, George Herbert||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts|
|Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Morrison, James Archibald||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Flower, Ernest||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Forster, Henry William||Mount, William Arthur||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Gardner, Ernest||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart-|
|Garfit, William||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute||Wylie, Alexander|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Gore, Hn GR. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Myers, William Henry|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Nicholson, William Graham||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead||Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Bryce, Rt. Hon. James|
|Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud||Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Burns, John|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Bell, Richard||Burt, Thomas|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Broadhurst, Henry||Buxton, Sydney Charles|
|Atherley-Jone, L.||Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Caldwell, James|
|Cameron, Robert||Kearley, Hudson E.||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Causton, Richard knight||Labouchere, Henry||Shackleton, David James|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Lambert, George||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Leng, Sir John||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Lewis, John Herbert||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Lloyd-George, David||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Lough, Thomas||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Dunn, Sir William||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants|
|Edwards, Frank||M'Crae, George||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst'ne||M'Kenna, Reginald||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Mather, Sir William||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Thomson, F. W. (York. W. R.)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Moulton, John Fletcher||Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Newnes, Sir George||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||Norman, Henry||Wason, Eugene|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Weir, James Galloway|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Nussey, Thomas Willans||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Harwood, George||Partington, Oswald||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Pearson, Sir Weetman D.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Perks, Robert William||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Hamphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Philipps, John Wynford||Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Pickard, Benjamin||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Horniman, Frederick John||Price, Robert John|
|Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Priestley, Arthur||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||Rea, Russell||Mr. Herbert Gladstone and|
|James, David Brynmor (Swansea||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)||Mr. William M'Arthur.|
§ (7.16.) Question put accordingly.1466
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 222; Noes, 107. (Division List No. 459.)1469
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Finch, George H.|
|Allhusen Augustus Henry Eden||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Fison, Frederick William|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Chapman, Edward||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Charrington, Spencer||Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Clare, Octavius Leigh||Flannery, Sir Fortescue|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Clive, Captain Percy A.||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Cochrane Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Flower, Ernest|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Forster, Henry William|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Galloway, William Johnson|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A J. (Manch'r)||Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Gardner, Ernest|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Compton, Lord Alwyne||Garfit, William|
|Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds||Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Cranborne, Viscount||Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim|
|Bignold, Arthur||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Bigwood, James||Crossley, Sir Savile||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)|
|Bill, Charles||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Grenfell, William Henry|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Greville, Hon. Ronald|
|Bond, Edward||Davenport, William Bromley-||Guthrie, Walter Murray|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham||Hain, Edward|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Denny, Colonel||Hall, Edward Marshall|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Dixon-Hartland Sir Fred Dixon||Hambro, Charles Eric|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x|
|Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Duke, Henry Edward||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd|
|Bull, William James||Durning, Lawrence. Sir Edwin||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Bundett-Coutts, W.||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Harris, Frederick Leverton|
|Butcher, John George||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Carew, James Laurence||Fardell, Sir T. George||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Helder, Augustus|
|Henderson, Sir Alexander||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strands)|
|Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Myers, William Henry||Stanley Edward Jas. (Somerset)|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Nicholson, William Graham||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M' Taggart|
|Johnstone, Heywood||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Kemp, George||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Parker, Sir Gilbert||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Keswick, William||Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Pemberton, John S. G.||Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.||Percy, Earl||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham||Pierpoint, Robert||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Plummer, Walter R.||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Pretyman, Ernest George||Valentia, Viscount|
|Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Pryce-Jones, Lt,.-Co1. Edward||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Purvis, Robert||Walker, Colonel William Hall|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Pym, C. Guy||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Lowe, Francis William||Randles, John S.||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Rankin, Sir James||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Lucas, Reginald. J. (Portsmouth||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Remnant, James Farquharson||Welby, Lt-Col A. C. E. (Taunton|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)|
|Maconochie, A. W.||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.|
|M'Iver Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Malcolm, Ian||Robinson, Brooke||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Maple, Sir John Blundell||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n||Round, Rt. Hon. James||Wylie, Alexander|
|Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)||Rutherford, John|
|Morgan, David. J (Walth'mstow||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Morrison, James Archibald||Seton-Karr, Henry||Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Mount, William Arthur||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Fuller, J. M. F.||Morley, Charles (Breconshire|
|Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud||Furness, Sir Christopher||Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John||Moulton, John Fletcher|
|Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Newnes, Sir George|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||Norman, Henry|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Griffith, Ellis J.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Nussey, Thomas Willians|
|Bell, Richard||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Harwood, George||Partington, Oswald|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Pearson, Sir Weetman D.|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Perks, Robert William|
|Burns, John||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Burt, Thomas||Holland, Sir William Henry||Pickard, Benjamin|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Horniman, Frederick John||Price, Robert John|
|Caldwell, James||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Priestley, Arthur|
|Cameron, Robert||Jacoby, James Alfred||Rea, Russell|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Kearley, Hudson E.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Cremer, William Randal||Labouchere, Henry||Shackleton, David James|
|Dalziel, James Henry.||Lambert, George||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Davies Alfred (Carmarthen)||Leng, Sir John||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Davies M. Vaughan (Cardigan||Lewis, John Herbert||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Dunn, Sir William||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Edwards, Frank||M'Crae, George||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone||M'Kenna, Reginald||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Fenwick, Charles||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Mather, Sir William||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Foster, Sir Waller (Derby Co.)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings||Weir, James Galloway||Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd|
|Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)||White, George (Norfolk)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Trevelyan, Charles Philips||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer||Sir Joseph Leese and|
|Wason, Eugene||Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.)||Mr. Lough.|
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.