§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Question proposed, "That the proposed New Clause (Aid Grant), as amended, he added to the Bill."
§ (9.0.) SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid this was the last opportunity they would have of discussing the Clause, as most likely on the Report stage it could not be debated, and he therefore wished to draw attention to two or three points. It was true that the Government, realising that their first proposal to grant£930,000 was inadequate, now proposed to add a further sum of £465,000. To his mind that was not so satisfactory as if the Goverment had accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, which laid it down as an essential part of the Bill that under no circumstances whatever should the education rate—for primary as well as secondary education—exceed one-fourth of the total amount to be raised in the area of the 1188 local education authority for educational purposes. That was to say, the difference would have to be made good out of the Imperial Exchequer on the sound principle that three-fourths at least of the cost of education should be a national and not a local charge That Amendment was placed on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford at the direct request of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. On the ground that the education was to be administered locally, it was felt that there might be a certain amount of local contribution to ensure efficiency and proper economy. The Government, however, thought right to refuse to accept the Amendment and to say that in future no limit should be placed on the amount to be raised out of the local rates, thereby giving great dissatisfaction to agriculturists and other occupiers in country districts. No doubt the tendency would be to raise the standard of education, and very properly so; but he objected to making education unpopular by saving that any improvement of the standard should entail higher rates while there would not be proportional increase of the aid grant. Any increase of local rates would be very unpopular indeed, and certainly hamper the education needs of the area. The Government had laid down the curious proposition that in no case should the local rates contribute less than 3d. in the£. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had expressed a hope that a much higher local rate would be raised in country districts. The Prime Minister cheered that observation, and thus evidently looked forward to the rate being more than 3d. Fortunately for himself, the Prime Minister 1189 was in the position that he would not have to pay any rates under the Bill, and he could cheer the statement with a light heart. That day they had had laid before them the third edition of the Government proposal. The House in this matter had been treated in a most cavalier fashion, and in the interval of which the sitting had been suspended they had not even taken the trouble to present the revised Clause and put it on the Orders of the Day. The Attorney General in telling them what the Clause meant said he would have liked to have made it impossible for the rate to be more than 3d.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYI said I should be glad if that were possible.
§ SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he was speaking under great difficulties, because he had not the amended Clause before him; there was only the copy in the hands of the Chairman. The Attorney General told them the effect would be that a county where they only raised a 2d. rate, which produced £24,000, would be fined to the extent of £6,000, because the rate was only 2d. It seemed a very curious inducement to economy to say to that County Council, "If you only spend a 2d. rate of the ratepayers' money on education, because you find that quite sufficient, we shall fine you £6,000 by reducing your grant to that extent. On the other hand, if you spend up to the full amount of a 3d. rate we shall not fine you at all but we shall give you the full amount of the grant." Was not that offering an inducement to extravagant expenditure? It was possible that in some local areas the amount required would not exceed a 2d. rate, and although the authority there might carry on the schools efficiently and with economy, it would be fined in the way he had pointed out. Now he wanted to ask what would be the effect of the Clause in the school districts where the School Board now received a grant under the Agricultural Rates Act. Would the district or parish get credit for that amount in the reduction of the rate it had to pay to the county authority, or how would it be treated? The School Board had received the money not merely in aid of the current rate, but also for payment of interest on money expended on buildings, and the grant had been in part made for 1190 the payment of the interest. Would the district or parish in future have to pay that interest without any assistance from the grant under the Agricultural Rates Act? He hoped he would be told they would retain all the money given them under the Act, else it would greatly increase the rates in those districts. For it must be remembered that the repayment of three-fourths of such loans fell on the parish as a special rate.
§ MR. M'KENNAhoped that the Attorney Genera I would favourably consider the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ding's Lynn which would, in his opinion, improve the wording of the Clause.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that as at present advised, he did not think the words would carry out the object which the hon. Member had in view. The whole matter would, however, be considered. In reply to the hon. Member for South Somerset, he had to say that the grants payable to School Boards under the Agricultural Rates Act would be paid to the authority taking over the functions of the School Board.
§ SIR EDWARD STRACHEYThen they will lose the benefit of them
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYNo.
§ SIR EDWARD STRACHEYYes, as to payment of interest on loans.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid the Clause dealt with the distribution of large sums of money among the local authorities, and it was well to bear in mind that when once they had laid down the principle of distribution, it would become very difficult to reconsider that. They ought to have had fuller opportunities of considering the Government proposal and they ought to have had laid before them some Return showing what its effect would be. As it was, they were laying themselves open to the charge that they wore asking the Committee to vote money under circumstances which nobody could understand. He School Board grant was only £160,000 a year, but now it was proposed to distribute something like two millions annually, and surely there were considerations other 1191 than mere rateable value that ought to be taken into account. He would like to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education to consider that the most expensive schools were the smallest schools. It cost far more per head to build a school for a small number of children than for a large number, and it was also far more expensive to administer a small than a large school, if an efficient staff was to be maintained. He thought the Government would have done wisely to bear that consideration in mind in allocating part of this money; they might well have given to a school with an average attendance of less than fifty, two or three times as much as was proposed under the Clause. They would thus have contributed more to the efficiency of education than they would do by increasing the grant per head. The Government should also have considered low the distribution of the grant would be affected by the varying methods of assessment in different districts. He would give one illustration to show how it worked out in the West Riding of Yorkshire—in the case of Sheffield, Leeds, and Bradford. Under the Necessitous School Boards Act, Sheffield now got £6,000 a year, Leeds £3,000, and Bradford nothing at all—yet Sheffield was by far the richest, and Bradford the poorest of the three county boroughs. One explanation was, no doubt, that the capital in Sheffield was mainly invested in machinery, while that in Bradford was in bricks and mortar. Still the fact remained that the three towns had benefited under the Act in question in exactly the opposite direct ion of poverty and wealth. Seeing that injustices of this kind were almost sure to crop up, he did think the Treasury would have done well to have adopted a principle tribution of this money. It was, indeed, a serious matter that the distribution should be dependent on the different methods adopted in regard to assessments—methods which were calculated to favour wealthy rather than poor districts. In districts which were sparsely populated, and where of necessity the schools were small, it would be well to give a larger amount per head than was given in large schools.
§ MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)said it was objected that this Clause in conjunction with Clause 13 raised in-equalities especially between the poorer and wealthier districts, and that point had been especially urged by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. But as he pointed out in the debate on Clause 13, the manner in which the burdens would be spread over the whole county would do a great deal to relieve the poorer districts. In the Forest of Dean the School Board rate was very heavy at present; it was, roughly speaking, 2s. 6d. in the £, the expenditure being £14,600 yearly. Out of that £1330 represented the repayment of the principal instalments of loans and £1170 repayment of the interest, or about a fivepenny rate. The County Council under this Clause would have the power if it pleased to reduce this charge by one half, and as the county rate for general expenditure in Gloucestershire was not likely to be more than 4d. the Forest of Dean would in future be called upon to pay about 7d. instead of 2s. 6d. in the £ yearly. Surely this new system of spreading the burden over the whole county was a marked improvement on the old plan, by which each district took its own burden, and went a long way in the direction of helping the poorer districts.
MR. ERNESTGRAYsaid that while no doubt the proposal would be a considerable improvement in rural districts, it must not be forgotten that the ratepayers of the Forest of Dean would still have to bear half the Gloucestershire rate. He welcomed the change because of its further extension of the principle that the State should bear a larger share of the cost of education and the locality a smaller share. Earlier in the afternoon a complaint was presented on behalf of the heavily-rated districts. No one had ever suggested that this difficulty of the heavily-rated districts was an easy matter to deal with. The present scheme would meet a large number of cases, but it would also result in a large number of anomalies, and if the Prime Minister thought that he had finally disposed of the matter he was greatly mistaken. He feared that the new burdens under the Bill would emphasise the difficulties which had existed 1193 for a long time, and would exist until the Chancellor of the Exchequer took over a large share of this burden. The great rating authorities would continue to urge the adoption of a scheme such as was proposed in the Bill of 1897, not in lieu of, but as a supplement to, the present scheme. The question was bound to come up again, and he hoped the day would soon come when the Government would deal with the whole question of local taxation. The matter could not be adequately dealt with in a Clause relating merely to the School Board rate. The Government would have to redeem their promise to take up the whole question of local assessments and local taxation, and he hoped that before the period of the present Parliament expired, an adequate scheme would be submitted to the country.
§ (9.35.) MR. LUKE WHITE (Yorkshire, E.R., Buckrose)asked what the effect of the Clause would he on School Board districts, which at present in many counties received a sum in aid of the repayment of the principal and interest with regard to loans. He understood that in future this money would go to the County Councils. Would these Councils credit the present School Board districts with this amount?
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought the point raised by the hon. Member for the Buckrose Division was one of considerable practical importance. If the position was as stated, the small School Board districts would be hit harder even than had been anticipated, because the half of the rates which they received under the Agricultural Rating Act would in future go to the County Council, but the liability -would still be a burden on the locality. He thought the Government must have overlooked this point, and he asked what was their proposal for meeting the difficulty.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYreminded the Committee that the equivalent for the fixed contribution under the Agricultural Rating Act was the rating of agricultural land at only half its value. That advantage the agricultural land would still retain, so that the equivalent for the grant would he retained by all Agricultural land in the county, although the grant 1194 would in future go not to the School Board but to the County Council. They had, he might also point out, provided that as regarded the liability of the locality it was to be one-half, ranging up to three-quarters. If that was not sufficient, the whole matter might have to be taken into consideration but as at present advised the Government were not prepared to admit that the provision was insufficient.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought that the Attorney General had failed to meet the point. The mere relief of agricultural land hit the small tradesmen and those who were rated for something other than land. The county might take over the burden to the extent of one-half, but on the other hand it need not take more than one-fourth. At present the little parish received the benefit of the Agricultural Rating Act, because although agricultural land was relieved to the extent of one-half the Exchequer took the burden of the other half, but in future the relief would be spread over the whole county. The Attorney General must see that these little parishes would be hit exceedingly hard, and he hoped the matter would be reconsidered before the Report stage.
§ MR. LUKE WHITEsaid in the county which he represented there was an agricultural district where, prior to the Agricultural Rates Act, the School Board received from the Poor Rate from land £200 per annum with regard to the repayment of loans and interest in respect of the building of schools. After the Agricultural Rates Act was passed land paid only £100, and the School Board received the remaining £100 under the Act. As he understood it, if this Bill passed in its present form the County Council would receive that £100, and the parish would be the sufferers to that extent. That, he thought, was an injustice the Government could not have contemplated.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the hon. Gentlemen opposite looked only at one-half of the picture. They forgot that the maintenance was also pooled. They must look at the rate as a whole. However, the matter should be looked into in the light of what had been said, but, as he had already said, the Government, as at present advised, considered that their proposal was entirely adequate.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid there was not much in the point of the Attorney General with regard to maintenance, because most of the rate was in respect of buildings, and his experience was that in these small parishes the maintenance practically came out of the Government grants. Probably the Government would reconsider the matter. He hoped that soon there would be a Government who would reconsider the whole question of local taxation. These grants in aid only helped them temporarily to tide over difficulties they did not meet the real trouble. It was a pity the Government had not attempted to deal with the matter in a complete and thorough manner. These doles relieved the pressure on one class only at the expense of another. The Government had agriculture too much in their minds, forgetting that there was a distressed class in the towns.
§ MR. WALTER LONGNo, no.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEDoes the right hon. Gentleman deny the distress in towns?
§ MR. WALTER LONGNo. I deny the allegation that we have forgotten that distress.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that at any rate there was no outward visible sign of the inward spiritual grace.
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid the hon. Member ignored the fact that in the last twelve years the Party to which he belonged had given assistance to the towns as well as to the country districts. He had confined his attention to the Agricultural Rating Act, entirely forgetting that the Act of 1888 gave relief both to the towns and counties, and more to the towns than to the counties.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had in his mind the legislative record of the present Administration, and he thought seven years was good or had enough for any man or Government to go upon. In the last seven years the Government had discriminated against the towns in favour of one particular industry. This £2,000,000 might have been used to 1196 settle the whole denominational difficulty, which had been presented to them as a building difficulty, and nothing else. It was, however, being used for the purpose of perpetuating this sectarian system, which was at the bottom of all our educational deficiencies. What had they done here? They had penalised the districts which built schools, and they practically said to them: "If you build schools you do so at your own expense." They had practically given notice to those parishes that if they built free schools they must do so at their own expense. He regretted that the Government had not taken advantage of this opportunity to settle the whole difficulty.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)said that there was one point upon which he should like to have some enlightenment. He was sorry to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place. This proposal meant some additional national expenditure and some addition to the Estimates of the year. He had not heard any estimate of the-probable financial effect of this Clause. He had heard the Prime Minister repudiate the charge that this Clause was a grant in aid of voluntary schools. At any rate it was an addition to the system of grants in aid. He had never known a proposal of this magnitude submitted to the Committee before without being accompanied by a careful estimate prepared by the Treasury in regard to its provable financial effect. It would be most discreditable to this Committee if it allowed this Clause to pass without some such statement. He did not know whether anyone on the Treasury Bench was prepared to supply the information he was asking for. He would ask the President of the Local Government Board, who had appeared intermittently to take charge of this Bill, to give him that information. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if this Clause passed in its present form whether the Government had formed any estimate of the burden which it would throw upon the Estimates, and if so would he tell the Committee the amount of that estimate. (MINISTERIAL laughter.) No doubt it was a matter of laughter with hon. Gentlemen opposite 1197 that the expenditure under this Bill should be challenged at all. This expenditure would no doubt be proposed in the shape of an annual Vote which if rejected would destroy the Ministry, but the expenditure incurred would have to be met all the same. How any responsible Government could come down to this Committee without having made up their mind as to the amount of burden entailed by this Clause he could not understand. He could not believe that they had made an estimate, and, therefore, he asked the President of the Local Government Board to tell them how much the money raised under this Clause was going to amount to. Would it be £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 a year?
§ MR. WALTER LONGNo.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that remark was the first indication that be had had of the amount, and he should like the right hon. Gentleman to give the information he had asked for.
§ (10.0.) MR. WALTER LONGI am bound to say that I think the demand of the hon. Gentleman opposite is a most unreasonable one. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have devoted not only a considerable part of this evening, but many other evenings, and a considerable part of the whole time devoted to the discussion of Amendments, to attacks upon the Government because we are charging the rates with an undue proportion of the cost of education, and they have attacked us time out of number for not devoting more money out of the Imperial Exchequer to the relief of this part of local taxation, and they have more than once said that the attention of the ratepayers of the country will be called to the action of the Government in this respect. Now, the hon. Gentleman opposite makes an attack upon the Government because we have not informed the House or the Committee what will be the amount of the charge we are now laying upon the country. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister has stated explicitly that, if this new contribution in aid of local taxation is availed of to the fullest possible extent, the demand upon the Imperial Exchequer will be to the extent of £1,300,000. That statement has been made by the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman 1198 the Member for Dundee was good enough to say that I took an intermittent part in these discussions. Surely the statement the hon. Member has just made, and the question he has asked, is a proof of the fact that he has been taking a far more intermittent part in the discussions than myself, and it shows a greater dereliction of duty on his part than anything which I have been guilty of. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in reference to the relief of taxation, I may say that the view of the Government has been that there should be a fair distribution as between Imperial and local charges. The hon. Gentleman opposite stated that we had not redeemed our pledges as to carrying out the recommendations of the Loyal Commission in regard to this distribution. Every hon. Member of this House knows perfectly well that we cannot deal with that distribution as between Imperial and local charges in a Bill of this kind. All that you can do is to bring to the relief of the local rates the Imperial Exchequer, so far as you are able to do so. We believe that we have made a very considerable addition to the relief of local taxation, not only by the original contribution of £920,000, but also by the new contribution of nearly £500,000, and we believe in doing this we have fairly discharged our duty towards those persons who will have to hear the local burden. The amount of the Imperial burden has already been stated, and I cannot help saying that I think the charge of the hon. Gentleman opposite in this respect is not quite just.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid he thought that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had mistaken their complaint, which was that so many years had been allowed to elapse without dealing with this question. By this proposal the relations of local taxation with national taxation had been inextricably confused. For the last ten or fifteen years those relations had been getting more and more confused, and this debate had shown how hard it was to get any definite opinion upon this question. He thought something should be done to clear up this confusion. Until something was done to put this question upon a rational and intelligible basis they would not be able to unravel these difficulties. He earnestly 1199 commended to the Committee and to the Government the extreme importance of this question, because they were not now able to make out clearly what were the true relations of the taxpayer and the ratepayer, or upon what principle any local subvention ought to rest. The Attorney General had stated that he would consider this question. Did he propose to consider it with a view of asking the House to go into Committee?
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYI stated distinctly that if the whole question of maintenance was taken into account as well, the arrangement proposed is a fair one.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid he presumed that if further consideration led the Government to think some change ought to be made in this respect they would give effect to it.
§ Clause added.
§
New Clause:—
(1) Nothing in this section shall affect any endowment, or the discretion of any trustees in respect thereof: Provided that, where under the trusts or other provisions affecting any endowment the income thereof must be applied in whole or in part for those purposes of a public elementary school for which provision is to be made by the local education authority, the whole of the income or the part thereof, as the case may be, shall be paid to that authority, and in case part only of such income must he so applied, and there is no provision under the said trusts or provisions for determining the amount which represents that part, that amount shall be determined in case of difference between the parties concerned by the Board of Education. (2) Any money arising from an endowment and paid to a County Council for those purposes of a public elementary school for which provision is to be made by the Council, shall he credited by the Council, in aid of the rate levied for the purposes of Part III. of this Act in the parish or parishes served by the school for the purposes of which the sum is paid, or if the Council so direct shall be paid to the overseers of the parish or parishes in the proportions directed by the Council, and applied by the overseers in aid of the poor rate levied in the parish."—(Sir William Anson.)
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
1200§ (10.10.) MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON,upon a point of order, submitted that this new Clause was not in order. In form as well as in fact it was really an Amendment of sub-Section 2 of Clause 13 which had already been passed. This new Clause commenced, "Nothing in this Section shall affect any endowment." He presumed that the Section referred to was sub-Section 2 of Clause 13, which provided that "All receipts in respect of any school maintained by a local education authority shall be paid to that authority." He submitted that the effect of this new Clause was to contradict sub-Section 2 of Section 13, and it ought to have been brought up as an Amendment to sub-Section 2 of Clause 13. That sub-Section provided that the money was to go to the local education authority, minus sums specially applicable for purposes for which provision was to be made by the managers, and this Clause reversed that mode of calculation. Therefore, he submitted that this new Clause was not in order and could only be dealt with on Report.
THE CHAIRMANThe question of endowments seems to me to be a very fitting, one to be dealt with in the Clause by itself. Clause 13 is already a very long Clause; in fact it was long in its original shape, and it has been considerably added to in Committee.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was referring to Section 2 of Clause 13, which provided that all receipts should be paid to the local education authority. The words "All receipts" had been defined as including endowments. Therefore, this proposition would, in effect, be an Amendment of the general words of sub-Section 2 of Clause 13.
THE CHAIRMANBut the same remark would be applicable to all the Clauses. By general agreement this question of endowments, I think, was to be brought up as a new Clause. At least it is my recollection of what took place when the question was discussed. It was by general agreement that the whole question of endowments was to be brought up as a separate Clause.
§ MR. M'KENNAasked if it was not necessary that notice should be given 1201 of any new Clause which the Government proposed to move. The new Clause they were now considering must have been handed in after the House ceased sitting on Friday night last. This proposal was entirely new and no formal notice had been given of it. It had only come to his knowledge within the last quarter of an hour. The Blue Paper under the head of endowments contained a Clause which appeared on the White Paper as a new Clause, of which no notice had been given to the Committee. He submitted that the proper proceeding was to have moved by way of Amendment to the Clause which stood on the Blue Paper the terms of the Clause on the White Paper.
THE CHAIRMANIt is sufficient notice that the Clause should appear on the Paper. What I understand by notice is that it must be in the hands of Members and that it must not be produced at the last moment as, unfortunately, too many Amendments have been produced during the last forty-three days.
MR. BRICEpointed out that whereas sub-Section 2 of Clause 13 declared that all receipts in respect of any school maintained by a local education authority should be applied to that authority, line 6 of the present Clause provided that "part thereof, as the case may be, shall be paid to that authority." He submitted that this expressly contradicted the provision which the House had already decided, and such contradictions had frequently been ruled out of order.
THE CHAIRMANThe discussion referred to happened some time ago, and I have not had an opportunity of refreshing my memory as to what actually occurred. My recollection is that the question of endowments was raised before, and it was then generally understood that the question was to be brought up again. I think, if I remember rightly, the Prime Minister gave his idea as to the manner in which the question of endowments was to be dealt 1202 with, and it was generally agreed that it should be dealt with in a subsequent Clause.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he raised the question of endowments, and he asked the President of the Local Government Board whether "all receipts" included endowments, and he said they did.
§ MR. WALTER LONGNo, no.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that in any case he submitted that the words "all receipts" did include receipts from endowments which had already been provided for.
§ MR. A. K. LOYD (Berkshire, Abingdon)said he introduced the subject of endowments on the Clause requiring the provision of funds for repairs, and in reply to his remarks the Prime Minister promised to deal with the subject in a separate Clause, and went on to sketch terms very much the same as those which were embodied in this Clause. On the strength of the statement made by the Prime Minister his Amendment was withdrawn.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that the Clause was introduced in conformity with an undertaking given by the Prime Minister some time ago that the question of endowments would have to be dealt with in a separate Clause, having regard to the double ownership which subisted in the non-provided schools. The Clause was to ensure, where the trust under which the endowment was held indicated that the income was to go in a direction which placed it in the possession of the local authority, it should reach the local authority, and where the trust left it in the hands of the managers it should be assured to the managers. The majority of trusts were general in character, and the Clause proposed to leave them in the discretion of the managers or trustees. But there were other endowments appropriated to particular purposes, endowments for teachers' salaries and other objects, for which the local 1203 authority were required, under the Bill, to make provision. These went to the local authority. The object of the Clause was to interfere with the discretion of the trustees as little as possible, but to ensure that where the trust indicated the particular direction of the endowment that direction should be followed out. He thought that was all that it was necessary to say in regard to the first portion of this proposal. As regards the appropriation of the money where it was placed in the hands of the local authority, the question arose, who should continue to be benefited by the income arising from the trust, and the answer obviously was the parish or parishes which the school was intended to serve, and the income arising from the endowment would go in aid of the rate of that particular parish. It might appear to the local authority that it would be more convenient simply to credit the parish with the amount of the rate they would be charged with, or it might be more convenient that the money should be paid to the overseers. That was left to the discretion of the local authority. He believed the Clause carried out substantially the scheme indicated by the Prime Minister, and he hoped the mode in winch it was proposed to direct the income of the endowments might find favour with the Committee.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWISasked the hon. Baronet to explain what was meant by the phrase "parish or district which the school was intended to serve." Cases were very common indeed where an educational endowment, originally at any rate, was intended to apply to several contiguous parishes. In that case, did the expression "parish or district which the school was intended to serve" relate to the parish in which the school was situated, or would it apply to the parishes to which the educational endowment related? He wished information in regard to another point. The Clause stated at the end—
If the Council so direct shall be paid to the overseers of the parish or parishes in the proportions directed by the Council, and applied by the overseers in aid of the poor rate levied in the parish.Supposing a County Council passed a resolution to that effect, was that intended to conclude the matter for all 1204 time, or was it intended that the application, so directed by the Council, should only last until the Council had directed otherwise?
§ MR. BRYCEregretted that the opportunity afforded by this Bill was not being taken advantage of to make better use of those endowments, which, he believed, aggregated about £150,000 a year, especially in the way of supplementing the needs of the upper kind of education in the rural districts. The new local authorities ought to be put in the position of being able to frame schemes for the application of educational endowments. That proposal was embodied in the Clause of which the noble Lord the Member for the Cricklade Division had given notice, and it appeared to him to be an excellent and useful Clause. He thought it ought to have emanated from the Government. With regard to the particular Clause now under consideration, the Secretary of the Board of Education had spoken as if the trustees of the endowed schools were always the managers. He doubted if that was the case. He rather thought that, in some cases, the trustees were not the managers, and the question arose as to how much was to be the function of the managers and how much the function of the trustees. It must be remembered that the positions of the endowed schools were very different indeed. Some of the trusts were old, while some were quite modern, and he thought the question ought to have engaged the attention of the Government how cases were to be dealt with in which the managers were not the trustees, and provision ought to have been made for the powers to be exercised by the trustees where they were not the same. Here was another position. In the beginning of the Clause they found these words—
Nothing in this section shall affect any endowment, or the discretion of any trustees in respect thereof. Provided that, where under the trusts or other provisions affecting any endowment, the income thereof must he applied in whole or in part for those purposes of a public elementary school, for which provision is to be made by the local education authority, the whole of the income or the part thereof, as the case may be, shall Le paid to that authority, and in case part only of such income must be so applied, and there is no provision under the said trusts or provisions for 1205 determining the amount which represents that part, the amount shall be determined in case of difference between the parties concerned by the Braid of Education.But suppose the case of an endowment not destined to any special purpose, suppose it were a small endowment—and there was a large number of them attached to elementary schools—and that there would be no relief to the rates, that the rates and the Parliamentary grant would be required to pay for the current expenses of the school, the result must he that the whole of that small endowment would be applied to the repairs of the school, and thus the managers would be relieved of the burden of repairs which the Bill imposed upon them, and which had been represented during the discussions on the Bill as part of the bargain of placing the voluntary schools on the rates. That consideration became the more important when it was remembered that in a great many cases these schools were not denominational in their foundation, having been established, long before there was a State provision for primary, education, for the education of the poor children of the parish, without any direction as to the kind of religious instruction to be given in them. But as these schools fell into the hands of the local clergy and magnates, the practice grew up of giving in them the denominational instruction which in many other schools was given under trustees. If the endowments of these schools were looked into in the same way as the endowments which were dealt with in the Act of 1869 it would be found that they were really not denominational, although they had been used as denominational schools. He saw no reason why, in making a new departure in education, Parliament should give legislative approval to an unauthorised practice, and stamp these schools for all time as denominational. The desire of the pious founder of two centuries ago in establishing these schools was not to relieve the rates, as his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education had contended, but to give children of parts in the parish the chance of rising in the world, by providing them with the means of education, and now that primary education was happily supplied to everybody by the State, the endowments should be 1206 applied to helping the children of the parish to obtain a still better education.
§ 10.35.) MR GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tonbridge)said it was difficult to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's speech whether he opposed or supported the Clause.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid he desired to amend it, and he put forward three points—first, that small endowments ought to be used for repairs; secondly, that where schools were not denominational by foundation, endowments ought not to be treated as denominational; and, thirdly, that endowments ought not to be used for the relief of the ratepayers.
§ MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid the right hon. Gentleman's first point was that if the endowment were small it should not be used for repairs. He confessed he did not see what difference the size of the endowment made as to its application. The real point was this: It was difficult now to say in many cases what the object of the pious founder was. In most cases endowments were now applied to the general support of the schools. That fell on the general fund, which was now to be divided between the local authority and the managers, and surely the only statesmanlike course the Government could pursue was to divide the endowments somewhat on the principle on which they were now divided. The fact that one endowment was large and the other small had really nothing to do with the case. Then they came to the question of educational endowments. He really thought the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to drag in the religious question on every possible occasion.
§ MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid they were dealing with elementary 1207 schools belonging to various denominations which were very largely in some cases supported by endowments, and the question was what they were to do with these endowments. He ventured to say that the denominational question did not enter into that, and if it did enter curious results would follow. If they were to say that these endowments were not to go to the denominations unless they originally belonged to the denominations, the effect would be that a great many of the Wesleyan schools which possessed endowments would have them taken away from them. If these endowments had been used for the general support of the schools, and if the general support of the schools was now to be divided between the managers and the local authority, they must have some system whereby they should be used by these two bodies in future. Suppose they diverted them to some other purpose, what would happen? They would have in that district for the first time a very large school rate, and the people of the parish would be greatly aggrieved because the endowment which they had at present was not used for the relief of the rate or the repair of the buildings.
§ MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid the whole of the people would contribute to the county rate. Most of the endowments were left before the Act of 1870 came into operation. He quite admitted that since 1870 there had been, perhaps, some misapplications of endowments different from the original intentions of the founders; and in many parishes the result had been that there were no rates, and very small subscriptions. The country would never tolerate the taking away of all these endowments after they had been made use of for thirty years. The Clause might not be theoretically perfect, but he regarded it as a practical and statesmanlike way of dealing with a very difficult question. There was the other question, that these endowments should not go to the relief of the rates, but in some other way for the benefit of the parish. His hon. friend the Member for East Somerset had an Amendment on the Paper which would meet the case. There 1208 were some cases where the endowments were so large that they would more than pay the county rate, or a large share of it. He thought it was quite right and proper that in such cases the county authority should have the right of applying to the Board of Education for a scheme to enable them to divert the balance to some other purpose—as, for instance, to giving scholarships in the elementary schools to enable the children to attend a secondary school. In this way they would be able to use a certain part of the endowments in building up the educational ladder, which they all desired to see. The Government having dealt with a most difficult question in a businesslike and sensible way by giving the local authority a portion of the endowments for work which they would undertake in the future, the Board of Education might well be trusted, where there was any dispute, to make a fair division.
§ MR. STEVENSON (Suffolk, Eye)said he rose for the purpose of asking one or two questions as to the interpretation of the Clause. He could not quite congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, or those who were responsible for the Wording of the Clause, on the particular use made of the phrase "provision," which was employed in three totally different senses. it could not be denied that there was some doubt and ambiguity as to the interpretation of these words. He agreed that the money provided by these endowments ought to be ear-marked, as far as possible, for the purposes for which it was originally intended, or akin to what was originally intended. There were cases in small towns and large villages in which the endowment was larger than was necessary for the purpose of maintaining a local school, and the inhabitants of these villages would feel very keenly if a new burden were imposed upon them which they had not borne in the past. There were cases in which the founder in years gone by had bequeathed some land which, in his day, would only be a garden patch, but which had been built upon and now yielded a large revenue. In cases of that kind he rather gathered that, although a very large portion of the money was capable of being used for educational purposes, it would devolve on the trustees to decide what was to be 1209 done with the surplus. There might, however, be several bodies of trustees connected with one of the same endowments, and it might be necessary, in cases of doubt, for the Board of Education to frame schemes in order to effect a proper apportionment of the funds. He hoped that if it was not possible for the Government to introduce a Clause in this Bill to deal with contingencies of that sort, they would consider the desirability of bringing in a Bill dealing with the subject as a whole. In cases in which the endowments only formed a small portion of the whole, he could not see how any difficulty could arise; but he did see a distinct possibility of difficulty in the future in cases in which the endowments were very large, and in which it might be necessary to decide what should be done with the surplus. In regard to questions as to whether these endowments were denominational or un-denominational, he would not deal with it. Every case should be dealt with on its own merits. They could not group them into classes; every one must form the subject of careful investigation. To endeavour to lay down any general rule would be absolutely misleading. He hoped the Government would give some explanation as to the wording of the Clause, and also what they contemplated in regard to cases in which there was a large surplus available.
§ MAJOR RASCH (Essex, Chelmsford)said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen—whose speeches he always listened to with interest and enjoyment, because the right hon. Gentleman was an expert in these matters—knew a great deal, but he did not know everything. He happened to be a "pious founder" himself—not that there was anything to be proud of in that, nor that he wished it. The object of his colleagues and himself was most certainly the reduction of the rates and the minimising of the expenses, and, quite secondarily, the cause of education.
§ (11.0.) MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N.W.)said he desired to ask the Government to consider the real purpose for which these endowments were in the first 1210 instance given. Undoubtedly it was for the advancement of education. He felt very strongly that education could be advanced by a system of scholarships. It was very well known that in the rural districts, especially, the average educational advantages for boys and girls were not very great, and he was afraid that there would be opposition to the appropriation of money for secondary schools; but clever boys and girls should be afforded the opportunity of enjoying, to their own advantage and that of the nation, a secondary education through the means of scholarships. Private generosity was quite inadequate to meet such claims. He was very disappointed that the Government had not seized the opportunity of making a start in what he believed to be the only way of building up the secondary schools. He hoped the Government would consider this question afresh, and devote a portion of the money to scholarships.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he asked the Committee to say whether they had arrived at last at the general principles on which the Government proposed to deal with endowments. He maintained that this, new Clause departed entirely from what was apparently the original intention of the Government, as expressed in sub-Section 2 of Clause 13. That was to hand over all the endowments to the new education authority, except such portion as was made applicable for purposes for which provision had to be made by the managers. He desired to make a complaint against the Government for putting this Clause down in the shape in which it was, and then altering it. Here they had a Clause put down for Second Reading, and he thought it was intolerable that after forty-three days spent in considering the Bill they should have a Clause on the Blue Paper and. another Clause on the White Paper, both on the same day. The practical effect of this Clause would be that where there was a general endowment for the support of the schools and the sum of money was sufficient for the purpose, the managers would claim it for the repair of the school and they would thus be relieved from any burden in respect of repairs. Where provision was made 1211 for the use of only part of the endowment the managers would ask the education authority to decide how much should go to repairs and how much to the local authority, and the education authority would relieve the managers of the only pecuniary obligation that rested upon them. That showed that in tins Clause the Government were running away from their own intentions as expressed originally in sub-Section 2 Clause 13. Wherever there was an endowment there would be no obligation on the managers to effect repairs. The more they saw of the Bill, the more they saw how the bargain was being whittled down. Was the Committee prepared to say that, in the case of schools having an endowment, there was to be no burden at all on the managers in respect of repairs? Where, in that case, was that part of the bargain winch rested on the managers, if they were to be enabled to lay hands on an endowment for the purposes of repairs? No other pecuniary obligation rested on them at all. The obligation to effect repairs was one of the reasons why they were given the appointment of the head teacher and a two-thirds majority on the board of management. The second portion of the Clause dealt with cases where the trust deed provided that only part of the income should be applied by the managers. He was not quite sure that he understood the second part; but it appeared to him that in such cases the managers would ask the Education Department to say how much they should have for repairs and how much should be given to the education authority, and they knew that the Education Department would be prepared to relieve the managers of the only pecuniary obligation which rested on them. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich blessed that proposal. He got an interpretation the other day from the Government which had not been given in the House.
§ LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)dissented.
§ Mr. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that an interpretation had been given as having behind it the greatest weight of legal 1212 authority, but the noble Lord did not feel fully satisfied with it. He himself thought it strange that such a legal explanation should have been given to the Bishop of London or to anyone else which had not been given to the House of Commons. He would not be in order in discussing that question, but he had said enough for his present purpose. His objections to the Clause were that, broadly speaking, it excluded endowments from the operation of the Bill altogether; and that if an endowment was to be applied only in part for purposes which were the purpose of the new education authority, it was not to be handed over to that authority until, at any rate, the managers had got their slice out of it for repairs. He thought that the Committee had a right to complain of the variations in the second part of the Clause. His right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen objected to money given by pious founders being used for the relief of the rates, but the lines to which his right hon. friend objected appeared only on the White Paper, and did not appear at all on the Blue Paper. The conclusion which he had arrived at, and which he humbly pressed on the Committee, was that in this Clause the Government were running away from their own intention as expressed in Clause 13. The Clause now before the Committee was entirely subversive of the principle in Clause 13. It was wrong in itself, and he hoped the Committee would not accept it.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he thought that the controversial part of the Clause was sub-Section 2; but the discussion had ranged over a wide circuit, and included matters which appeared to him to be wholly irrelevant. When the hon. Gentleman said that the Clause was wholly contrary to the policy of the Government as expressed in Clause 13, he must surely remember that, weeks before Clause 13 was reached, the Prime Minister declared that endowments would be dealt with separately and in a manner which practically corresponded to that in the Clause before the Committee. The policy of the Government had been then expressed, and was now carried into effect. The hon. Member for 1213 the Flint Boroughs asked him what was meant by the words "parish or parishes," and whether they would include the whole area to which a charity was intended to apply. The words were exactly what they implied; and the rates of all parishes concerned would be aided. The main objection to the Clause was that they had not uprooted the whole system of elementary school endowments, and had not proceeded to consider whether they should not be applied to the purposes of secondary education. The Bill was quite large enough already; and he thought, if the Government endeavoured to carry out such a measure as that indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, it would involve at least another week's controversial discussion. Then they were told that they were neglecting the intentions of the pious founder when they used his benefaction in aid of the rates of the parish he intended to benefit. No one in the House was more bound to have regard for the memory of pious founders than he was, and after what had fallen from his on. And gallant friend his regard was greater than ever before. They were not departing from the intention of the founders; the money would be spent on education; in the particular area the educational advantage of which founder intended to promote, and would be spent strictly in accord with the intentions of the founder as far as they could be followed. As to whether the endowments were originally of a denominational character or not, that was really a question as to the terms of the trust; and the intentions of the founder would be determined by an inquiry into the terms of the trust, and from information from other sources. When they were told that the managers would be relieved of all liability, that statement seemed to proceed from the assumption that the endowments were large, and that grasping managers would reserve the whole of them. As a matter of fact the endowments were usually small, and the object of the Clause was to ensure endowments going to the purposes for 1214 which they were intended. If they were intended for purposes with which the educational authority had to deal, then the endowment would go to that authority, and where the endowment was expressly or impliedly for purposes with which the managers had to deal then it would go to the managers. He suggested that the Committee should come to a decision on the Second Reading of the Clause, and take a closer discussion on the controversial sub-Section.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANSasked if in the event of an endowment of £250 being found to have been given for general support of a school and the repairs cost £20, the managers would be required to hand over £30 to the education authority?
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he wished to remind the Committee that when Clause 13 was under discussion the Government rejected the proposal for an audit on the ground that, except for repairs, the managers would have no money except money given to them by the County Council. It was evident the present Clause was not then in mind, and, seeing that the managers were to retain possession of other funds, would the audit Clause be reintroduced?
§ MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON (Hackney, S.)said that the Amendment he moved to Clause 13 was on the ground that the managers would have no money for which they need render an account to the local education authority.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was not referring to the hon. Member; but if the hon. Member would refer to the report of the discussion he would find he was not correct, even as to the reason he had given for moving his own 1215 Amendment. The reason alleged on all sides was that the accounts of the managers would be the accounts of agents, with the sole exception of the money required for repairs.
§ MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONAnd religious instruction?
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he would invite the hon. Gentleman to read the report of his own speech.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was absolutely certain he did not remember it. The reason the audit was withdrawn was that the managers would not have a single farthing except money for repairs, for which they would not have to account to the County Council. He was quite sure that the Clause before the Committee was an after- thought, and that it was not in the mind of the Government when the provision relating to audit was being discussed. It now appeared that the managers would have money for which they would not be responsible to the County Council; and he would ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, as the managers would now retain possession of funds for which they would not have to account to the County Council, would he be prepared to re-introduce the provision as to audit which had been deleted under a misapprehension.
§ MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)said he wished to ask the 1216 Parliamentary Secretary what would happen to non-sectarian endowments which had been allocated to elementary education under schemes of the Charity Commissioners. The managers of denominational schools would obtain money from two sources; the principal source would be the State, but the denomination would also find a certain amount for repairs. In return, the denomination would have the use of the school on Sunday, and three evenings a week, and also the denominational atmosphere All these purposes were strictly denominational and sectarian, and he therefore wished to know what would happen to non-sectarian endowments which had been allocated under schemes of the Charity Commissioners for elementary education. There were many such cases before the year 1870, and he wished to know whether or not such trusts were now to be applied to sectarian objects. If so, it was certain that they would not be acting according to the wishes of the donors, but simply on the authority of the Charity Commissioners. It was perfectly true that the Charity Commissioners could give a legal title, but it was certain they could not give a moral title; and to his mind it was absolutely essential that the claims of a religious denomination to property should be based on a moral title. He did not think that a religious denomination should base its title on a scheme of the Charity Commissioners; yet, if he read the Clause aright, non-sectarian endowments would be applied to denominational purposes. He did not think that was right from the moral point of view, and he hoped the Committee would be informed as to the intentions of the Government in regard to such endowments.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that under the terms of the Clause, where the purposes of the trust were such as the local authority should meet, the money would go to the local authority; where they were purposes within the discretion of the managers, the moneys would be retained by the managers. The whole object of the Clause was to deal with the trust moneys in accordance with the trust deed.
§ MR. SOARESasked whether the Charity Commissioners would definitely allocate the proportions.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that where the endowment was general, and the managers had the discretion, they would exercise that discretion. Where the endowment was educational the Clause would regulate the procedure. In the case referred to by the hon. Member for Mid Glamorganshire the managers would not be bound to hand the money over to the local authority, but they would be bound to retain it for the purposes of the trust.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he spoke of money given for the general support of the school.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that if it was given for the general support of the school, that would put it into the managers' discretion as to what would best conduce to the general support of the school. If they thought that a building fund would be in the general interests of the school they could apply it to that. What had been said about audit rested on a misconception. The managers would have no money from the local authority which would not be strictly audited. The money they received as trustees they would be responsible for as trustees, and that would not come under Local Government Board audit. Every penny dealt with by the local education authority directly or through the managers would be audited.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that Clause 13, sub-Section 2, was never intended to apply to the receipts mentioned in the Clause before the Committee.
§ (11.38.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 182; Noes, 75. (Division List No. 541.)
1221| AYES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J (Manch'r | Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Balfour, Capt. C. B (Hornsey) | Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Balfour, RtHn Gerald W.(Leeds | Brockfield, Colonel Montagu |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Bull, William James |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Butcher, John George |
| Austin, Sir John | Bignold, Arthur | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. |
| Bain, Colonel.James Robert | Bigwood, James | Cavendish, R.F. (N. Lancs.) |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Blundell, Colonel Henry | Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire |
| Balcarres, Lord | Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Chapman, Edward | Hoare, Sir Samuel | Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge |
| Charrington, Spencer | Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. | Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Hogg, Lindsay | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm | Round, Rt. Hon. James |
| Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R. | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Johnstone, Heywood | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Cust, Henry John C. | Kemp, George | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Seely, Maj. J. E. B(Isle of Wight |
| Davenport, William Bromley- | Kenyon, Hon. T. (Denbigh) | Seton-Karr, Henry |
| Denny, Colonel | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop | Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew |
| Dewar, Sir T.R. (Tower Hamlets | Keswick, William | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Smith, HC(North'mb.Tyneside |
| Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield | Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. | Lawson, John Grant | Spear, John Ward |
| Doughty, George | Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead) | Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Dyke, Rt. Hon, Sir William Hart | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. | Stock, James Henry |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham) | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Faber, George Denison(York) | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S) | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Talbot, Rt Hn J.G. (Oxf'd Univ. |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r | Macdona, John Cumming | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Finch, George H. | Maconochie, A.W. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Milvain, Thomas | Tully, Jasper |
| Fitzroy., Hon. Edward Algernon | Montagu, G.(Huntingdon) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Forster, Henry William | More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire) | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. |
| Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W | Morgan David J(Walthamstow | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Morrell, George Herbert | Welby, Lt-Col A. C. E.(Taunton |
| Garfit, William | Muntz, Sir Philip A. | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) | Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'Ml'ts | Murray, Col.Wyndham (Bath) | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon | Nicholson, William Graham | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Orr-Ewing Charles Lindsay | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N. |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Percy, Earl | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks. |
| Greene, Sir E.W (B'rySEdm'nds | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) | Plummer, Walter R. | Wylie, Alexander |
| Grenfell, William Henry | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Gretton, John | Pretyman, Ernest George | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | |
| Hamilton. Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x | Purvis, Robert | |
| Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Pym, C. Guy | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | Handles, John S. | Sir Alexander Acland- |
| Harris, Frederick Leverton | Rankin, Sir James | Hood and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne | |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud | Cawley, Frederick | Fuller, J. M. F. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Channing, Francis Allston | Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Craig, Robert Hunter | Goddard, Daniel Ford |
| Bayley. Thomas, (Derbyshire) | Cremer, William Randall | Griffith, Ellis J. |
| Bell, Richard | Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton |
| Brand, Hon. Arthur G. | Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Harmsworth, R. Leicester |
| Brigg, John | Duncan, J. Hastings | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Edwards, Frank | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Ferguson, R.C. Munro (Leith) | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Caldwell, James | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund | Horniman, Frederick John [...] |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Foster, Sir Walter (Derliy Co.) | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Leng, Sir John | Rickett, J. Compton | Toulmin, George |
| Levy, Maurice | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| M'Kenna, Reginald | Runciman, Walter | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Moss, Samuel | Shackleton, David James | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Norman, Henry | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Paulton, James Mellor | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Pearson Sir Weetman D. | Soares, Ernest J. | |
| Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) | Spencer, Rt Hn. C.R.(Northants | |
| Philipps, John Wynford | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Price, Robert John | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E. | Mr. Samuel Evans and |
| Priestley, Arthur | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr | Mr. Mansfield. |
| Reckitt, Harold James | Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.) |
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)said he proposed to omit the first words of the section, as follows:—
Nothing in this section shall affect any endowment or the discretion of any trustees in respect thereof. Provided that.He wished to know what was the object of the words. There was no particular reason for starting a Section, which was originally only an Amendment to a Clause, but had now blossomed out into a new Clause, with a preamble making a general declaration.
§
Amendment proposed—
In line 1, to leave nut the words '(1) Nothing in this section shall affect any endowment, or the discretion of any trustees in respect thereof. Provided that.'"—(Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he hoped he had made it clear that the object of the Government was to interfere as little as possible with endowments. It appeared to them most important that the Clause should state at the outset that endowments, or the discretion of the trustees in 1222 respect thereof, were not to be affected except as expressly provided. He thought these words were really essential.
§ MR. M'KENNAasked if there was anything in the Bill giving the local education authority power to examine trust deeds. Unless the words were struck out, it was quite possible that the local education authority would not know anything about the amount of the trust funds.
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid the words were very objectionable, as they would throw all the bias in favour of the trustees and against the local authority. If the words were retained they would give the trustees the whip hand, and would put the county authority out of Court. The position had been explained to the Committee by the Secretary to the Board of Education, who said that if there was a trust for the general purpose of educating the children of the poor in a particular parish, the trustees would have first call on it, and would state the amount they considered they required, not only for the actual repairs of the but also for the maintenance of a building fund for the future. There should be a full inquiry, and the Board; of Education or some other authority 1223 should decide as between the trustees, and the local education authority. If the words were retained the local authority would have its hands tied; the trustees would have first call on the funds; and only the balance would be handed over to the local education authority.
§ MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid he hoped the Committee would not agree to omit the words, as they were absolutely necessary for the allocation of the endowment. Unless the words were inserted, the matter would be left vague.
§ MR. M'KENNAasked who would interpret the trust deed in the first instance.
§ MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid, of course, the trustees would; but as the hon. Gentleman knew, any interested persons could move for an inquiry into the circumstances of any charitable fund. If information were conveyed to the Charity Commissioners by responsible persons, an inquiry was immediately set on foot; and if the local authority had reason to believe that the managers in any particular case were taking the whole of a trust fund, when a part of it undoubtedly ought to be given to the local authority, they could go to the Board of Education and ask for an inquiry; and the Board of Education would at once put the matter into the hands of its law officers. He could not understand how the Clause would read if the words were omitted.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid it was difficult to know what the relations between the local authority and the trustees were to be. It was quite clear that the local 1224 authority ought to have knowledge of what the trusts were, and how they were managed; and to enable them to do that, they ought to be able to inspect the trust deeds and call for any information from the trustees. He wished to know whether there was any such provision in the Bill. He confessed he could not find it. The words to which his noble friend objected seemed to imply that the functions given to the local authority by the Bill would not in any way cover endowments or jurisdiction over endowments, which were reserved in the fullest way to the local trustees, subject only to the jurisdiction of the Board of Education. That was not right. He did not think that anyone would deny that the local authority ought to have a locus standi in the matter as against the trustees. If the hon. Gentleman representing the Charity Commissioners would inform the Committee that the local authority would have that power, he would be satisfied; but, as at present advised, it seemed to him that the local education authority would have no locus standi.
It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress: to sit again Tomorrow.
§ Mr. SPEAKER,in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question put.
§ Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.