HC Deb 19 November 1902 vol 114 cc1431-67

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

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

New Clause (Managers):—

(9.0.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he wished to move to insert after the word "appointed" in line 1, the words "for a term of three years." The object of the Amendment was perfectly clear. He did not want the foundation managers to be a sort of life governors of a school maintained out of public money. He did not think that that would be desirable. He should like to know whether there was any term of office for the managers of provided schools, or whether they also would be permanent. He took it that it would be a case of once a manager of a voluntary school always a manager. He therefore moved to insert "a term of three years;" but there would be nothing to prevent managers being re-appointed. It was a very invidious thing to remove a man front office, and it was never done unless the case were a very gross one. It involved so much personal unpleasantness, more especially among members of the same Church, that a manager would not be removed unless the state of things was so bad as to amount to a public scandal. He did not think that a clergyman, who would practically dominate the school, should be called upon to dismiss one of the managers, and create unpleasantness in his own Church. What he suggested was that each manager should hold office for three years. That would apply to a case of this kind. If the Government insisted that the subscribers were to be the constituency, it might be that, in one year, there would only be half a dozen subscribers, as there might be no call for money; but if, a few years later, £100 was wanted to make an addition to the school, then there would be a new set of subscribers, who would not have any representation at all. His final reason was that they were trying a new experiment, and, like every other experiment, it depended far more for its success on the men who worked it than on the theoretical perfection or imperfection of the Bill itself Even if a Bill were a thoroughly bad Bill, first class men might rescue it from utter abject failure; therefore, the class of men who would work the Bill was a very important consideration. If those inert were appointed permanently they could not be changed, and the result might be disastrous. He thought the Government would be well advised to insert some limitation, such as he proposed.

Amendment proposed— In line 1, after the word 'appointed,' to insert the words 'for a term of three years.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said they had had a similar discussion before in the case of the education committees of the local education authorities. The Committee then discussed the question whether it was desirable to limit, by statute, the duration of office of members of those committees, and came to the conclusion, which he thought a wise one, that it was not desirable to fix by statute their period of office, but to leave it to the local education authority to act according to its own notions as to what would be most convenient, having regard to the circumstances in each case. The Committee having decided in that way with reference to more important bodies, he could not help thinking that it would he unwise, and, at any rate, that it would be very undesirable, that they should limit the term of office of smaller bodies. It was not suggested that a limit should be put to the term of office of managers appointed by the local education authority for provided schools, or of representatives of the local education authority on the management of non-provided schools; and, under the circumstances, it would surely be going into unnecessary detail to introduce such incongruous matter into the Bill now. The matter would come up in due course, because the trustees in making their application to the Board of Education would suggest a term of office, and the Board of Education would, no doubt, accept that suggestion. There was no reason for departing from the practice which the Committee had adopted in the case of the education committees, and fixing by statute a term of office for foundation managers.

SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON (Preston)

said that, personally, he saw no reason

AYES.
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) Harmsworth, R. Leicester Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Allen, CharlesP.(Glouc. Strond Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Shackleton, David James
Bell, Richard Helme, Norval Waison Shipman, Dr. John. G.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Spencer, Rt HnC. R. (Northants
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Strachey, Sir Edward
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Taylor, Throdore C. (Radcliffe)
Caldwell, James Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea Thomas, Sir A, (Glamorgan, E.)
Cameron, Robert Kitson, Sir James Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)
Causton, Richard Knight Lambert, George Toulmin, George
Channing, Francis Allston Langley, Batty White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Craig, Robert Hunter Layland-Barratt, Francis Whiteley, George (York, W.R.
Cremer, William Randal Levy, Maurice Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Lewis, John Herbert Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk,Mid.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Duncan, J. Hastings Mansfied, Horace Rendall Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Edwards, Frank Norman, Hemy Yoxall, James Henry
Emmott, Alfred Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Fenwick, Charles Nussey, Thomas Willans
Fuller, J. M. F. Rigg, Richard TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Grant, Corrie Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Mr. Lloyd-George and
Griffith, Ellis J. Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Mr. Samuel Evans.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Runciman, Walter
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Clare, Octavins Leigh Forster, Henry William
Arkwright, John Stanhope Clive, Captain Percy A. Gardner, Ernest
Arrol, Sir William Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Gibb, Hn.A.G. H. (CityofLond.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Corbett, A. C[...]meron Glasgow Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Bailey, James (Walworth) Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts
Bain, Colonel James Robert Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop
Baird, John George Alexander Crossley, Sir Savile Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Baldwin, Alfred Denny, Colonel Grenfell, William Henry
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Dornigton, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Gretton, John
Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Groves, James Grimble
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Doxford, Sir William Theodore Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.
Bignold, Arthur Duke, Henry Edward Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley
Bigwood, James Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Helder, Augustus
Blundell, Colonel Henry Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Finch, George H. Hickman, Sir Alfred
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Hoare, Sir Samuel
Charrington, Spencer Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Hope,J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

why there should not be a change in the managership from time to time; but to, fix three years, seemed to him to be a most impracticable proposal. It was quite possible that, in certain circumstances, some schools would benefit by a periodical change of managership; but he did not believe that there would be any difficulty in making such an arrangement. On the other hand, it might be difficult to replace a certain set of managers by another set. He did not see why a state of things which was working well should be interfered with. The Amendment was an ideal rather than a real proposal; and he thought it would be better if the Committee confined itself to Amendments which were really practicable.

(9.13.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 60; Noes, 117. (Division List No. 557.)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Stock, James Henry
Hudson, George Bickersteth Parker, Sir Gilbert Stone, Sir Benjamin
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Parkes, Ebenezer Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop Pierpoint, Robert Thornton, Percy M.
King, Sir Henry Seymour Platt-Higgins, Frederick Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Law Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Tritton, Charles Ernest
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward Tully, Jasper
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Purvis, Robert Valentia, Viscount
Llewellyn, Evan Henry Handles, John S. Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Lockie, John Rankin, Sir James Walroad, Rt. Hn. SirWilliamH.
Long, Col. CharlesW. (Evesham Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Warde, Colonel C. E.
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S. Ratcliff, R. F. Whiteley,H(Ashton-und-Lyne
Macdona, John Cumming Reid, James (Greenock) Willox, Sir John Archibald
MacIver, David (Liverpool) Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge Wilson, John (Glasgow)
M'Iver, Sir Lewis(EdinburghW Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Wilson,J.W.(Worcestersh.N.)
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire Ropner, Colonel Robert Wylie, Alexander
Majendie, James A. H. Royds, Clement Molyneux Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Malcolm, Ian Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Younger, William
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Morgan, David J(Walth'mstow Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Morrell, George Herbert Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Murray, RtHn. AGraham(Bute Smith, HC(North'mb.Tyneside Sir Alexander Acland-
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Myers, William Henry Spear, John Ward
MR. CHARLES ALLEN (Gloucestershire, Stroud)

said he wished to move an Amendment to insert after the word "deed" the words "existing on the 1st day of January, 1902." He would not have moved the Amendment if there had been a chance of getting a larger lay element on the management of the schools, but his object was to meet a state of circumstances and exigencies which might arise under the Bill, possibly resulting in the turning of undenominational schools into denominational schools. Transfers of that kind had taken place in the past, and, in his opinion, they were most improper transfers. For example, in the beginning of the last century schools were often built on land granted by Inclosure Commissioners, the "clergyman, churchwardens, constables, and overseers," as the words then ran in the grant, for the erection of schoolhouses which were to be appropriated for ever afterwards for the benefit of the schoolmaster for the time being. In those schools there were no denominational trusts, and yet because the officers were Churchmen, as, indeed, they were bound to be by law, in many cases those schools had, in the course of time, become denominational. There was one very striking example in Yorkshire in 1816. An allotment was awarded out of common land for an undenominational day and Sunday school under the trustees. In 1850 only one trustee was left, and that was the clergyman; he turned the school into a denominational school, and made it a condition that the superior teacher should be a communicant of the Church of England. Not content with that, the clergyman, by the aid of the Charity Commissioners, turned three other schools into denominational schools. Not only had that been done in the past, but he believed they ran a considerable chance of it being done in the future. On November 13th, Archdeacon Wilson writing for The Times, said— If, as will be necessarily the case, new trust deeds are almost universally adopted for the transfer of these schools, provision may be made that in all Church of England schools the teaching should be in accordance with the principles of the Established Church, and that the removal of all foundation managers shall rest with the Bishop of the diocese. While the Secretary to the National Society, Canon Brownrigg, wrote, saying— I shall be much obliged if you will allow me to make known that the National Society have prepared a form of deed under which private owners of school buildings can let such buildings under an annual or longer tenancy to persons who will be in the position of trust managers under an Act of Parliament. We have also a form of conveyance for such owners who wish to put the buildings definitely in trust. It seemed to him that this was a matter with which the House ought to deal. It came to him as a revelation. As he understood it, schemes would have to be provided by the existing trustees of the school, but, in his opinion, they ought not to have schemes of that kind. It was a question with which Parliament ought to deal here and now. This Act would do very many extraordinary things, but it ought not to set up the Board of Education as a sort of independent legislative body to deal with such things. It was a serious matter which certainly concerned the House, which the House itself ought to deal with, and he sincerely trusted they would pass the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In line 2, after the word 'deed,' to insert the words 'existing on the 1st day of January, 1902.'"—(Mr. Charles Allen.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said that the hon. Member stated that the Bill would do many extraordinary things. There was one thing it would do, and that was to put the education of the country on a thoroughly satisfactory footing. As regarded the Amendment itself, he hoped the Committee would not think of accepting it. The hon. Member told the Committee some anecdotes about some things that had happened in Yorkshire. He did not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman into his Yorkshire cases; because he did riot know enough of them to form an opinion as to the justice of the judgment which the hon. Gentleman had pronounced upon them. The hon. Member proposed that no deed made after 1st January, 1902, should have effect; but, if these trust deeds were lawfully made, why should not effect be given to them?

MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH

said he was somewhat surprised at the tone of the Attorney General. He did not think that a Scottish gentleman was the best man to appreciate an anecdote. He thought the hon. Gentleman's opinion on his hon. friend's anecdote was as valuable as his opinion on the Bill. The object of the Amendment was clear, it was designed to avoid fraudulent and sharp practices. The Times, which he believed was a very respectable newspaper, published a letter from a real live canon, who advised members of the Church of England to prepare agreements, which would not otherwise have been prepared, in order that the Act might be availed of by members of the Church of England. If the Government were really in earnest in this matter, why in the world should they not adopt the Amendment? If there was a bond fide trust deed made after 1st January, 1902, he was prepared to admit its validity, but if a trust deed were made in order to get benefits under this Act, which the school otherwise would not receive, then a good case was made out for the Amendment.

(9.30.) MR. PLATT-HIGGINS (Salford, N.)

said that, as a Manchester man, he desired to resent in the warmest manner possible the coupling of Archdeacon Wilson's name with fraudulent and sharp practices.

MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH

wished to assure the hon. Gentleman opposite that he did not couple the name of Archdeacon Wilson with this in any way.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said that nobody coupled the name of Archdeacon Wilson with any practices of this kind. He would remind hon. Members opposite that the words "sharp practice" were used by Canon Henson in regard to the Bishop of London. When they used the words "sharp practice" these were not their words at all.

MR. MALCOLM

That statement must be contradicted at once. Canon Henson, in a second letter to The Times, specifically denied that his remarks referred to the Bishop of London.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said that the words "sharp practice" were used in Canon Henson's letter to The Times, and Canon Henson was discussing the action of the Bishop of London, and if it was not the Bishop of London he was referring to, then he should like to know from the hon. Member for Stowmarket of whom Canon Henson was speaking. The Attorney General had called certain facts which had been brought to his notice "anecdotes." That was an extraordinary thing to say, because his learned friend gave chapter and verse for the facts. He had referred to a dictionary for the meaning of the word anecdote and he found the following definition— In its original sense, secret history, or facts not generally known; but in more common usage, a particular or detached incident or fact of an interesting nature. It might have added "facts generally known, but not known to the Attorney General." The facts brought before the Committee by his hon. friend were, in his opinion, of a really interesting nature, and afforded ample justification for his Amendment. The supporters of the Amendment desired to increase the number of cases where the education authority, and not the clerical party, would be able to dictate who should be the managers of the schools. He read that afternoon in an organ which supported the Government some comments which showed that the Amendment of his hon friend was absolutely necessary. The organ said this— To-day Mr. Balfour's new Clause relating to managers will be the subject of discussion. This Clause is framed to meet an immediate difficulty that might arise in the application of Clause 7. There are a certain number of voluntary schools, mainly Church schools, which have been built by private benefactors. Such schools frequently have no trust deeds, and so the provisions of Clause 7, with regard to the appointment of the four denominational managers, would not be possible. Mr. Balfour's new Clause provides that under these circumstances, when the trust deed is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, or insufficient, the Board of Education shall make an order. It is not likely that this Clause will meet with any convinced or cogent opposition, as it is obviously necessary to cover the few cases for which it has been framed. We say 'few cases,' as, although there are a considerable number of schools without trust deeds, it is likely that most of such schools will avail themselves of the arrangement by which the National Society has offered to put schools in trust; and it is quite possible that the Prime Minister anticipates such action on the part of the present owners of these schools. It will be remembered that the Bishop of London was urgent on his hearers to obtain trust deeds, as similar as possible to the old ones, for schools that are now unprovided; and Mr. Evans's Amendment, which would have rendered such action impossible, was rejected by Mr. Balfour. He thought nothing could be more cogent than the speech of his hon.

AYES.
Bell, Richard Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Bryce, Rt. Hon. James
Bolton, Thomnas Dolling Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Burns, John

friend. What was proposed was really very much like the case of a man who was defending a lawsuit, and who in order to provide for what might happen if he lost put the whole of his property in the name of his cousin. That was what the National Society was inviting these people to do, and the National Society was being backed up by high episcopal authority. Were they on this side not really asking the Committee to take not only the proper but the dignified course in this matter? They were legislating in view of the facts as they were at present, and what these good people were suggesting was that in order to obviate the effect of that legislation, the owners of these schools should set their house in order and create new trust deeds where they did not exist at present.

SIR JOHN DORINGTON (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury)

said that it was impossible to deal with existing trusts except through the agency of the Charity Commissioners or through the action which was proposed under this new Clause. With regard to the other trusts in connection with which Canon Henson's name had been mentioned he said the suggestion was that new trust deeds should be created in those cases where persons, in virtue of their own property, were the absolute owners of a school. In those cases, it was right, or might be right, that they should put into public hands that which had hitherto been in their own private hands. They were, in that way, divesting themselves of their own property for the good of the community. The suggestion of hon. Members opposite was that private owners should be deprived of the right which they now possessed of putting their private ownership into public hands in such direction as they might choose. He hoped the Committee would not be induced to take such a step.

(9.43) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 73; cogent than the speech of his hon. Noes, 161. (Division List No. 558.)

Caldwell, James Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Cameron, Robert Jones, David Brymnor(Sw'nsea Shackleton, David James
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Kitson, Sir James Shipman, Dr. John G.
Canston, Richard Knight Lambert, George Spear, John Ward
Channing, Francis Allston Langley, Batty Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants
Craig, Robert Hunter Layland-Barratt, Francis Strachey, Sir Edward
Cremer, William Randal Leigh, Sir Joseph Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Leng, Sir John Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Levy, Maurice Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lewis, John Herbert Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R)
Duncan, J. Hastings Lloyd-George, David Toulmin, George
Edwards, Frank Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Emmott, Alfred M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) White, Luke (York, E. R)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) M'Kenna, Reginald Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Fenwick, Charles Mansfield, Horace Rendall Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Fuller, J. M. F. Norman, Henry Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid)
Goddard. Daniel Ford Norton, Capt. Cecil William Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Grant, Corrie Nussey, Thomas Willans Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Paulton, James Mellor Yoxall, James Henry
Harmsworth, R. Leicester Rigg, Richard
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Helme, Norval Watson Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) TELLERS FOR TILE AYES—
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Mr. Charles Allen and Mr.
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Runciman, Walter Ellis Griffith.
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Gardner, Ernest Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Gibbs, Hn. A. G. B. (CityofLond. Morgan, DavidJ (Walthamst'w
Arkwright, John Stanhope Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Morrell, George Herbert
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Arrol, Sir William Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts Murray Rt Hn. A. Graham(Bute
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Gore,HnG R. C. Ormsby-(Salop Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Bailey, James (Walworth) Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Myers, William Henry
Baird, John George Alexander Grenfell, William Henry Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Baldwin, Alfred Gretton, John Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Balfour, Rt. Hon.A.J. (Manch'r Groves, James Grimble Parker, Sir Gilbert
Balfour, RtHnGerald W. (Leeds Hamilton, RtHn LordG(Midd'x Parkes, Ebenezer
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Pemberton, John S. G.
Bignold, Arthur Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Percy, Earl
Bigwood, James Helder, Augustus Pierpoint, Robert
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Brymer, William Ernest Hoare, Sir Samuel Plummer, Walter R.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hope,J.F.(Shellield, Brightside Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Pretyman, Ernest George
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hudson, George Bickersteth Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Charrington, Spencer Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Purvis, Robert
Clare, Octavius Leigh Johnstone, Hey wood Pym, C. Guy
Clive, Captain Percy A. Kemp, George Randles, John S.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop Rankin, Sir James
Compton, Lord Alwyne King, Sir Henry Seymour Rasch, Major Frederic Came
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Ratcliff, R. F.
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Lee, ArthurH (Hants, Fareham Reid, James (Greenock)
Cranborne, Viscount Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Ridley, Hon. M,W.(Staly bridge
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Crossley, Sir Savile Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Denny, Colonel Llewellyn, Evan Henry Ropner, Colonel Robert
Dickson, Charles Scott Lockie, John Royds, Clement Molyneux
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Saekville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Dorington, Rt.Hon. Sir John E. Long, Rt. Walter(Bristol,S. Seely, Maj.J.E.B.(IsleolWight
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lonsdale, John Brownlee Sharpe, William Edward T.
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lowe, Francis William Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Duke, Henry Edward Loyd, Archie Kirkman Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Dyke, Rt.Hon.Sir William Hart Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Smith, HC(North'mb.Tyneside
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Finch, George H. Macdona, John Cumming Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne MacIver, David (Liverpool) Stock, Janice Henry
Fisher, William Hayes M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Stone, Sir Benjamin
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Majendie, James A. H. Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUniv
Forster, Henry William Malcolm, Ian Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Thornton, Percy H. Warde, Colonel C. E. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Whiteley, H(Ashton-und. Lyne Wylie, Alexander
Tritton, Charles Ernest Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Tuke, Sir John Batty Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Younger, William
Tully, Jasper Willox, Sir John Archibald
Valentia, Viscount Wilson, John (Glasgow) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) Wilson,J.W.(Worcestersh.N.) Sir Alexander Acland-
Walrond,RtHn.SirWilliam H. Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) Hood and Mr. Anstrnther.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somerset-shire, S.)

said that he wished to propose the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Lincoln on behalf of that hon. Gentleman, but with a slight alteration. The Amendment provided that the managers should be men resident in, or who had an interest in, the parish within the school area. He knew of cases where the managers of schools had absolutely no interest in the district, but who lived ten or twelve miles out of the town where the schools were. The Committee would see that a new form of the original Amendment was necessary. He did not think he was asking the First Lord too much, in asking him, to adopt the principle that a man qualified to be a foundation manager should have some direct interest in the school in that area, either by residence, or by being on the register of voters—Parliamentary or County, or Borough Council. That was a safeguard which many, as well on the Government side as on that side of the House, were anxious to see adopted. If the Government accepted the Amendment they would be leaving out of the management no man at all who had any interest in the good conduct of the school, and in the interests of the ratepayers in that part of the county. This was a Conservative Amendment, and in the interest of denominational schools and education. It would prevent packing the management with a particular sect not belonging to the district.

Amendment proposed— In line 2, after school,' insert 'and shall he either residents in or on the register of voters (Parliamentary or County or Borough Council) for a parish within the school area.'" (Sir Edward Strachey.)

Question proposed, "That those words he there inserted."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he thought this Amendment was quite an unnecessary one. If the hon. Gentleman would look at the model trust deed so often made the text of recent discussions he would see that practically residence, or a qualification similar to that mentioned, was required in the trust deeds of the National Society. What did that show? To him it showed that the interest in the denominational schools was what they expected it to be. At any rate, if the foundation managers were not resident in the parish, or had no local interest, it was very unlikely there would be any inducement to them to take part in the deliberations of the managers, and they being absentees, and the foundation managers being out-voted, the management of the school would fall into the hands of those not elected to carry out denominational arrangements. They ought not to lay down a hard and fast limitation which might exclude a person resident just outside the technical boundary of the area, who had a great interest in education, awl therefore be specially fitted, and would be perfectly ready, to give his services to the cause of education.

MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

said that he had an Amendment lower down on the Paper somewhat of the nature of that proposed by the hon. Gentleman. He had put it there because a clergyman might get at loggerheads with his parishioners and go outside the area, obtain a few subscribers, and bring a proselytising society into the parish. That was not a possibility; it had actually happened. It was obvious that they ought not to have outsiders brought into the parish to inflict on the parishioners views on education of which they conscientiously disapproved.

SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

said he wanted to ask his hon. friend who moved the Amendment why he left out the original words in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lincoln?

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

Because the Chairman would have ruled them out of order.

THE CHAIRMAN

I was not invited to do so, but I will do so now if desired.

SLR JOHN BRUNNER

said he was extremely sorry that the Chairman's remark had prevented him from addressing some interesting remarks to the Committee.

Question put and negatived.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS

said he hoped that he need hardly make any apology in moving the next Amendment, because both in and out of the House it had been stated repeatedly, and by none more frequently than by the First Lord himself, that it was intended that the local authority should have absolute supremacy in all matters relating to secular instruction.

THE CHAIRMAN

Is not this already in the Bill? There is no necessity for repeating it.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS

said it was not altogether in the Bill. He presumed the Chairman was referring to Section 6, but there were other portions of the Bill to which his Amendment would relate. His object in moving it was to prevent constant disputes and litigations which would arise unless some definite announcement was made. He trusted the Amendment would be accepted by the Government. It could not do any harm, and would define with perfect clearness what was the position of the local authority in regard to secular instruction.

Amendment proposed— In line 5, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'Or the absolute control of the local education authority in all matters relating to secular instruction.'"—(Mr. Herbert Lewis.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment. They were providing by the new Clause that— If it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Education that the provisions of the trust deed as to the appointment of managers are in any respect inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, or insufficient or inapplicable for the purpose, or that there is no such trust deed available, the Board of Education shall make an order under tins Section for the purpose of meeting the case. That was not in any way inconsistent with the absolute control of the local education authority over secular instruction. The two matters had no connection whatever.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS

said he would not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

said he wished to move, as an Amendment, to leave out of line 5, after the word "Act," the words "or insufficient, or inapplicable." He thought these words were unnecessary, although they might have some secret meaning to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said that the obvious meaning of "insufficient" was to be found in the provisions of Clause 7, which stated that— All public elementary schools not provided by the local education authority shall, in place of the existing managers have a body of managers consisting of a number of foundation managers, not exceeding four, appointed as provided by this Act. And— Where the local education authority are the Council of a borough or urban district they may, if they think fit, appoint for any school provided by them such number of managers as they may determine. He really thought that the meaning of theword "insufficient" was soobvious that it would hardly be complimentary to the intelligence of the House if he were to say another word.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHANNING

moved as an Amendment— In line 5, after the word 'insufficient,' insert 'to secure a reasonable representation of the lay members of the denomination.' The First Lord had said that he did not consider it desirable that the four denominational managers should be clerical managers, and the effect of the Amendment was to keep that point within the purview of the Board of Education and to enable the Board to include adequate representation of the laity in their Order.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said that the answer to the hon. Gentleman had been given in the reply to the mover of the last Amendment. The word "insufficient" was not used in regard to laymen's representation, but of the number of managers. Supposing the trust deed only provided for two managers, it would be unsatisfactory if the Board of Education were unable to raise the number to four, even if one, or both, had to to be clergymen.

MR. CHANNING

begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

DR. MACNAMAIRA

said that there was no provision in Clause 8 which provided that the repairs, alterations, and improvements of the school-houses should be made by voluntary contributions, and he wished to move an Amendment by which such provision out of voluntary subscriptions should not be excluded.

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not think it is in order.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

moved to add at the end of the first sub-Section the words:— Provided that in no case shall there be more than one priest, clerk in holy orders, or minister of religion appointed as foundation manager on the committee of management of any school. He said he would be able to establish the fact that it would be quite possible under this Bill to have four clergymen as the foundation managers, and in such a case the Board of Education would not say the trust deed was insufficient or inapplicable. At the present time there were cases in which the only managers of denominational schools were the ministers of the denomination—indeed, he was not sure that that was not the case in the majority of the schools, and, at any rate, it was clear that a clergyman who was anxious to get complete control of a school could so manipulate the trust deed as to appoint his own colleagues, to the absolute exclusion of tile laity. Such a state of things was unsatis factory. It was not desirable that there should be a largely preponderating clerical voice in the management of these schools. The system he advocated was in existence in Wales; the result had been satisfactory, and no denomination could complain that the power of the education authority in Wales was being used for sectarian purposes. A clergyman would be put on the board of management as a professional expert, not as a citizen, and would naturally take a professional view of most things. In the interests of their Bill, the Government should take steps to prevent the majority of the board of management from being composed of clergymen. The Secretary of the Board of Education would probably tell them he did not believe such a thing would happen. But was it not desirable to put in some safeguard to prevent the possibility of its happening? The natural tendency would be to give a preference to the clergyman when selecting the managers, and he thought the Government would be well advised in introducing sonic safeguard against the whole of the managers being clerks in holy orders.

Amendment proposed— In line 8. at the end .of sub-Section (1), to insert the words, 'Provided that in no case shall there be more than one priest, appointed as a foundation manager on the committee of management of any school.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

(10.30.) SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said in that while throughout these debates he had earnestly desired to maintain the denominational religious teaching of voluntary schools, he had never shown or expressed in any way any desire to perpetuate clerical control. Nevertheless, he was not prepared to accept a clerical disqualification. He was fully prepared to admit that occasions might arise when there might be an unfair preponderance of clergymen on these bodies, but he was also equally certain that in some sparsely populated districts in rural England it might be very difficult to make up their body of four foundation managers without admitting two clergymen. He was not prepared to accept a professional disqualification (and it was nothing more nor less than that) for places as foundation managers, and on that ground, as well as on the ground of the balance of convenience, which was, he thought, against the hon. Gentleman's proposal, the Government could not accept the Amendment.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS

said the hon. Baronet had admitted the possibility of an unfair preponderance of the clerical element, but at the same time he objected to the imposition of any disqualification. Might he point out that at the present time the trust deeds imposed a disqualification upon the laity. If that disqualification was imposed on the laity, there should be, not a disqualification but a limitation, on the other side, of the number of clergy upon the governing body of the school. The Government were agreed that it was unfair that boards of managers should be constituted unduly of the clerical element, and he ventured to urge on the Committee that his hon. friend's Amendment pointed to an easy solution of the difficulty.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said there was no doubt some difficulty in finding a satisfactory form of words to limit the clerical element, but he thought the admission of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education that there might be cases of an undue preponderance of the clerical element on these bodies made it incumbent on the Government to provide that such an abuse as that should not occur. It was to be regretted that the Government had not suggested some means whereby they might obtain a majority of laymen on these bodies. In these circumstances, though he admitted that the words of his hon. friend were, in a sense, an undue limitation, he should certainly support the Amendment.

SIR FRANCIS POWELL

said it appeared to him that the lay subscribers might be trusted to take care of themselves. Speaking for the great Northern counties, he was absolutely sure that clerical supremacy was impossible, and he deprecated in the strongest possible manner the imposition of the suggested disqualification. He was very much surprised at some of the observations which had fallen from hon. Members opposite. They appeared to have no confidence in public bodies unless they felt certain themselves to have a majority on them.

MR. EMMOTT

said the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan had stated that those who were on the Opposition side of the House only showed confidence in the people who were of their own opinion. That was an unworthy and unjustifiable charge. The whole object of the discussion on the Bill was that public bodies in this country should be trusted in regard to these matters irrespective of what their political opinions might be. He challenged hon. Members opposite to controvert that statement. This Bill was putting upon public bodies already overburdened further duties. The Secretary to the Board of Education spoke of large localities where the number of members might be increased, but in that case they (the Opposition) would not object to the clerical element being pro tanto enlarged. He thought the hon. Baronet and the First Lord of the Treasury had no desire that this should be a clerical control Bill, but the hon. Baronet said the effect of the Amendment would constitute a disqualification of ministers. But he would point out that the Amendments from the Opposition side had been addressed to questions which were calculated to make the Bill work better. They thought there must be on these bodies a preponderance, or, at any rate, a very large lay element. Reference had been made to subscribers, but where were the subscribers going to be under the Bill, and what were they going to subscribe? There was a further matter he had been trying all the evening to find out, who were to be the other foundation managers besides the ministers, and for the life of him he could riot make out. They were tearing up practically the great majority of the trust deeds so far as the appointment of managers was concerned, and as they were dealing with the case of grouped schools, it was quite possible on the management of these schools they might have a preponderating clerical element. That was a thing which should be guarded against, because if it did happen it would be bad for the working of the Bill.

MR. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.)

said that, considering the very limited electorate which was evidently going to represent the subscribers, he thought it was desirable, in the interests of public confidence, that some indication should be given as to the constitution of the four denominational managers. His hon. friend said he did not like disqualification. Would it not be less objectionable to state the minimum number of lay members to be on the body. Personally, he agreed that it was rather too strict to limit the clerical representation to one. There might be two vicars in adjoining parishes who ought to be on the body.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said his proposal was one clergyman for each school.

MR. J. W WILSON

said he thought it would be more likely to meet the general view, if, instead of limiting the clergymen to two, it was proposed that there should be two laymen on the body. There was nothing to fear from that. One of the two clerical members would have a casting vote; and, he thought, it would tend to establish that confidence which they all desired when the Bill was passed, whatever they might now say or fear—and he hoped the Bill would work smoother than some of them feared—if two laymen were on the board of management. He was not speaking entirely from theory in the matter. He had seen one of the best schools in a large town in his own constituency materially damaged by a trust deed being brought out in an emergency, and the vicar bringing down both his curates to out-vote the remaining member of the committee. The result was that the secretary, who had clone most efficient work, and also another member were lost to the school, and the school had scarcely recovered yet. It was an ill-judged thing for the vicar to have done, yet it was possible, and he did it. It was for that reason that he wished to have two lay members on the Committee.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan pleaded for a free choice being given. He should not be indisposed to give a free choice as regarded a body elected by anything like a wide constituency; but the elective element for the bodies they were now considering might practically be only one person. It was quite possible that the new trust deeds might be framed in such a way that no one but ministers of religion should be elected managers. The Board of Education would have no power of controlling that at all. They knew how active the clerical element could be; and he thought some such Amendment as that of his hon. friend was very desirable. They did not desire to put any disqualification on ministers of religion at all. All the Amendment proposed was that there should be only one minister of religion out of four. There might be a board on which the vicar and his two churchwardens took the clerical view, the other three members taking the other view, and, in that event, the vicar's presence meant a second vote. It should be remembered that they had already provided for the denominational character of the teaching in the schools; and whether the managers were laymen or clerical men, there would be no question as to their controlling religious teaching. But the infusion of the lay element would be most salutary and necessary, as it was well known that clergymen of all denominations were not the best business men. That was conceded by every one. Having protected denominational teaching in the schools, they ought to consider who were the best people to manage the schools. The Secretary to the Board of Education said that the Amendment would put a disqualification on clergymen; but clergymen were already disqualified from sitting in this House, simply and solely because they were not men of business. However inefficient the House of Commons now was, it would be still more inefficient if a clerical element were introduced into it. He found further, that under an Act of Parliament clergymen were not allowed to farm more than eighty acres, winch again showed that they were not good business men He was not a farmer himself, but he was told that even very good business men could not always make farming pay, and he was quite sure that clergymen could not make it pay. In 1835 the wisdom of their forefathers said that no minister of religion should be allowed to sit on a Town Council, which, of course, meant that they were not fit to manage the affairs of a town. [An HON. MEMBER: What about County Councils?] Clergymen were admitted to County Councils when the Conservatives came into power; but he thought he had shown that their forefathers considered that the parson was not a fit and proper person for business, although the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich might advance countervailing arguments to show that Parliament had ordained differently. His hon. friend's Amendment was a very fair one, because it dealt with all clergymen alike, and if accepted, it would go to the root of the matter, because it would not only deal with the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church, but with all other ministers of religion. The Amendment dealt with all denominations alike, and its object was to have the

AYES.
Allen, Charles P.(Glouc.,Strond Harmsworth, R. Leicester Rigg, Richard
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Bell, Richard Helme, Norval Watson Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Holland, Sir William Henry Runciman, Walter
Brown ,George M. (Edinburgh) Horniman, Frederick John Samuel. Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Shackleton, David James
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Burns, John Kearley, Hudson E. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Buxton, Sydney Charles Kitson, Sir James Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Caldwell, James Lambert, George Spencer, RtHnC.R(Northants
Cameron, Robert Langley, Batty Strachey, Sir Edward
Causton, Richard Knight Layland-Barratt, Francis Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Channing, Francis Allston Leigh, Sir Joseph Tennant, Harold John
Craig, Robert Hunter Leng, Sir John Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.
Cremer, William Randal Levy, Maurice Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Dalziel, James Henry Lewis, John Herbert Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Lough, Thomas Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Maenaroara, Dr. Thomas J. White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. M'Arthur, William (Cornwall Whiteley ,George (York,W. R.)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) M'Kenna, Reginald Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Duncan, J. Hastings Mansfield, Horace Rendall Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Edwards, Frank Markham, Arthur Basil Wilson, Henry J.(York,W. E.)
Fenwick, Charles Norman, Henry Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Nussey, Thomas Willans Wilson, John (Gla-gow)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) PaultOn, James Mellor Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Pearson, Sir Weetman D. Yoxall, James Henry
Fuller, J. M. F. Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Gladstone, RtHn.Herbert John Philipps, John Wynford
Goddard, Daniel Ford Price, Robert John TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Griffith, Ellis J. Priestley. Arthur Mr. Lloyd-George and
Gordon, Sir W. Brampton Rickett, J. Compton Mr. Samuel Evans.
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Arkwright, John Stanhope Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John
Allnusen, AugustusH'nry Eden Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy
Anson, Sir William Reynell Arrol, Sir William Bailey, James (Wal-worth)

management of the schools in the hands of business men.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

said that he wished to remind the hon. Gentleman that he and his party had objected to the destruction of School Boards; and yet, on School Boards, there were large numbers of ministers of religion. Therefore, the argument about clergymen was double-edged, and could be turned with effect against hon. Gentlemen opposite. He also wished to point out that there might be clergymen who were not connected with any staff or Church in a district, but were owners of property, and proper persons to be on these bodies. They would be excluded under the Amendment.

(11.0.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 88; Noes, 194. (Division List, No. 559.)

Bain, Colonel James Robert Groves, .James Grimble Percy, Earl
Balcarres, Lord Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x Pierpoint, Robert
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r Hanbury, Rt Hn Robt. William Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Harris, Frederick Leverton Plummer, Walter R.
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch. Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Pretyman, Ernest George
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Helder, Augustus Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Henderson, Sir Alexander Purvis, Robert
Bignold, Arthur Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Randles, John S.
Bigwool, James Hickman, Sir Alfred Rankin, Sir James
Blundell, Colonel Henry Higginbottom, S. W. Ranch, Major Frederic Carne
Bond, Edward Hoare, Sir Samuel Ratcliff, R. F.
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset,E.) Reid, James (Greenock)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hope.J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge
Brymer, William Ernest Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas. Thomson
Butcher, John George Hudson, George Bickersteth Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Cavendish, V. C. W(Derbyshire Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Ropner, Colonel Robert
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Johnstone, Heywood Round, Rt. Hon. James
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Kemp, George Royds, Clement Molyneux
Chamberlain, RtHn J.A (Worc. Kenyon, Hon Geo.T.(Denbigh) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Chapman, Edward Kenyon-Slaney, Col.W.(Salop. Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Charrington, Spencer King, Sir Henry Seymour Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Clare, Octavius Leigh Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Seely,Maj.J.E.B(Isle of Wight
Clive, Captain Percy A. Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Sharpe, William .Edward T.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lawson, John Grant Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Compton, Lord Alwyne Lee, ArthurH(Hants., Fareham Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Corbett, A.Cameron (Glasgow) Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Sinith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)
Cranborne, Viscount Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. Spear, John Ward
Crossley, Sir Savile Llewellyn, Evan Henry Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Loder, Gerald. Walter Erskine Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Denny, Colonel Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Dickson, Charles Scott Long, RtHn Walter (Bristol,S. Stock, James Henry
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Lowe, Francis William Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield Loyd, Archie Kirkman Talbot, RtHn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Dorington, Rt. Hon Sir John E. Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth Thornton, Percy M.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw.M.
Dyke,Rt. Hn.Sir William Hart Macdona, John Cumming Tuke, Sir John Batty
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton MacIver, David (Liverpool) Tully, Jasper
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Valentia, Viscount
Fergusson, Rt. Hn SirJ (Manc'r Majendie, James A. H. Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Fielder, Edward Brocklehurst Malcolm, Ian Walker, Col. William Hall
Finch, George H. Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Warde, Colonel C. E.
Fisher, William Hayes Montagu, Hon.J. Scott(Hants.) Welby, Lt-Col.A.C.E(Taunton
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon More, Robt. Japer(Shropshire) Whiteley, H(Ashton-und.Lyne
Forster, Henry William Morgan, David J(W'Ithamstow Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Galloway, William Johnson Morrell, George Herbert Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Gardner, Ernest Murray, Rt Hn A.Graham(Bute Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Gibba, Hn.A.G.H(CityofLond. Murray, Charles J.(Coventry) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Myers, William Henry Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'ml'ts Newdegate, Francis A. N. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Gore. HnG.R.C.Ormsby-(Salop Nicholson, William Graham Wylie, Alexander
Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Younger, William
Greene, Sir EW(B'ryS.Edm'nds Parkes, Sir Gilbert
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Parker, Ebenezer TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Grenfell, William Henry Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n Sir Alexander Acland-
Gretton, John Pemberton, John S. G. Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

moved an Amendment, the object of which was to secure that the local authority should have the same power to apply for an order under the Clause as was given therein to the trustees or managers. He urged that it was of the very first importance that the local authority should have such power. They ought not to have to wait three months to see that the management was on a businesslike footing. What was to happen to the school while the local authority were waiting to see whether the managers or trustees would make an application?

Amendment proposed— In line 9, after the word 'of,' to insert the words 'the local education authority or.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the only result of allowing these competing schemes—

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

, interposing, said there was no question of competing schemes. It was simply a question of an application for a plan.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that in his opinion it was certainly intended that the trustees or managers should be allowed to send up plans for consideration. He did not imagine that the initiative in constructing plans should rest with the Board of Education. There might be—though he hoped not—some little friction in the initiation of the new system, but he did not believe it would be mitigated or shortened by the Amendment. He thought it ought to be left to the trustees of the school to initiate any suggestion as to the form which the new management should take.

MR. BRYCE

said he did not see in sub-Section 1 of the Clause any provision directing managers or trustees to send up a scheme, though there was nothing to prevent this being done. If the intention was as the First Lord had suggested, words to that effect ought to be inserted. Under the Clause as it stood there was nothing to give the local authority a locus standi; they would not necessarily know what was passing or have an opportunity of interposing if they thought fit. One advantage of the Amendment was that it clearly implied that the local authority might make direct representations to the Board of Education when they found it desirable to do so.

SIR FRANCIS POWELL

pointed out that if no applications were made within three months the local authority might move in the matter. The whole object of the Clause was to give the trustees and managers an opportunity of applying, and it was only fair that the privilege should be given them.

SIR JOHN BRUNNER

said the Act was to come into operation on March 26th next. If the local authority were to wait three months after the passing of the Act before taking any steps, he was afraid it would be very difficult to get the Act into operation by that date. That was a reason for allowing the education authority to approach the Board of Education with a plan. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would at any rate favourably consider an Amendment with the object of facilitating the getting of the Bill into operation.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

pointed out that the existing provision on this subject was that the Act should come into operation on an appointed day. The appointed day was March 26th, 1903, or such other day, not being more than twelve months later, as the Board of Education might appoint, and different days might be appointed for different purposes and different provisions of the Act for different local authorities. There was, therefore, a great deal of elasticity under the arrangement at present proposed. He would remind the hon. Member that, owing to the delay which had taken place in the date at which the Bill would be passed, the Government had proposed as an Amendment a few days ago that the year should be extended to a longer period—eighteen months, he thought—but that, owing to circumstances which the Committee would remember, they did not move that Amendment.

SIR JOHN BRUNNER

was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman still considered the advisability of postponing the date at which the Act should come into force, but he hoped March 31, 1903, would not be left in the Bill, as it was an absurdly early date.

MR. GEORGE WHITELEY

did not read the Clause as providing that schemes or plans should be submitted to the Board of Education; it simply provided that where the trust deeds were faulty, inapplicable, or inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, the Board of Education should make an Order, but, that such Order should be made only on the application of the managers or trustees for a period of three months. The function of the Board was to have regard to the principles on which the education had been carried on in the past, and not to consider any scheme or plan. The local education authority ought certainly to be put on a par with the managers or trustees in the matter.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said that the important thing was that, whether the application was made by the trustees or the managers or the education authority, notice should be given to everybody else concerned. As, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, these Orders were to be made once for ever, it was only fair that everybody interested who would be bound by the orders should, before the orders were made, have due notice of the application by whomsoever it was made.

DR. MACNAMARA

said the real issue was whether a school should be left for three months without managers. He thought it would not be at all detrimental to the working of the Clause, as no schemes were involved, if the local authority were given the same right of immediate application as was to be conferred on the trustees and managers.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said there was an enormous variety of trust deeds, and a quite unnecessary additional load of work would be thrown on the local education authority if they were given the task of examining the deeds of every voluntary school in their district, with a view of framing a scheme in conformity with those deeds. The local authority would have a great amount of other

AYES.
Allen, CharlesP(Glouc.(Stroud Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan) Leng, Sir John
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Fuller, J. M. F. Levy, Maurice
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John Lewis, John Herbert
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Goddard, Daniel Ford Lough, Thomas
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)
Caldwell, James Griffith, Ellis J. Mansfield, Horace Rendall
Cameron, Robert Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Markham, Arthur Basil
Causton, Richard Knight Harmsworth, R. Leicester Norman, Henry
Charming, Francis Allston Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Paulton, James Mellor
Craig, Robert Hunter Helme, Norval Watson Pease, J. A. (saffron Walden)
Greiner, William Randal Holland, Sir William Henry Philipps, John Wynford
Dalziel, James Henry Horniman, Frederick John Price, Robert John
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Priestley, Arthur
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Kearley, Hudson E. Rickett, J. Compton
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Lambert, George Rigg, Richard
Duncan, J. Hastings Laylarnl-Barratt, Francis Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Edwards, Frank Leigh, Sir Joseph Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

work to do, and there was no reason they should have thrown upon them additional work, which the trustees or the managers would be well qualified to do, and which the local authority would not be specially qualified to do. There was no premium on delay in this case; the managers would lose, instead of gain, by not finding a scheme; for, until they did so, they would not get a shilling of the rates.

DR. MACNAMARA

What about the school in the meantime?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the school, in the meantime, would go on as at present. He hoped the Committee would riot drag in the local authority to do this work for other people until those other people had shown themselves incompetent to do it.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said the right hon. Gentleman had misinterpreted his own Bill, as the rates would be paid to the persons who for the time being were prima facie the managers and until some one went to the Board of Education, and showed that they were not the managers. What they wanted was that sonic one would have the right to approach the Board of Education. It was absurd to suppose that the existing managers should show "to the satisfaction" of the Board that they were not proper managers.

(11.34.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 70; Noes, 183. (Division List No. 560.)

Shackleton, David James Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan E.) Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Shipman, Dr. John G. Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Toulmin, George
Spencer. Rt. Hn. C.R(Northants Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Strachey, Sir Edward White, Luke (York, E. R.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Whiteley, George (York, W.R) Mr. Lloyd-George and
Tennant, Harold John Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) Dr. Macnamara.
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Gore, HnG.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop Parker, Sir Gilbert
Anson, Sir William Reynell Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc. Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n
Arkwright, John Stanhope Goscgen, Hon. George Joachim Pemberton, John S. G.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Goulding, Edward Alfred, Percy, Earl
Arrol, Sir William Gray, Ernest (West, Ham) Pierpoint, Robert
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Greene, Sir EW (B'ryS.Edminds Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Grenfell, William Henry Plummer, Walter R.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Gretton, John Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Balcarres, Lord Groves, James Grmble Pretyman, Ernest George
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r Hamilton, RtHn LordG(Midd'x Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Balfonr, RtHn GeraldW.(Leeds Hanbury,Rt Hon. RobertWm. Purvis, Robert
Balfour, Kenneth R(Christch. Harris, Frederick Leverton Randles, John S.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Hay, Hon. Claude George Rankin, Sir James
Bhownaggree, Sir M.M. Health, Arthur Howard (Hanley Ratcliff, R. F.
Bignold, Arthur Henderson, Sir Alexander Reid, James (Greenock)
Bigwood, James Hickman, Sir Alfred Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson
Blundell, Colonel Henry Higginbottom, S. W. Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Bond, Edward Hoare, sir Samuel Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. Ropner, Colonel Robert
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hope,J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Round, Rt. Hon. James
Brymer, William Ernest Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Royds, Clement Molyneux
Blucher, John George Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire Johnstone, Heywood Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kemp, George Secly, Maj.J E. B.(IsleotWight
Cecil, Lord Hush (Greenwich) Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Chamberlain, Rt Hn.J. A.(Worc. Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.3 Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Chapman, Edward Law, Andrew Boner (Glasgow) Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside
Charrington, Spencer Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)
Clare, Octavins Leigh Lawson, John Grant Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Clive, Captain Percy A. Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Farcham Spear, John Ward
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset
Compton, Lord Alwyne Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow Lergh-Bennett, Henry Currie Stock, James Henry
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Leveson-Gower, Frederick N S. Talbot., Lord E. (Chichester)
Cranborne, Viscount Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G (Oxf'd Univ.
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Crossley, Sir Savile Long, Rt. Hon. Walter(Bristol,S Thornton, Percy M.
Cust, Henry John C Lowe, Francis William Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale) Tuke, Sir John Batty
Denny, Colonel Loyd, Archie Kirkman Valentia, Viscount
Dickson, Charles Scott Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft Walker, Col. William Hall
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir WilliamH.
Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield Lytteton, Hon. Alfred Warde, Colonel C. E.
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Macdona, John Cumming Welby, Lt.Col. A.C.E(Taunt'n
Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. MacIver, David (Liverpool) Whiteley, H(Ashton-und.Lyne
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Majendie, James A. H. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Dyke,Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Manners, Lord Cecil Willox, Sir John Archibald
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Milner, Rt.Hn. Sir Frederick G. Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Montagn, G. (Huntingdon) Wilson, J.W (Worcestersh. N.
Fergusson, Rt Hn. SirJ. (Manc'r Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) Wilson Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst More, Robt.Jasper (Shropshire) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Finch, George H. Morgan, David J (Walth'mdtow Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Morrell, George Herbert Wylie, Alexander
Fisher, William Hayes Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Younger, William
Forster, Henry William Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Galloway, William Johnson Myers, William Henry
Gibbs, HnA.G.H.(CityofLond. Newdegate, Francis A. N. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St.Albans) Nicholson, William Graham Sir Alexander Acland-
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Clause amended by inserting after the word "existing," in line 9, the word "owners."—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)

MR. HERBERT LEWIS

said he wished to move an Amendment to add, at the end of line 15, the words "Before such Order is made, reasonable notice thereof, with a copy of the draft Order, shall be given by the Board of Education to the local education authority." Who was to show, to the satisfaction of the Board of Education, that the provisions of the trust deeds as to the appointment of managers were inconsistent with the provisions of the Act? Trustees would not take upon themselves a responsibility of that kind. In reply to the previous Amendment the First Lord of the Treasury said it was not fair to allow this additional burden to be placed upon the shoulders of the local education authority—meaning, 'of course, the burden of making a new plan. He did not think there would be this difficulty, because the local authorities would have very experienced officers to deal with questions of this kind. In relation to this particular question there could be no burden upon the local education authority. All they wanted was that a draft order should be sent to the local education authority within a reasonable time of its being made. Surely they were entitled, under the circumstances, to see a copy of the plan. Their local knowledge would supplement that of the trustees, and they would be able to show where the plan was incompatible with the general plan of the county. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make this small concession.

Amendment proposed— In line 15, at the end, to insert the words, 'before such Order is made, reasonable notice thereof, with a copy of the draft Order, shall be given by the Board of Education to the local ,education authority.'"—(Mr. Herbert Lewis.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

urged the Government to accept this Amendment. It was a reasonable proposal, and it was in accordance with the usual practice that all parties should have notice.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

I think the provision made by this Amendment is not an unreasonable one, but at the same time I think that due notice should also be given to any other parties interested.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS

said he was quite willing to amend his Amendment by adding the words "and to existing owners, trustees, managers, and other persons who may appear to the Board of Education to be interested."

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. BRYCE

said he desired to have some information in regard to the order of business tomorrow. He wished to know where the new Clauses would come in.

THE CHAIRMAN

I think that tomorrow my duty will be to continue with the Government Clauses, and when they are completed to go on with the Clauses standing in the name of private Members until the hour of eleven o'clock is reached. If before that hour all the new Clauses are disposed of we shall then proceed with the schedules. If at eleven o'clock there still remain some Clauses standing in the name of private Members discussion will cease and the schedules will be taken.

MR. BRYCE

asked the Prime Minister whether in these circumstances he contemplated taking the whole of the schedules under the Closure Rule without any discussion.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

quoted from the Closure Resolution proposed by the Prime Minister, and said that the effect of the present arrangement would be that they might not have an opportunity of discussing the Government Schedules at all.

THE CHAIRMAN

What the hon. Member has just quoted applies to what is to be done before eleven o'clock is reached. At eleven o'clock the particular paragraph which the hon. Member has quoted comes into force.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I had supposed that the discussion would be on Government Clauses and the Schedules, and that only when these were disposed of the Clauses of private Members would have been taken, but, of course, it is not for me to interpret the Rule.

MR. CHANNING

asked if the First Lord of the Treasury could see his way to meeting the wishes of the House by moving to report Progress at half-past-seven on the Clauses, with a view to putting down the schedules for the evening sitting.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am afraid that is impossible.

MR. BOND (Nottingham, K)

asked if the new Clauses standing in the name of private Members would be put in the order in which they appeared on the Paper, or would they be taken after the schedules.

THE CHAIRMAN

They will be taken in the order as they appear on the Paper.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.