HC Deb 20 November 1902 vol 115 cc31-97

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

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

New Clause (Managers):—

(2.40.) MR. TREVELYAN () Yorkshire, W. R., Elland

moved to omit the second paragraph of sub-Section (2). He objected to this provision on the ground that it give a very vague and unsatisfactory direction to the Board of Education. The words to which he took particular exception were those which provided that the Board of Education should have regard to the principles on which the education given in the school had been conducted in the past. One school might might have many pasts. It might first have been an undenominational school. It might have been founded by some individual or individuals without any sectarian intention at all, but from the mere fact that the people living in the district were not interested in educational matters, or were unable to act as managers, the parson might have secured control and gradually imposed upon it a denominational character. He might at first have only introduced religious teaching which was scarcely to be differentiated from undenominational schools, but his successor might have been a man with High Church views, who completed the transformation from an undenominational to a denominational school. It was quite possible for such a case to have occurred, and indeed only on the previous day he was told of a case where an undenominational school was built for the benefit of the children of a community of Welsh miners, which school had since got into the hands of the local parson, and was treated by the Department as a Church of England school. They objected to allowing the Department to make a school such as that a denominational school. It would be much more desirable that there should be a mandatory obligation on the Department to consider what the desires of the founder were. There was no reason why the Board should be absolutely bound by the views of the original founder, as the circumstances might have changed, but it was a serious thing that a mandatory clause of this kind should suggest that the Board should take into consideration what might have become customary in the district. He hoped the Government would consent to the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In line 16, to leave out the words, 'In making an order under this section with regard to any school, the Board of Education shall have regard to the principles on which the education given in the school has been conducted in the past.' "—(Mr. Trevelyan.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'In making an order under this section with regard to any school, the Board of Education shall have regard to' stand part of the Clause, as amended."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the object of the words in question was that in those cases where there were no trust deeds the Board of Education should act so as to take into account as far as possible the actual practice adopted in the school that was to be dealt with. That was the only equitable way to deal with the matter. Of course if there was a dispute, that could be put right in the Law Courts, but de facto, the only way to deal with the matter was the one the Clause suggested.

MR. BRYCE () Aberdeen, S.

thought the right hon. Gentleman had missed the point of his hon. friend's Amendment. His hon. friend's case was that there were a number of schools with regard to which no trust deeds or other documents existed; where there was no definition under the authority of the founder or in any scheme as to what kind of religious instruction should be givenin the school; yet, in point of fact, a practice had grown up, not based on any recommendation, under which distinctive denominational instruction had been given. His hon. friend conceived that that practice was an improper practice and an unjustifiable one, which, though it might have been acquiesced in, was not legal. He desired to prevent that practice being followed in the future. He based his argument on the ancient principle that a practice which had no legal basis could not vary the law, or, in other words, abuse did not make right. Where there were cases where abuse had occurred, they ought to go back to what the original intention of the founder was, and if the intention was that no distinctive denominational teaching should be given, that intention should be observed. If they could not prove what the intention of the founder was, the fair course would seem to be to make the school available for the largest number of the population, and give the least ground for friction on the part of any sect. In either case it would be improper that ancient usage, illegitimate in its action, should be suffered to prevail. In the absence of proof the school should be available for the largest number, and managed in conformity with the general wish. Therefore he thought his hon. friend was justified in his Amendment, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept it. If it were not accepted friction would arise, and a good many complaints would be made which would find their way both to this House and the Law Courts.

*MR. HELME () Lancashire, Lancaster

said he would point out the difficulty in which the Education Department would be placed if the Clause was allowed to stand. It was not proposed to interfere in the case of managers giving religious teaching in harmony with the denominational character of the school. The difficulty was to determine the principle upon which the education of the school had been conducted in the past. He was acquainted with a chapel of ease built by a number of Churchmen with the intention and design of propagating Low Church doctrines, the patronage of the living being vested in the vicar of the parish, which position came later into the hands of an occupant through purchase. A school was subsequently built for the same purpose, but the chapel and the school in time passed into the hands of a High Churchman, with the result that the whole tone of doctrine preached and character of the school entirely changed. He wished to know whether under this Clause the school was to be considered and conducted on the former Low Church principles, according to the wishes of the founders or the more recent High Church teaching? Which would the Department adopt as being "the principles on which the education given in the school has been conducted in the past." He thought the Government would be wise to accept the Amendment, omitting this Section, and so give greater freedom in making the Order.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON () Yorkshire. W. R., Morley

said that nobody doubted that the interests of the Church were adequately protected, and he thought that in such a case as that put before the Committee, where, through laxity, or indifference, or neglect, a school founded for a particular purpose passed into the hands of others, the particular purpose for which the school was founded should have some protection. He thought that the Government in settling the terms which the Board of Education were to draw up, should say what they ought to have regard to, and that they ought to have regard to the wishes of the founders of the schools. Hon. Members were always talking of the "pious founder" and robbery and spoliation, and he thought if any interests were to be looked after the interests of those who built the schools should be regarded.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON () Tower Hamlets, Poplar

thought that in his speech the First Lord had assumed that the schools had always been carried on according to the wishes of the founder. There was no desire on the part of the Opposition to alter the system where the schools were so conducted. The First Lord had not, in fact, dealt with the point of this Amendment, which was that, where the wishes of the founder, for good reason or for bad, had not been carried out, the schools should be made to revert to their original purpose. He objected to the Clause because it left the matter quite vague. He desired to ask the Secretary to the Education Department what the Government meant by "the principles on which the education given in the school has been conduced in the past." If that meant that it had been conduced in accordance with the wishes of the founders, there was nothing to be said, but take the case of a school such as had been described, where, during the last two years, the character of the school had been altered from what it had been for twenty years previously; did "conducted in the past "relate to the two years or the previous twenty? All that was desired by the Amendment was that the founder's wishes should be protected in a school the conditions of which had changed, and which was not carried on in accordance with the wishes of its founder.

MR. WHITLEY () Halifax

characterised the reply of the First Lord of the Treasury as the most unsatisfactory that had ever been given during the whole course of the Bill. The only thing the right hon. Gentleman had said was that the law courts were open for the settlement of disputes. He had refused the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carnarvon, that the locality should have alocus standibefore the Board of Education when an Order was made. An order had the effect of a trust deed, and therefore the remedy offered was no remedy at all. It seemed to him that this was another effort on the part of the Church to obtain property which she had no right to. He held in his band the particulars of an investigation made in the Holmfirth Parliamentary Division of Yorkshire, which was a strong inducement for the acceptance of the Amendment. The first illustration he would make was a school called the New Mills Infant School. That school was rebuilt in 1875 by public subscription, and in 1877 it was put under a scheme which distinctly stated it was to be used as an undenominational school. At the present time the management consisted of the vicar and three Churchmen, who held their position by virtue of a subscription of five shillings. They were the men who would apply to the Board of Education before the Order was issued. There was a distinct invitation to those persons to put forward a scheme which would convert undenominational schools into denominational schools. That was a case where the reply of the First Lord had no effect at all, because there was no remedy at law if there were no trustees at present existent. He had found, in the course of his investigations, that there were, in one Parliamentary Division, no fewer than seven cases in which schools founded for undenominational purposes had been actually acquired by the Church of England, and which at the present moment were put down in a Parliamentary Return as national schools, although they were built and endowed with money provided by people who had no idea that they would have that character in regard to religious instruction. There was reason in this Amendment, but if the Government could not see their way to accept it, something in the nature he proposed in an Amendment lower down on the paper might be accepted—"That the Board of Education should have regard to the principles and purposes for which the school was founded." He made this plea in fairness of mind, and hoped the Government would meet them half way.

(3.4) MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON () Dundee

said there was a point arising out of this Amendment on which he considered the Committee would do well to get the advice of the Attorney General. He had listened very carefully to what the First Lord had said in answer to his hon. friend's proposal, that if there was anything illegal, or wrong, or contrary to the rights of ownership, that could be settled in the courts of law. Now, what he wanted the Attorney General to advise them upon was this; if this Clause passed with these words in it, would not the recourse to the courts of law be entirely precluded? The Clause gave power to the Board of Education to make an Order which should recognise the principles on which the education in the school had been conduced in the past. Would not the mere fact of the Clause being in its present form go to legalise the very principles on which the education given in the schools had been conduced? The result would be to make the Order effective as if it were part of the trust deed. Therefore, if the Board of Education, having regard to the principles in question. passed an Order which gave effect to those principles, would not that Order be as valid as the trust deed. and would not. therefore, the hypothetically illegal principles be legalised by the Order?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)

said he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had rather exaggerated what would be the effect of the Order made by the Board of Education under this Section. This Order would deal merely with the question of the appointment of managers; it would not affect the terms of any trust deed which the court of law might declare to be binding upon the foundation. And the result of that would be that the court of law would find that the principles of a particular denomination ought to be taught in the schools. No doubt what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said was true to this extent, that the Order fixed who were to be the managers, but the Order would not in any way affect how the managers were to be elected, or determine the religious character of the schools. That would be open to the court of law to determine in the case suggested by the hon. Member.

MR. WHITLEY

hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would pardon him. but did he say that the managers under this Bill would have the power to determine the nature of the religious instruction to be given in these schools?

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said he was not going to be diverted into a general argument on a very fascinating subject, but to deal with the very pertinent question put by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee. In regard to the general effect of those words, of course, they were not intended to have any application so as to over-ride any trust or legal rights in regard to the schools, but they were only intended to afford guidance, where the matter might otherwise be in doubt, as to what were the principles with which they were to have regard in determining how the managers were to be selected. The right hon. Member for South Aberdeen would recognise the familiar principle that where there was no trust to be clearly deduced from the history of the institution or documents connected with it they must have regard to long usage. That subject was very fully dealt with in a remarkable speech made in this House by Lord Macaulay in regard to a certain body in this country. The right hon. Gentleman might identify the speech he referred to by a very curious error of the reporter; Lord Macaulay was made to speak of the "Pandects of Benares" instead of the "Pundits of Benares."† All that this Clause was intended to do was to call attention to the fact that long usage, in the absence of any clear right otherwise expressed, was a matter to which attention should be paid in determining how the managers were to be appointed.

MR. M'KENNA () Monmouthshire, N.

said he wished to call attention to the case of a small school in Wales. Fifty or sixty years ago certain Nonconformist miners by their weekly contributions out of their wages erected a school, but the time came when they could not maintain the school owing to economic causes. Since 1870 the school had been carried on with the help of subscriptions from Church people, and the management of the school was now in the hands of three Church managers. Now, he put it, that as the capital charge of that building, which was †The reference is to a speech by Macaulay (in the Commons) on the Second Reading of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, 6th June, 1844, reported, in (3) Debates, LXXV.,338. In the preface to his "Speeches" (corrected by himself)—(1865 Edition)—Macaulay points out many extraordinary blunders in the report, including that referred to by Sir Robert Finlay.—[ED] originally intended by these Nonconformist colliers to be a Nonconformist, or at least a secular, school, had been found by these miners, was it reasonable that the school building should be handed over as a Church subscribers it might have been reasonable that the management should be in the hands of Church managers, but after this Bill was passed this building would no longer be a Church school; and local feeling would be strongly aroused if a grave injustice were done, if their intention were absolutely disregarded, and the school handed over as a Church school while it was to be maintained out of the rates largely paid by these very miners. He submitted to the First Lord that if he would not accept the Amendment of his hon. friend he might consider the words suggested by the hon. Member for Halifax. The claim of the Church to the exclusive use of the voluntary schools was based on the rights of property, and here was a case where the property was not the Church's — although the Church had had the full advantage of its use for many years—and he thought it would be only fair that the school should be handed back to the people by whom it was built and for whom it was intended.

MR. HENRY J. WILSON () Yorkshire, W. R., Holmfirth

said that there were a large number of cases, beside those mentioned by the hon. Member for Halifax, where schools were built by public subscriptions from all classes and upon allotment lands. These schools had one by one been absorbed and made denominational schools. There was a case in which a school was endowed for teaching girls sewing and reading; now it was being used to teach boys the Catechism.

MR. EMMOTT () Oldham

said that the Committee had had a very partial reply from the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that, under the scheme for the appointment of managers, the managers would be all of one denomination. Afterwards an action might be taken in a Court of law; and it might be found that the principles taught in the school ought to be for another religious denomination. In that case, they would have a situation which the Prime Minister had repeatedly declared would be impossible, viz., managers of one denomination dictating the religious teaching of another denomination. There was another point in which he, as a Churchman, was interested, and which arose out of another matter, the root of which lay in the present unfortunate differences in the Church of England. There were three types of Churchmen. He had heard them described, perhaps by the enemy, as "the low and lazy". "the broad and hazy," and "he high and crazy." The question he wished to ask was—Would it, under the Clause, be necessary for the Board of Education to appoint a Low Churchman as a successor to a Low Churchman, a High Churchman to succeed a High Churchman, and so on; or would the Board simply have regard to the denomination. He ventured to suggest that the language of the Clause should be altogether altered. The intention on the Clause was perfectly obvious. It was, that a school of one denomination should not be diverted to another denomination. Would it not be far simpler to Provide for the carrying out of that intention?

MR. SAMUEL EVANS () Glamorganshire, Mid

said he would very strongly object to the Education Department having the right to say that, if the management of a school happened to be in the hands of the Church, that school should be dubbed, once and for all, a Church school. He desired to ask two questions, in reference to two words in the sub-Section which were very vague. Were they to understand the word "Principles" to refer merely to the religious instruction given in the school, and not to comprise the principles on which the school had been conducted? There were many cases in which the founder gave the site for a school, and built it, with or without assistance, and where he allowed the Board of Management to be elected by the inhabitants of the district generally. Would the word "Principles," in such a case, comprise not merely educational principles in regard to religious instruction, but the principles of management also. He submitted that some such meaning as that should be included; otherwise, they would be excluding the principles on which the school was managed in the past. His other question referred to the word "past." He assumed the word was intended to cover the past of the school, so far as it could be reached. He did not see how the Board of Education could say that they would only consider a period of three or five years. The words were vague, and the Committee was entitled to some further explanation regarding them.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

said he would like to put a converse case to the Prime Minister. A school was transferred to a School Board; the managers and the trustees were still in existence, and had only parted with the school temporarily. He wished to know whether the sub-Section would apply in such a case. Would the Board of Education have regard to the principles on which the school was conducted in the past, and decline to allow that school to revert to its position as a denominational school. The Prime Minister promised to insert words which would protect parishes in such cases from the possibility of a re-transference; because since the school had been given up, the School Board had kept the building in repair, and made it an effective school; and it would be rather a hardship if it were to be re-transferred, and new bitterness created in the parish. It was infinitely worse that things should be turned back, as it were, than that the conditions of things when the Act came into operation should be continued. The Prime Minister promised to consider words to meet a case such as that; and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would redeem his pledge, if he remembered his speech.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he recollected the speech to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. He had explained to the Committee, on more than one occasion, how he thought the rather difficult situation which the hon. Gentleman brought to the notice of the Committee should be dealt with. He did not think they ought to interfere in any way with the ownership of such schools. They, at present, belonged by hypothesis to some denomination; they had been temporarily transferred or leased to a School Board; but the lease did not interfere, was not intended to interfere, and ought not to be allowed to interfere with the freehold or ownership of the school in any way; and, in so far as the rights of ownership came into the question at all, those rights ought to be absolutely protected. Then the hon. Gentleman asked, "Are you going to allow a school to be re-transferred by the local authority, and turned into a denominational school under the new conditions created by this Bill?" The answer was that the mere re-transfer by the local authority of a school to the owners of that school ought not to carry in that the re-establishment of that school as a denominational school. That ought not to happen ipso facto; the case ought to be considered under the special provisions in Clauses 9 and 10, which ought to be held operative; and the deciding authority would not permit the re-establishment of the school as a denominational school without a local inquiry.

MR. WHITLEY

said he ga hered that the First Lord of the Treasury was half inclined to accept the suggestion he had made, which he thought would save a good deal of time. It was to add words which would make the sub-Section read, "The Board of Education shall have regard to the principles on which the education given in the school has been conducted in the past, and the purpose for which the school was founded." He would respectfully ask the First Lord of the Treasury to reply before they proceeded to a division.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that, as he understood the situation, his view of the equity of the case was that where there was a trust deed, that trust deed must govern, and must not be overlooked. But they had to deal with the admittedly difficult cases in which there were no trust deeds; and all he could say was that, in considering those cases, the Board of Education, in framing their schemes, must have regard for use and wont. That did not interfere with the ownership. Supposing it was shown in the various cases brought before the Committee by hon. Gentleman opposite that a Church school had gradually slid, as it were, by imperceptible degrees, into the control of another Church, the remedy would be in a court of law, and that remedy would not be over ridden by the Clause. If it could be shown that a school did not belong to the denomination using it, that denomination ought to be deprived of the further use of the school; but the machinery to determine that was a court of law. It would be impossible, and most indesirable, for him to endeavour to give a judgment on the particular cases brought before the Committee, and to say whether in this case or in that, on the facts presented, he thought the school really belonged to the denomination using it. That was a question it was impossible for him to determine. It could only be properly determined in a court of law; and the Clause did not stop the remedy of a court of law. He really did not see that anything more could be done, or should be done. The whole case was governed by the general principles he had laid down, which were in accordance with the practice of the House, and which carried out the general rules of equity which generally prevailed in their debates.

MR. BRYCE

said the remedy afforded by the courts of law was an expensive one, which people might not be willing to take advantage of. The Board of Education had on many occasions practically made a school a denominational school by giving it denominational managers. Take the case of a school which was formed without any denominational intention, which had fallen into the hands of the Wesleyan body, and which had been carried on as a Wesleyan school for fifteen years. The Board of Education made that a denominational

school by appointing Wesleyan managers, but nobody would feel inclined to test the matter in a court or law. His objection to the sub-Section was that it seemed to him to compel the Board of Education to recognise what might have been a wrong use of the school, and the school might become a Wesleyan school by usage which was entirely illegal. There was a considerable danger in the use that might be made of the sub-Section, and he thought the Government would be wise either to drop it altogether or to modify it.

MR. WHITLEY

argued that when persons came to the Board of Education with proposals for a scheme, the Education Department should have power to require the managers to produce evidence of what the principles were on which the school was founded. In the case of the New Mills school, to which he had referred previously, they would produce the scheme. All that the Amendment asked was that they should not take the school as it was then carried on, as it might be carried on in a manner contrary to the intentions of the founder, but should require evidence of the intention with which the school was founded.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the case which the hon. Gentleman had instanced would not present any difficulty. The school was held under a scheme; the scheme was a trust. The school therefore was practically carried on under a trust, and that trust would be the governing consideration. Everything done under the Clause must be done in conformity with the trust, if there was one, because the whole Clause was framed with the idea that the trust should govern the scheme.

(3.34) Question put—

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 171; Noes, 82. (Division List No. 561.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Baird, John George Alexander Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Baldwin, Alfred Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn
Anson, Sir William Reynell Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds Brookfield, Colonel Montagu
Arrol, Sir William Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Brotherton, Edward Allen
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bignold, Arthur Brymer, William Ernest
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Blundell, Colonel Henry Campbell, RtHn. J. A.(Glasgow
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. Hare, Thomas Leigh Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire Harris, Frederick Leverton Purvis, Robert
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Helder, Augustus Pym, C. Guy
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Higginbottom, S. W. Randles, John S.
Chamberlain, RtHn. J. A(Worc Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset, E.) Randin, Sir James
Chapman, Edward Hogg, Lindsay Ratcliff, R. F.
Clive, Captain Percy A. Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside Rattingan, Sir William Henry
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Reid, James (Greenock)
Coddington, Sir William Hozier, Hon. JamesHenryCecil Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hudson, George Beckersteth Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Robinson Brooke
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow) Johnstone, Heywood Ropner, Colonel Robert
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Kemp, George Round, Rt. Hon. James
Cranborne, Viscount Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop. Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Denny, Colonel Lawson, John Grant Sharpe, William Edward T.
Dewar, SirT. R.(TowerHamlets Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Dickson, Charles Scott Leveson-Gower, FrederickN. S. Smith, HO(North'mb. Tyneside
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Leveson-Gerald Walter Erskine Smith, JamesParker(Lanarks.)
Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lonsdale, John Brownlee Spear, John Ward.
Doxfard, Sir William Theodore Loyd, Archie Kirkman Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft Stewart, SirMarkJ. M'Taggart
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth Stock, James Henry
Elriot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Macartney, RtHn. W. G. Ellison Stone, Sir Benjamin
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Macdona, John Cumming Talbot, Rt. Hn. T. G.(Oxf. Univ)
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ(Manc'r Maclver, David (Liverpool) Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst M'Killop, James (Liverpool) Tollemache, Henry James
Finch, George H Malcolm, Ian Tritton, Charles Ernest
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Manners, Lord Cecil Tufnell, Lieut,-Col. Edward
Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Valentia, Viscount
Fisher, William Hayes More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire) Vincent, Col. SirCEH(Sheffield
Fison, Frederick William Morrell, George Herbert Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Flower, Ernest Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Walrond, Rt. HnSirWilliamH.
Forster, Henry William Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Wanklyn, James Leslie
Gardner, Ernest Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Warde, colonel C. E.
Garfit, William Newdegate, Francis A. N. Welby, Lt-ColA. C. E.(Taunton
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans) Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Gore, HnG. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon Parker, Sir Gilbert Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Goulding, Edward Alfred Parkes, Ebenezer Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Graham, Henry Robert Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Greene, SirE. W (B'rySEdm'nds Pemberton, John S. G. Wylie, Alexander
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewbury) Percy, Earl Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs. Platt-Higgins, Frederick Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Groves, James Grimble Plummer, Walter R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. RobertWm. Pretyman, Ernest George
NOES.
Allan, Sir William(Gateshead) Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lambert, George
Allen, CharlesP(Glouc.,Stroud Duncan, J. Hastings Langley, Batty
Barlow, John Emmott Edwards, Frank Layland-Barratt, Francis
Bell, Richard Ellis, John Edward Leng, Sir John
Brigg, John Emmott, Alfred Lewis, John Herbert
Broadhurst, Henry Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Lloyd-George, David
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Fenwick, Charles Logan, John William
Bryce Rt. Hon. James Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) M'Kenna, Reginald
Burt, Thomas Fuller, J. M. F. Markham, Arthur Basil
Buxton, Sydney Charles Gladstone, Rt. HnHerbertJohn Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Caldwell, James Goddard, Daniel Ford Nussey, Thomas Willans
Cameron, Robert Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Partington, Oswald
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Harwood, George Paulton, James Mellor
Causton, Richard Knight Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden
Cawley, Frederick Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Philipps, John Wynford
Channing, Francis Allston Helme, Norval Watson Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)
Cremer, William Randal Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Rickett, J. Compton
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Holland, Sir William Henry Rigg, Richard
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigam Horniman, Frederick John Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Sandys, Lieut,-Col. Thos. Myles Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr Williams, Osmond (merioneth)
Sehwann, Charles E. Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid)
Shackleton, David James Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Shipman, Dr. John G. Toulmin, George Yoxall, James Henry
Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Wason, Eugene
Sloan, Thomas Henry Weir, James Galloway TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Spencer, RtHnC. R.(Nothants White, George (Norfolk) Mr. Trevelyan and Mr. Whitley.
Strachey, Sir Edward White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Tennant, Harold John Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
(3.48.) MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)

thought it very desirable that in considering the form of their order the Board of Education should have regard to the ownership of the school building, and he moved accordingly.

Amendment proposed— In line 17, after 'regard,' insert 'to the ownership of the school building, and.' "—(Mr. Henry Hobhouse.)

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

*THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,) Oxford University

said the Amendment appeared to be a proper addition to the Clause, and therefore, on behalf of the Government, he would accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

moved to add the proviso "That no such Order should treat as denominational a school which cannot be shown to have received a denominational character from those who established it." He pointed out that the Government had admitted the possibility of abuses in this matter, and had expressed the opinion that such abuses ought not to be allowed. He thought, therefore, they might fairly give consideration to this Amendment. Instances had been given in which the original intention of the founders had been entirely departed from and a wrongful usage of the school grown up. These schemes were to be practically statutory, and it was not right that a school founded as undenominational should by Act of Parliament be turned into a denominational school.

Amendment proposed— After line 18, to insert, 'Provided that no such Order shall treat as denominational a school which cannot be shown to have received a denominational character from those who established it.' "—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)

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

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

thought the words went a great deal too far. By long usage a school might have been enjoyed by a particular denomination, and on the strength of that usage a scheme sanctioned by which the school was devoted to a particular purpose connected with some form of religion. The effect of this Amendment would be to rip up all that arrangement, and send the Board of Education back, perhaps 300 or 400 years, to inquire what the intention of the founders was.

MR. HERBERTLEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

said the remarks of the Attorney General reminded him of a case in which it was very desirable that the foundation should be, to use the hon. and learned Member's phrase, "ripped up." The case to which he referred was that of the endowment of an educational charity by a Nonconformist more than 200 years ago. In course of time that charity had become impressed with a Church character, and was at present administered by five clergymen of the Church of England. The object of the trust had been entirely altered, and the charity was now of a purely Episcopal character. In cases of that kind it was very necessary that the schemes should be reviewed, and, having regard to the new provision made for education by this Bill, the present was a proper and convenient opportunity for laying down a rule of this kind.

MR. BRYCE

expressed his surprise at the line the Attorney General had taken. The hon. and learned Member had argued as though there was a statute of limitations in this matter. Could any statute or dictum be pointed to which declared was such a prescription?

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said the Amendment would apply to every case; it would go behind every scheme, and send the Board back to the original intention of the founders.

MR. BRYCE

said the Attorney General had argued on usage, and said nothing about schemes.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said he distinctly stated that there might be a case of considerable usage, a scheme founded on that usage, and that the result of the Amendment would be to set all that aside.

MR. BRYCE

was sorry if he misunderstood the hon. and learned Member, but he understood his argument to go the length of saying that where there was usage, and not a scheme, usage was to prevail. If, however, the Amendment was varied so as not to cover schemes, would the Attorney General accept it? Would he agree that, where it was a matter merely of usage, that usage should not be taken to have turned a school originally unsectarian into a sectarian establishment? The cases concerned were comparatively modern; they did not go back into the mists of ages, as had been suggested.

LORD HUGH CECIL () Greenwich

pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman was proposing to enter into a controversy which had already been before Parliament, and which, in one conspicuous instance, had been decided in a sense contrary to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. In the celebrated controversy about the right of the Unitarian dissenters to their chapels, there was no doubt that the body had changed their theological position, and there was nothing but usage to justify them in retaining their chapels and schools; yet it was held to be improper to break through the usage of many years standing. Parliament not merely did not interfere to take the chapels away from the Unitarian dissenters, but they interfered to secure the chapels to them; they broke through the ordinary law in order to do what they thought was equitable and fair.

MR. BRYCE

said the case referred to raised an entirely different principle.

That was, the question of the continuity of a visible church of a particular religious body, but the present question raised a totally different issue.

*SIR FRANCIS POWELL () Wigan

pointed out that under the Endowed School Acts, and under the Parish Councils Act of 1894, when dealing with charities, a limitation of this character was inserted. The proposal was therefore not new.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said the question was whether or not they were going to put these schools into the category or denominational schools. Surely it was not unreasonable, where it could be done, and where the schools were never intended to be denominational, that they should be stereotyped as denominational schools. When these schools had been built within the last hundred years there was no difficulty in getting at their origin. The Attorney General had not attempted to meet the argument that where a school was not denominational when founded it should be continued for ever to be so used. He suggested the addition of the following words: "All of which have been made denominational by a valid scheme." He thought that would meet the point of the Attorney General.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he was willing to accept the addition of the words suggested, and he would move his Amendment in the amended form.

Amendment amended— By inserting, at the end the words 'or which has not been made denominational by a valid scheme.' "—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)

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

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said that he could not accept this Amendment. As he had pointed out before, there were two points which this Amendment entirely ignored as originally proposed, namely length of possession, and the circumstance that they might even, in some cases, have schemes in accordance with usage. The Amendment to the Amendment would remove the second of these objections, but it did not deal with the first at all. It was common ground that where there was a valid existing trust it must remain, and no one questioned that. But the hon. Member had now actually proposed an Amendment which said that, however long possession had been enjoyed, the burden of showing that it was founded for denominational purposes would be thrown upon them. This Amendment was intended to throw upon those who had been in the enjoyment of the school for any length of time the burden of showing that it was established, in the first instance, for that purpose, and if they could establish that, then enjoyment for 200 years was not to count for anything at all. That was contrary to the principle upon which this House usually proceeded, and it was entirely contrary to the principle upon which the House acted in the case of the schools and chapels belonging to the Unitarians.

MR. WHITLEY

said he hoped his hon. friend would go to a division with

his Amendment, and thus enable them to vote in favour of a principle which he was sure was perfectly just. The Attorney General had referred to the argument that because these buildings were erected some time ago they should not now be taken into account. That was one kind of justice for Nonconformists and another for Churchmen. How many Church schools were there to-day which were built by Churchmen, but which had never had a single penny from subscriptions spent upon them, all the expenses having come out of the public funds? Hundreds of those schools had been maintained out of the rates and by means of grants from the Education Department. Therefore, if equal justice were done all the way round, these schools, which were built avowedly for undenominational purposes, would not be continued as denominational schools as was now proposed.

(4.10.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 86; Noes, 200. (Division List No. 562.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Allan, Sir William(Gateshead) Harwood, George Samuel, Herbet L. (Cleveland
Allen, CharlesP(Glone.,Stroud Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles
Atherley-Jones, L. Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D. Schwann, Charles E.
Barlow, John Emmott Helme, Norval Watson Shackleton, David James
Brigg, John Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Broadhurst, Henry Holland, Sir Wm. Henry Shipman, Dr. John G.
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Horniman, Frederick John Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Hurton, Alfred E. (Morley) Sloan, Thomas Henry
Burt, Thomas Lambert, George Spencer, RtHn. C. R(Northants
Caldwell, James Langley, Batty Strachey, Sir Edward
Cameron, Robert Layland-Barratt, Francis Tennant, Harold John
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Leng, Sir John Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.
Causton, Richard Knight Lewis, John Herbert Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr
Channing, Francis Allston Lloyd-George, David Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.
Cremer, William Randal Logan, John William Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) M'Kenna, Reginald Wason, Eugene
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Markham, Arthur Basil Weir, James Galloway
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Moulton, John Fletcher White, George (Norfork)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Newnes, Sir George White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Duncan, J. Hastings Norton, Capt. Cecil William Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Dunn, Sir William Nussey, Thomas William Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Edwards, Frank Palmer, SirCharlesM.(Durham Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Ellis, John Edward Partington, Oswald Wilson, Fred W.(Norfolk, Mid.
Emmott, Alfred Paulton, James Mellor Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Yoxall, James Henry
Fenwick, Charles Philipps, John Wynford
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Reid, SirR. Threshie(Dumfries TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Fuller, J. M. F. Rickett, J. Compton Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Goddard, Daniel Ford Rigg, Richard Mr. William M'Arthur.
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Gardner, Ernest Parkes, Ebenezer
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Garfit, William Pease, HerbertPike(Darlingt'n
Anson, Sir William Reynell Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans) Pemberton, John S. G.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Gore, HnG. R. Cormsby-(Salop Percy, Earl
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Pierpoint, Robert
Arrol, Sir William Goulding, Edward Alfred Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Atkmson, Rt. Hon. John Graham, Henry Robert Plummer, Walter R.
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Greene, SirE. W(B'rySE lm'nds Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Baird, John George Alexander Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Pretyman, Ernest George
Baldwin, Alfred Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs. Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r Grenfell, William Henry Purvis, Robert
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Groves, James Grimble Pym, C. Guy
Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Randles, John S.
Banbury, Frederick George Hanbury, Rt. Hon. RobertWm. Rankin, Sir James
Beckett, Ernest William Hare, Thomas Leigh Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Harris, Frederick Leverton Ratcliff, R. F.
Bignold, Arthur Helder, Augustus Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Blundell, Colonel Henry Higginbottom, S. W. Reid, James (Greenock)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex Hogg, Lindsay Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Horner, Frederick William Robinson, Brooke
Brotherton, Edward Allen Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Butcher, John George Hozier, Hon. JamesHenryCecil Ropner, Colonel Robert
Buxton, Sydney Charles Hudson, George Bickersteth Round, Rt. Hon. James
Campbell, RtHn. J. A.(Glasgow Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Royds, Clement Molyneux
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Johnstone, Heywood Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire Kemp, George Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kenyon, Hon-Geo. T.(Denbigh Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop. Sharpe, William Edward T.
Chamberlain, RtHonJA(Wore. Knowles, Lees Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Chapman, Edward Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Smith, HC(Northm'b. Tyneside
Clive, Captain Percy A. Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Coddington, Sir William Lawson, John Grant Spear, John Ward
Coghill, Douglas Harry Leckey, Rt. Hn. WilliamEdw. H. Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Stock, James Henry
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Long, Col. CharlesW. (Evesham Stone, Sir Benjamin
Crossley, Sir Savile Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S. Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Lonsdate, John Brownlee Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Loyd, Archie Kirkman Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Davenport, William Bromley- Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft Tritton, Charles Ernest
Denny, Colonel Lucas, Reginal J. (Portsmouth) Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Dewar, SirT. R.(TowerHamlets Macartney, RtHn. W. G. Ellison Valentia, Viscount
Dickson, Charles Scott Macdona, John Cumming Vincent, Col, SirC. E. H(Sheffield
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Maclver, David (Liverpool) Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Walrond, Rt. Hn. SirWilliamH.
Dorington, Rt, Hon. Sir John E. M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire Wanklyn James Leslie
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Majendie, James A. H. Warde, Colonel C. E.
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Malcolm, Ian Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E(Taunton
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Manners, Lord Cecil Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Maxwell, RtHnSirH. E(Wigt'n Willonghby de Eresby, Lord
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Mildmay, Francis Bingham Willox, Sir John Archibald
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W. Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir FrederickG Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Man'r More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire) Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Morrell, George Herbert Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Finch, George H. Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Wyhe, Alexander
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Mowbray, Sir Robert Grav C. Wyndham, Rt, Hon. George
Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas Murray, RtHnA. Graham (Bute Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Fisher, William Hayes Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Younger, William
Fison, Frederick William Newdegate, Francis A. N.
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Flower, Ernest Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Forster, Henry William Parker, Sir Gilbert

The next Amendment on the Paper stood in the name of Mr. Edmund Robertson, and was as follows— In line 24, after 'shall,' insert 'subject to the provisions of this Act. have the exclusive right of appointing and dismissing the teachers.'

*(4.25.)THE CHAIRMAN

I do not think this Amendment is relevant to this Clause. This Clause does not define the powers of the managers. It only refers to their qualifications.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

asked the attention of the Committee to sub-Section (4) of the new Clause, which was in the following terms:—

Notwithstanding anything in any trust deed, the body of managers appointed under this Act for a public elementary school not provided by the local education authority shall be the managers of that school both for the purposes of the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900, and this Act, and, so far as respects the management of the school as a public elementary school, for the purpose of the trust deed.' That was the only Clause which conferred power on this special body of managers, and he proposed to enlarge the powers.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I think that to insert the word "exclusive" would be really to make confusion where there is no confusion. I am perfectly clear that the local authority has the right, to dismiss and if you now proceed to put in "the exclusive right" you are very likely to lead to confusion.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said he was willing to move the Amendment without the word "exclusive."

*THE CHAIRMAN

I think it is very doubtful whether the Amendment should come under this Clause at all, but if the hon. Member thinks it does, I shall not object to his moving it.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said he had some reason to hope that the Amendment would be accepted by the Government. It carried out the policy which the Government had repeatedly and distinctly declared was their policy.

SIR JOHN GORST () Cambridge University

I rise to order. I do not know whether the hon. Member is going to move the Amendment. It is out of order because it is contrary to what the Committee has already decided, namely, that the appointment of teachers should be subject to the veto of the local authority. If he is going to move it without the word "exclusive" it is tautology, because the Committee has already decided that the managers are to appoint the teachers.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I think it is quite clear that the word "exclusive" should not be in, because it cannot but lead to confusion.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

stated that he would move the Amendment in the form suggested by the Chairman. on 28th October his hon. friend the Member for the Morley Division moved in effect the same provision as an Amendment on Clause 8. His right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire pointed out then that now here in the Bill was this power given to the managers. The First Lord of the Treasury, in his reply, said— There had never been any doubt or secrecy on the part of the Government as to what their policy was on this matter. The appointment of the teachers would be with the managers, and with the managers as a whole, acting in their corporate capacity, and, therefore, there could be no difference of opinion between the Government and the mover of the Amendment on that point. Then his hon. friend the Member for the Carnarvon Borough pointed out that there were to his knowledge trust deeds in which the appointment of the teacher was given, not to the managers under the proprietors of the school. To that the First Lord answered— If there are trust deeds such as the hon. Member speaks of—and it is possible that there may be—then I think there is a case for inserting words to make the point clear. The hon. Member for the Morley Division said that after the assurance of the Leader of the House that this point would be made perfectly clear, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. On the same day a question came up as regards dismissal in reference to an Amendment which he himself had put down at that stage of the Bill. That Amendment was ruled out of order, and the First Lord repeated the assurance already quoted. He said— My view, which I have over and over again stated, is that, in so far as functions are left to the managers of a school, they are left to be exercised by the managers as a body. It was intimated by the Chairman that the First Lord would propose a new Clause later on, and on what he took to be an assurance that the power of dismissal as well as of appointment would come up in the Clause now under discussion, he abstained from moving the Amendment of which he had given notice. He submitted that both as to the appointment and dismissal of teachers, the Government were committed by their declarations at previous stages of the Bill to accept the Amendment he now proposed. He would not dwell on the head of appointment, but in regard to the dismissal of teachers, he would like to bring before the Committee the necessity for such an Amendment. They had been going on this question blind: they had been dealing for days and weeks with legal instruments which they had not seen. This very Clause tore up, at all events affected, tens of thousands of trust deeds, only one or two of which were identified in the small Blue-book laid on the Table a few days ago. But in one there were provisions relating to the dismissal of teachers which he was quite certain were not known to the majority of hon. Members. In the National Society's trust deed, a Committee of management was appointed, and to that Committee was committed the power of selection and dismissal of the schoolmaster, and schoolmistress and their assistants, except when under the provisions afterwards mentioned the dismissal of any master, mistress, or assistant should be awarded by the Bishop of the diocese or the arbitrators. Two bodies external to the local authority and the Board of Managers had the power of dismissal. When a dispute arose between the minister, not necessarily in his capacity of a member of the committee, and the committee of management respecting the religious instruction of the scholars, or the dismissal of any teacher from the school, on account of his or her defective or unsound instruction of the children in religion, the matter was to be laid before the bishop, and the decision of the bishop in writing, after it had been laid before the committee, should be final and exclusive in the matter. That dealt with the bishop. But that was not all. Supposing the matter in dispute other than, and except such difference as last described should arise in the committee of management, the minority might apply to the Lord President of the Privy Council for the time being, and to the bishop of the diocese where in the school was situated, who might appoint arbitrators to make inquiry into the matter of difference and decide in the dispute. But the deed went beyond that. It was further declared— That if the said bishop, or the said arbitrators upon any such reference shall direct or award that any master, mistress, or teacher shall be dismissed, such direction or award, when a copy thereof shall have been served upon the said master, mistress, or teacher personally, or by the same being left at his or her place of abode, or at the school, addressed to the said master, mistress, or teacher, as the case may require, shall operate as a dismissal of the said master, mistress, or teacher, so as to prevent him or her thenceforth from having any interest in her or his office, or in the said school or premises under, or by virtue of, this deed, and so as to disqualify him or her from holding thenceforth any right or interest under this deed by virtue of his or her previous or any future appointment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

From what is the hon. and learned Gentleman reading?

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said he was reading from page 5 of the Blue-book on precedents of trust deeds. There might be a question of ambiguity, as to whether this particular power of dismissal given to the bishop could only be exercised as a consequence of the arbitration having taken place upon the difference which had arisen. That might be argued; but he did not so read the trust deed. He read it that this power was given to the bishop in addition to the general powers given to the arbitrators. The bishop himself apparently independent of the arbitrators might direct the dismissal of the master, mistress, or teacher. Whether or no, there was given to the bishop under two heads the power of dismissal. Now he did not think that that was in the contemplation of the House, when, as he understood, the Government came to an agreement that the power of dismissal should be vested in the managers subject only to the veto of the local authority. It was not desirable that such a system should be perpetuated, and it was to obviate that that he had proposed his Amendment. The whole policy of the Bill in regard to non-provided schools was that there should be dual control—the provided schools were under single control—the control of the managers on the one hand, and the control of the education authority on the other. But up to this point they had not recognised or admitted the possibility of a third and extraneous body interfering with the appointment or dismissal of the teachers. He believed that in some of the trust deeds contained in the Blue-book the powers were stronger than those he had quoted; but this was the important deed—the deed of the National Society which demanded the attention of the Committee. He appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury to abide by the declarations he had made so often, that, so far as the management of the school, including the appointment and dismissal of teacher was concerned, the State should only recognise these two authorities—the local education authority, and the body of managers, created by the Bill. He appealed to the Committee whether it was to be tolerated for a moment that the teachers of the State, supported by public funds, should be dismissed by an extraneous authority? The power of dismissal was given to the bishops in two separate cases; first, when a dispute arose between the clergy and the laity. In that event the decision of the bishop was final. Or, when a dispute arose in the committee, and any member of the committee in the minority might appeal to the bishop and the Lord President, who would appoint arbitrators, and these arbitrators, or the bishop, might award and declare the dismissal of the master, mistress, or teacher.

Amendment proposed— In line 24, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words, 'subject to the provisions of this Act, have the right of appointing and dismissing the teachers.' "—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)

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

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said that he observed the Government were not quite ready to make answer to the argument of his hon. friend the Member for Dundee. He was not astonished at that, because the Attorney General and the Prime Minister, who affected to ignore the law, to spurn and scorn the law, including the law of the lawyers, had not had an opportunity of discussing the trust deed. He could put the case for this Amendment in a very few words. The provision was that there were two classes of appeal. The first dealt with the case where the dismissal of a teacher from the school was on the ground of his or her defective or unsound instruction in religion, or, where the dispute arose between the minister and the managers, and in that case the appeal was to be to the bishop. In all other cases the dispute might be referred to a Board of Arbitrators selected by certain persons, the arbitrators including an inspector of schools. The Clause in the deed to which his hon. and learned friend referred was the Clause setting forth what would be the result in the two cases, and the construction placed before the Committee by his hon. and learned friend was the true one. There was no doubt that it was clearly understood that there was to be no appeal under this Bill to the bishop or to any extraneous authority. In the case of a non-provided school the managers ought to determine whether a teacher should be dismissed. The clause recognised an appeal from the decision of the managers to the bishop and to arbitrators, and in his opinion there ought to be nothing of the sort. The matter ought to be determined by the local authority, or the managers of the schools, as the case might be.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the case which the right hon. Member had brought before the Committee was one that had not been previously considered, and, so far as he personally was concerned, it was a point which was entirely new. He had not thought of the appeal to the bishop in the case of a dismissal on the ground of incompetence or neglect on the part of a teacher to teach religion in accordance with the denominational rule of the school. He dismissed altogether the point raised with regard to arbitrators as irrelevant, in as much as they had made general provisions handing over the control of secular instruction to the local authority. With regard to the position the bishop occupied in connection with religious instruction, he confessed that aspect of the case was new to him. The hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted a previous debate in which he had said, not for the first time, that his conception of the Bill had always been that the managers, though a composite body, should act as a single body, and through a majority of its members. He thought that should apply to all the subjects that came under the control of the managers. That, of course, excluded the dismissal of the teacher by any individual member of the board of managers, whether a clergyman or any other member; but on the face of it, it did not exclude an appeal to the bishop. He must not be taken as giving any decision on the part of the Government as to the policy they ought to pursue in the matter, but when that decision was given it would comply with the general policy they had laid down. He could not say more to the hon. and learned Gentleman at present, except that he did no think was the proper place in the Bill to raise this question.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

Where does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that it ought to be raised?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the hon and learned Attorney General suggested that the schedule was the proper place.

MR. BRYCE

said the Government ought to be grateful to his hon. and learned friend for having brought this matter to their notice. He pointed out that if the matter was left to be dealt with in the schedule, there would be no opportunity to discuss it; and suggested to the right hon. Gentleman whether, under the circumstances, an opportunity could not be found for discussing it when Clause 8 was discussed on Report.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he would consider whether anything could be done at a later stage.

MR. BRYCE

said the matter was obviously one not only to be discussed, but also to be dealt with. It could not be passed over without some decision being arrived at. The right hon. Gentleman had indicated the decision which might be considered a right one by the Opposition, but the matter ought not to be left as it was. His view was that after the managers and the local authority no third party ought to be allowed to come in.

MR. A. K. LOYD () Berkshire, Abingdon

said it was wrong to regard this intervention of the bishop as a dismissal by the bishop. It was an erroneous view that the bishop would have any power to dismiss a teacher. He quoted from a form of trust deed for Church schools issued by the Education Department 1845–1870 to show that a case was stated for the bishop on a matter of doctrine on which he gave his ruling, and that while the decision of the bishop would be "final and conclusive in the matter," the committee of management was "expressly required to take all such measures as may be necessary for immediately carrying the said decision into complete effect." So that the matter was put back into the hands of the managers. The bishop might have found in favour of the teacher. It would therefore, he thought, be a great pity if the idea got abroad that the bishop had power to dismiss a teacher. If this power was altered by hon. Members opposite, they would deprive managers of a very great advantage which they now possessed. The power was a valuable privilege given to the managers, and not an arbitrary power given to the bishop.

DR. MACNAMARA () Camberwell, N.

said he did not propose to go into the question of the arbitration at all. No doubt many of the trust deeds did provide an absolute power of dismissal either on secular or religious grounds, and they were therefore in conflict with Clause 8. It might not be necessary to do anything, but he submitted that rather than allow a conflict of the sort to arise, with the possibility of litigation, it was necessary to make it quite clear that whatever the terms of the trust deed were, the terms of Clause 8 should be absolute. Would Clause 8, as far as it set up a veto on the dismissal of a teacher, be quite absolute?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes, on secular grounds.

DR. MACNAMARA

asked whether it was not necessary to do something to remove any appearance of conflict between this Clause and Clause 8.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I will consider it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(5.0.) LORD HUGH CECIL

begged leave to suggest a remedy which he thought would be acceptable to the hon. Member for North Camberwell, and which would reserve the whole question of what were to be the precise relations of the board of management to a dismissal in regard to religious instruction, while it would absolutely concede the point made by the hon. Member for North Camberwell.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment proposed— After the words 'provisions of this Act,' to insert 'and to the provisions of the trust deed relating to religious education.' "—(Lord Hugh Cecil.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said the noble Lord's Amendment would not do at all. It was not acceptable to the front Opposition Bench, nor would it be, he thought, to the front Government Bench, for it would perpetuate the position that was now possible under the trust deed. There were two questions of policy which he should like to put to the Prime Minister. The first was this. He assumed that the Government were not willing that the clergyman, in spite of the other members of the committee of management, if he could get his bishop to agree with him on appeal, was to have the right of dismissal. He understood that the Government intended that only the committee of management acting as a homogeneous body, could dismiss, and not a particular member of the committee.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No particular member.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

The dismissal must be by the committee of management, or the majority of the committee, quite apart from any question of appeal?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said that was a clear statement, and therefore they must take away entirely from the clergyman the right which he would have under this deed of saying there ought to be a dismissal and then carrying it on appeal to the bishop. The other question of policy was this. It was suggested that there must be an appeal to the bishop from the decision of this body. Surely they were right in assuming that that was not the view of the Government.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he did not quite follow the reasoning of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He rightly represented the views of the Government when he said that they contemplated the managers acting as a homogeneous body, but he did not see, without more consideration than he had been able at present to give to the subject, that that principle would be interfered with by one of the body appealing upon the particular subject of the character of the religious teaching to the bishop, if such an appeal were given by the trust deed. The body of managers were to act in conformity with the trust deed. They were bound, therefore, to carry out the teaching which was prescribed in the trust deed, and if it so happened that the judge of the teaching was the bishop, there must be, there ought to be, an appeal by individual members of that body, or from anybody outside that body, to the bishop to know whether these trustees were carrying out the duties imposed upon them by the trust in accordance with the trust. He was not, therefore, at all clear that as a part of the general policy they ought to destroy the appeal to the bishop on the subject of dismissal, always allowing that that appeal was strictly confined to those particular religious questions on which the trust deed had laid it down that there should be an appeal. He must again repeat that he did not feel he should be acting fairly by the Committee if he were to permit himself, he would not say to be rushed, but to be lured, into a definite statement of policy on a subject which undoubtedly presented many points of difficulty.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

desired to say that the effect of giving the right of appeal here would be that, wherever they got an agreement between the vicar and the bishop, they could dismiss the teacher, although the other five members of the management committee might be against it.

MR. GEORGE WHITE () Norfolk, N. W.

pointed out that the reason why the bishop should not be the court of appeal was that the case as presented to the bishop would be not the statement of the committee of management but the statement of the clergyman or curate who himself took exception to the religious teaching of the teacher in question. He thought there was a chance of grave injustice being done in this way.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said it was quite impossible for him to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite to his Amendment, and if he supported it he would necessarily be voting against his own Amendment. The Amendment as amended would stereotype and make law that which was perhaps doubtful law at the present moment. The hon. and learned Member then referred to a passage in a form of trust deed used since 1870 which, he argued, clearly gave the power of dismissal of a teacher absolutely to the bishop. That was state of things the noble Lord's Amendment was intended to perpetuate, and if the Amendment were persisted in and carried he would have to vote against his own proposal.

MR. BRYCE

invited the First Lord of the Treasury to give the Committee some indication of his view before this matter was decided. He fully recognised the difficulty of the position, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would state whether he would oppose the Amendment of the noble Lord.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he should certainly oppose the Amendment as amended.

LORD HUGH CECIL

, in view of the Prime Minister's statement, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment to the Amendment.

MR. BRYCE

asked when the right hon. Gentleman would give an indication of his opinion. The point was, that the power given to the local education authority and the managers by Clause 8 appeared from the trust deeds to be infringed in a material respect.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Not the education authority?

MR. BRYCE

Yes, because there is an appeal to them.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

thought there could be no difficulty on the secular side; it was only on the religious side that difficulty might arise.

MR. BRYCE

said the theory of the Bill was that in religious matters the managers were supreme, and also that they should act as a whole. It was clear that the trust deeds overbore that principle so far that the managers would not act as a whole, because the clergyman or his curate had a separate power of going to the bishop. Nor would they act conclusively at all, because the decision of the bishop would operated as a dismissal. Two important issues were raised—first, as to whether it could be said that the managers acted as a whole, and, secondly, whether they could be said to have the control and dismissal. Those two issues would have to be faced. The question could not be left to be settled by the law courts. It would be a reflection on the House of Commons if, after their attention had been called to it, they passes the Bill without settling the question one way or the other. The Committee ought to know at what stage the right hon. Gentleman would announce the view of the Government, and whether an opportunity would be secured to the House for dealing with the question instead of leaving it to be the sport of legal proceedings hereafter.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn on condition that the Government promised to deal with the matter by putting on the Paper an Amendment to be considered on the Report stage. The question ought to be settled before the Bill went to another place.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he was not at all certain that an Amendment was required, but if one was necessary it ought clearly to be put down as a Government Amendment. He agreed that it would be a pity that the matter should be deferred until the Bill had left the House.

MR. BRYCE

assumed that there would be an opportunity of discussing the Amendment, which would probably be on Clause 8.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That would probably be the place for the Amendment.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

thought it would be unnecessary to go to a division, as the Government had promised to deal with the matter by an Amendment of their own, if necessary, and they could so arrange the business of the House as to ensure the Amendment being reached and discussed.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

There I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I should greatly regret it if Clause 8 was not discussed on Report, but I am not master of the situation.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

At all events, we have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that on Report he will put down an Amendment dealing with this question.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

If such an Amendment is required.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

And that he will do his best to have it brought to discussion?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

Then I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

MR. A. K. LOYD

explained that the word he had quoted were from the form of trust deed issued by the Board of Education 1845–1870, and he had called attention to them for the purpose of showing that there were very good words giving the valuable power of stating a case. He would point out, however, that both in the deed which he had read, and in the form quoted by the hon. Member for Dundee, it was an optional power given to the minister or any other member of the committee to go to the bishop. Therefore, this valuable power, by which the parties to a dispute could get a first rate opinion on a matter of doctrine, was only to be put into force if desired.

Amendment to proprosed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. REGINALD LUCAS () Portsmouth

, in moving an Amendment of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, said the trust deeds of a certain school required the school to be conducted by managers belonging to the denominational body which owned the school. Under the Bill there would be two managers who might belong to some other religious body. It was evident from the Measure itself that there was no desire that those outside or alien managers should have any voice in the control of the denominational or religious teaching, so that his Amendment might be looked upon merely as a drafting Amendment, and one which the Government could accept.

Amendment proposed— In line 27, at end, to insert: '(5) Where the receipt by a school, or the trustees or managers of a school, of any endowment or other benefit is, at the time of the passing of this Act, dependent on any qualification of the managers, the qualification of the foundation managers only shall, in case of question, be regarded.' "—(Mr. Reginald Lucas.)

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

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he understood his hon. friend's desire to be that, where an endowment or some other benefit came to a school, so long as the managers were of a particular denomination, that school should not be deprived of that benefit, if the foundation managers were of the necessary denomination, by reason of the fact that the representative of the local authority, or the minor local authority was a Nonconformist, or of some other religious denomination ther than that to which the benefit applied. On behalf of the Government he was prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

(5.28.) Question put, "That the Clause as amended, be added to the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 225; Noes, 100. (Division List No. 563.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Faber, Edmund, B.(Hants, W.) Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Macartney, RtHnW. G. Ellison
Anson, Sir william Reynell Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Manc'r Macdona, John Cumming
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Maclver, David (Liver pool)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Finch, George H. Maconachie, A. W.
Arrol, Sir William Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Fisher, William Haves M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire
Bailey, James (Walworth) Fison, Frederick William Majendie, James A. H.
Baird, John George Alexander Flannery, Sir Fortescue Malcolm, lan
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch r Flower, Ernest Manners, Lord Cecil
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Forster, Hentry William Maxwell, RtHnSirHE.(Wigt'n
Balfour, Rt. HnGeraldW(Leeds Gardner, Ernest Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Banbury, Frederick George Garfit, William Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir FrederickG.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(CityofLond. Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Beckett, Ernest William Gibbs. Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) More. Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)
Bentinck, Lord Hentry C. Gore, HnG. R. COrmsby-(Salop Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Morrell, George Herbert
Bignold, Arthur Goulding, Edward Alfred Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Bigwood, James Graham, Hentry Robert Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Blundell, Colonel Hentry Greene, Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute
Bond, Edward Greene, Hentry D.(Shrewsbury Murray, CharlesJ. (Coventry)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) Newdegate, Francis A. N.
Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex) Grenfell, William Hentry Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Groves, James Grimble Parker, Sir Gilbert
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Parker, Ebenezer
Brotherton, Edward Allen Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington
Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.) Hare, Thomas Leigh Peel, HnWm. Robert Wellesley
Bull, William James Harris, Frederick Leverton Pemberton, John S. G.
Butcher, John George Helder, Augustus Percy, Earl
Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A (Glasgow Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Pierpoint, Robert
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Higginbottom, S. W. Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire Hobhouse, Hentry(Somerset, E.) Plummer, Walter R.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hogg, Lindsay Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside Pretyman, Ernest George
Chamberlain, RtHonJA(Wore. Horner, Frederick William Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Chapman, Edward Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Purvis, Robert
Charrington, Spencer Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) Pym, C. Guy
Clive, Captain Percy A. Hozier, Hon. James HentryCecil Randles, John S.
Cochrane, Hon. ThomasH. A. E. Hunson, George Bickersteth Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Coddington, Sir William Jebb, Sir Richara Claverhouse Ratcliff, R. F
Coghill, Douglas Harry Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Johnstone, Heywood Reid, James (Greenock)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Kemp, George Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh) Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson
Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow) Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Kimber, Henry Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) King, Sir Henry Seymour Robinson, Brooke
Crossley, Sir Savile Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Rolleston, Sir John F L.
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Ropner, Colonel Robert
Cust, Henry John C. Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Round, Rt. Hon. James
Dalrymple Sir Charles Lawson, John Grant Royds Clement Molynenx
Davenport, William Bromley- Lecky, RtHon. William Edw. H. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Denny, Colonel Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Dickson, Charles Scott Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles
Disraeli, Coningshy Ralph Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. a. Akers- Long, Rt. Hon. Walter(Bristol, s Sharpe, William Edward T.
Doxford, SirWilliam Theodore Lonsdale, John Brownlee Shaw-Stewart, M. H.(Renfrew)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lowe, Francis William Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale) Smith. HC(North'mb. Tyneside
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Loyd, Archie Kirman Smith, JamesParker(Lanarks.)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)
Spear, John Ward Tritton, Charles Ernest Wilson-Todd. Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwhich) Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset Valentia Viscount Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) Vincent, Col. SirCEH. (Sheflied Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Stewart, Sir MarkJ. M 'Taggart Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) Wylie, Alexander
Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. Wyndham, Rt. hon. George
Stock, James Henry Wanklyn, James Leslie Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Stone, Sir Benjamin Warde, Colonel C. E. Younger, William
Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne
Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Talbot, RtHnJ. G. (Oxf'rd Univ. Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Taylor, Austin (East Toxeth) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Sir Alexander Acland
Thornton, Percy M. Willox, Sir John Archibald Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Wilson, John (Glasgow)
NOES
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Fuller, J. M. F. Rigg, Richard
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) Goddard, Daniel Ford Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Allen, CharlesP. (Gloue.,Stroud) Grant, Corrie Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Atherley-Jones, L. Griffith, Ellis J. Schwann, Charles E.
Barlow, John Emmott Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Shackleton, David James
Bell, Richard Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Brigg, John Helme, Norval Watson Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Broadhurst, Henry Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Sloan, Thomas Henry
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Holland, Sir William Henry Spencer, RtHn. C. R. (Northants
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Horniman, Frederick John Stevenson, Francis S.
Bryee, Rt. Hon. James Lambert, George Strachey, Sir Edward
Burns, John Langley, Batty Tennant, Harold John
Burt, Thomas Layland-Barratt, Francis Thomas, Abel (Cermarthen, E.
Buxton, Sydney Charles Leng, Sir John Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Caldwell, James Lewis, John Herbert Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Cameron, Robert Lloyd-George, David Toulmin, George
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Logan, John William Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Causton, Richard knight Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Wallace, Robert
Channing, Francis Allston M'Kenna, Reginald Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Craig, Robert Hunter Markham, Archur Basil Wason, Eugene
Cremer, William Randal Mellor, Rt, Hon, John William Weir, James Galloway
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Moulton, John Fletcher White, George (Norfolk)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Newnes, Sir George White, Luke (York, W. R.)
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Norton, Capt. Cecil William Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Nussey, Thomas Willans Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Duncan, J. Hastings Palmer, SirCharlesM. (Durham) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Dunn, Sir William Partington, Oswald Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Ellis, John Edward Paulton, James Mellor Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)
Emmott, Alfred Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Yoxall, James Henry
Evans, SirFrancisH(Maidstone) Philipps, john Wynford
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Price, Robert John
Fenwick, Charles Priestley, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE NOES —
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Rickett, J. Compton Mr. William M'Arthur.
*(5.38.) SIR WILLIAM ANSON

The new Clause which I have now to propose gives to the local authority power to continue the charging of fees in respect of a public elementary school not provided by the local education authority, and the local authority will have power to apportion the school fees between itself and the managers. It will be one of the duties of the local education authority to provide free places when required for the children of the population of those areas, but for various reason and in various places, and, to a considerable extent, fees have been charged and are being charged at the present time. They are charged for various purpose; in some place to raise the quality of the teaching, for the provision of apparatus and other purpose, in other places, especially in poorer localities where there are very often no subscribers, and where the people are willing to contribute to the maintenance of the school. The new clause which is down on the Paper in my name will enable this payment of fees to go on if the local authority thinks it is desirable that they should continue to be charged. this new Clause, however, leaves it very optional, because, in the first place, free places are to be provided in every area, and no one need pay the fees unless they choose.

In the next place, the local authority need not allow fees to be charged, but if it does allow them to be charged, they may be apportioned between the managers and the local authority. The local authority may think it desirable, in the interests of the area, that the managers should continue the fees, but if it does not think so, the result may be that the schools may cases to be non-provided schools and become provided schools, and be thrown wholly upon the rates. This may be a matter for the local authority to consider, and if it thinks it is desirable to do so, it may withdraw the right to charge fees altogether. This Clause leaves it optional to the local authority, and it may be very desirable during the period of transition that fees should continue to be charged. The voluntary schools will no longer receive the Parliamentary grants to deal with at their own discretion, but they will simply be the recipients of such money as the local authority thinks fit to give them, and will have to maintain the fabric outside and in with money provided from other sources. This will ease of the situation to the new schools which will come under the new regime, and I think it will be for the advantage of the local authority that is should have option which my new Clause provides.

New Clause— To insert as a new Clause, after Clause 10:—'Where before the passing of this Act fees have been charged in any public elementary school not provided by the local education authority, that authority shall, while they continue to charge fees in respect of that school, pay such proportion of those fees as may be agreed upon, or, in default of agreement, determined by the Board of Education, to the managers.'"—(Sir William Anson.)

Brought up and read the first time.

Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. BRYCE

said he could not see upon what ground the Government justified this proposal that voluntary schools should have these funds from the ratepayers in addition to the funds they would get from the letting of the school-house and the endowments. This appeared to him to be an entire departure from what they understood to be the general terms upon which the Bill was brought in, namely, that the cost of repairs should be defrayed by the managers. He should like to know from the Secretary to the Board of Education whether this money from the fees would go to the repairs.

DR. MACNAMARA

said he had no objection to a local authority taking fees if it thought fit, but what he did very strongly object to was that the local authority should be compelled to hand over a portion of those fees to the managers of the schools. He did not know whether he might be permitted to call this a cool proposal, because that might irritate the Prime Minister. If he spoke his mind about this Clause he should be compelled to call it a very impudent proposal. They found a new proposal introduced every day to enable the Church of England to shake off the obligations it had undertaken at the commencement of this controversy. It was said that this was to "case off" the obligation to keep up the fabric of the schools out of voluntary contributions. [Laughter.] That seemed to amuse the Prime Minister. The local authorities were to hand over a portion of the fees paid by the parents, and if they did not hand over enough the Board of Education was to be called in to determine the question in dispute. What were the fees? They were contributions from the parish in aid of the maintenance of education, and had been so from the beginning. The Under Secretary must be aware that when the Education Act of 1891 was passed, many managers took the 10s. grant, in some cases to wipe out fees altogether, and then turned round and asked the parents to continue them by way of voluntary contributions. What did the hon. Baronet the Member for Cambridge University at once say? He sent out a circular to the managers stating that they must not in any way collect money from the parents as voluntary contributions in respect of the fees which had hitherto been paid. What fees had been paid had been paid for the purpose of relieving the locality from the necessity of a School Board rate. The hon. Member instanced Stockport, where there was no local rate for school purposes, and where the parents were charged 6s. 8d. per child for fees. It raised over and above the 6s. 8d. per child for fees, 1s. 4d. per child by way of voluntary contribution. Portsmouth, on the other hand, had a school rate which amounted to 14s. 9d. per child, but there were no school fees. Where there was a rate fees were non-existent or very small. Now all those localities were going to pay rates, and the parents who were to be rated were to be called upon to pay fees. At any rate they should not be called upon to pay over a portion of the fees to the managers of the voluntary schools for the purpose of meeting the obligation originally put upon them to maintain the fabric. The Bishop of London had said that the keeping up of the fabric was the weak spot in the bargain. He would quote what the Parliamentary Secretary said on the 7th of May:— The voluntary schools are there, and they can only pass away at a great expense to the community, and by giving a great shock to the religious feelings of many. Their maintenance becomes simply a question of Terms, and the question is whether the terms offered by this Bill are fair. Are the terms fair? And then he went on to answer that to his own satisfaction. If that did not suggest a bargain, then he did not know the meaning of the English language. What were the terms of that bargain? It was about time that they were examining them, having regard to the way in which on one side they were being whittled away. In 14,000 out of 20,000 schools they were to have the privilege of having denominational teaching thrown upon the public funds entirely, and so far as the rate was concerned—a thing entirely novel in the educational history of this country—the public was to find eleven-twelfths of the money required. The public was to hand over 14,000 out of 20,000 headmasters to be subjected to a denominational test. These denominationalists were to have the full use of the buildings on Saturday and Sunday and four nights a week for their own purposes, and the Church was to keep up the fabric. He thought that was a very fair statement of the bargain. He protested that ever since this bargain was struck, the Church had been repenting of the part she entered into. Every day revealed some Amendment on the Paper, showing that the Church desired to whittle away some part of the obligation solemnly entered into as far back as 1895, when the Prime Minister received a deputation from the Archbishop's Committee. A great deal of this Bill found its origin then. Last Tuesday the Prime Minister submitted a Clause under which it would be possible to divert the operation of the endowments.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

There is no question of diversion.

DR. MACNAMARA

said that matter was debated last Tuesday and he did not mean to go into it now. The Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education had told the Committee that educational endowments of a general character could be diverted to the upkeep of the fabric. He did not think that specific statement could be denied. That was a pull of £150,000 to begin with. He found that there were 8,500 teachers' residences, and he estimated the average rental at £5, which he thought was a moderate estimate. That would give the Church a pull of £40,000. Then the fees in the non-provided schools represented £199,000, and it should be observed that some of these fees were paid on behalf of poor law children living in the workhouse. In addition to that, the Board of Education had this year decided that fees should be obligatory in night schools, upsetting the wise policy of wiping out fees in these schools. These various items made up a sum of £500,000 on which the Church would have a considerable pull under the Bill. It was a little mean and shabby to drive this hard bargain with the public in respect of the Church's obligations. He confessed that he did not think the Church was doing itself very much good by this daughter-of-the-horse-leech pestering of the Government to find a few more pence. He commiserated the Prime Minister on the hard taskmaster he had behind him. What would be the result? The great bulk of the voluntary subscriptions which were now raised would be safely put aside for a building fund to provide new denominational schools, which was easily possible under the ingenious accommodation schemes of the Bill. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] That he believed to be the purport of the Bill, and he was entitled to state his opinion. What would the local authorities do if they had their chance? Here he believed the Church would over-reach itself, if the Bill had not been ingeniously changed within the last two or three weeks. The local authority would have been entitled to say to the managers: "Go away, we will not deal with you, but build a school of our own." But they could not do that now. The dice were loaded against the local authority. The local authority would then say: "We will not haggle in the old way. Things have circled round. We considered it a fair thing that the fees should have been given in relief of the rates and obligations of an obscure little parish, with its own little school building. But we are obliged to thrust the obligation on your parish to build its own school out of its own small rate." Could it be wondered at if, in these circumstances, the local authority were compelled to pocket their irritation, and accept the denominational school? If the Courts were straight forward, one result would be that the voluntary schools would disappear. The Courts, however, would not deal with the managers in that way; and the Bill was ingeniously devised to avoid that contingency. He sincerely hoped that he was not a true prophet, and that the Church would over-reach itself, and that they would saddle a small parish with the capital charge of another building. He did not know which he was most amazed at —the cupidity of the Church, or the pusillanimity of the Government, which, step by step, during the last few weeks had whittled down the obligations of the rich Church of England.

*(6.8.) SIR JAMES FERGUSSON () Manchester, N. E.

said he had not troubled the Committee much on this Bill, but he could not for bear saying a few words in answer to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, part of which had taken him by surprise. He had always endeavoured to put the best construction on the motives of Gentlemen who differed from him. The hon. Gentleman had sometimes in debate adopted a judicial tone in moderate language, and with a fair interpretation of the opinions from which he differed; but on the present occasion he had used the most extravagant language. A few of his phrases were: "Audacious proposal," "cupidity," "the horse-leech," "loaded dice." He could only attribute such language to sectarian animosity. The hon. Member and his friends would like to strip the voluntary schools of every possible mean: of support, so that they might fall helpless victims into the hands of those who wished to sweep them away, because they regarded religious education as an evil. [Cries of "Oh, oh!'] The hon. Member who attempted to argue this point against the Government took the narrowest possible view of the case. He said that the lavying of fees was to obviate the necessity of rates.

Dr. MACNAMARA

No, I said that would be the effect.

*SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

Well, that would be the effect. The narrowest and most confined view could apply only where there was no School Board. In the constituency with which he had to do, the majority of the parents of the children preferred such an education as was given in the voluntary schools. There they found voluntary schools in which the parents were paying fees for their children, although there were board schools not more than 200 or 300 yards off. The language of the hon. Gentleman was perfectly inapplicable to such cases. It should be remembered that those who subscribed to the voluntary schools had to pay the rates all the same. It was well-known that in Lancashire a much larger number of children were educated in voluntary schools than in any other part of England. What was the proposal which the hon. Gentleman said was so audacious? It was that the fees paid by the parent; should be given towards the up-keep of these schools. Why should part of the fees, which parents voluntarily paid, not be given back towards the up-keep of these schools? The hon. Gentleman had lost sight of the case of London, where the parents sometimes paid fees. For his part he should say that this was a most modest proposal. They had heard a great deal about the refusal of the Church party and Church managers to fulfil their obligations, and the bargain which they were supposed to have made. Well, the managers must have some sort of revenue in order to maintain their schools. He was acquainted with many schools where the clergy had the greatest difficulty in keeping them going, and where they could hardly do so without the fees. He had a list of thirty schools in Manchester, and twelve in Salford, where the fees were greatly in excess of the voluntary subscriptions and if those fees were to be entirely alienated from the purpose for which they were paid, it was evident that the funds available would fall short of the requirements, and that would be a capital means of starving the schools into submission.

DR. MACNAMARA

They will come on the rates.

*SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said that the parents had paid their rates all these years, whether they sent their children to the board schools or not, and it was only a matter of justice that at least half the fees should be handed over to the managers of the voluntary schools. He was not one of those who said that religious education was an evil per se, and he desired to see it maintained.

MR. MIDDLEMORE () Birmingham, N.

said he wanted to say two or three words in regard to the new Clause, which he had only seen that morning, and which he confessed took him very much by surprise. The House, and the country, distinctly understood that the subscribers to the voluntary schools were going to maintain the fabric of the schools. The Prime Minister had told them so, and the Bill had also told them so, in as plain language as possible. But now it appeared that the money for the purpose was, to a large extent, to be supplied to the subscribers and the managers, and in proportion as the money was provided from other sources, the subscribers and the managers would not have to maintain the fabric of the schools. In that respect, the country and the House had certainly been led astray. From his point of view he thought the Church herself would suffer extremely from that form of sharp practice. He thought the conscience of the country would be pricked. This Amendment was a very serious thing, and the conscience of the man in the street would show itself more sensitive than the conscience of the representatives of national affairs. Did the Church want it? Had she asked for it? Would she be content to stoop so low as to receive it? He wanted someone who held the honour of the Church dear to rise up and denounce this proposal as something unclean. He had no objection whatever to the Church receiving this money, or ten times the amount, provided she could receive it with clean hands, but he had the greatest objection to her receiving any money illicitly—which was the result of a broken understanding. The understanding was as clear as possible when the Bill was introduced. It was that the fabrics were not to be maintained in the way in which they had been under this Bill. He thought it was a serious thing for any Church, and the national Church worst of all, in any way to play fast and loose with the nation. If this Clause was passed it would be a blot on the fair fame of the Church of England, and a stigma on the divine cause of which she was the exponent, and it would be remembered against her; it might be remembered some time hence, when the question of disestablishment came up for discussion. On the lowest ground, upon the most gross ground, upon the most gross ground that could be put forward—self interest—he did not think the Church could afford to receive it. It would injure her temporality and strong men who were the and say that they did not wish to have anything to do with this Clause. At any rate he felt very strongly that the Church herself ought to have time to consider whether, upon moral grounds, she should accept, or (as he thought) should reject this offer.

MR. PLATT-HIGGINS () salford

said he was disposed to think the hon. Member who had just sat down was not very well informed upon this question. He would give the Committee some information as to the relative cost of buildings and the relative cost of maintenance. It was the custom in this Committee to treat maintenance as if it were all important and the buildings as nothing of any consequence. In the area of the School Board of Salford, which embraced 14,000 children, the teachers salaries and appliances amounted to £16,000 a year, the interest on loans for buildings amounted to £11,000. Those figures were very different to the figures supplied by the hon. Member for North Camberwell.

DR. MACNAMARA

What is the cost of the up-keep of the fabric?

MR. PLATT-HIGGINS

The use of these buildings, which cost £10,000 a year, would be given for nothing. Then there was the questions of repairs; what he understood was that the amount to be paid for repairs was the amount to be paid for repairs was the amount previously paid by the managers for repairs. The portion set aside for repairs necessitated by the use of the school for two hours on a Sunday as a Sunday school they did not ask the Government to pay, but they did ask that the Church should be put on the same footing as the Nonconformists. The Nonconformists were put in at a certain rate, and the Church asked that she should be put in at the same rate for repairs. The wear and tear of a school used for two hours on a Sunday was very different to the wear and tear of the school for five hours a day all the week. All that they asked was that the local authority should pay the tenants' repairs and the Church the Sunday school repairs. The people who paid a penny a week in the shape of a school fee had been referred to. The hon. Gentleman might laugh and sneer, but he thought those people who paid a penny a week in order that their children should be taught in a Church of England school were entitled to better treatment than they had received up to now. With regard to endowments, he had looked through the list, and found that out of forty-five schools they had only two endowments, which only amounted to £30 a year, and there were no teachers' houses.

(6.25.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said the hon. Member who had just spoken had told the Committee it was not honourable on their part to sneer at the parents who gave their penny a week by way of fees for their children's education, and that they were entitled to respect. He (Mr. Lloyd-George) on the previous day had proposed that the parents should not only get respect but a voice in the management. That was a most substantial token of respect, and not mere lip respect, across the floor of the House. And his recollection was that the hon. Member who now denounced them for their disrespect for the penny-a-week parent voted against that proposal.

MR. PLATT-HIGGINS

He must necessarily have a vote.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that that was not his proposal. His proposal was that a voice should be given to a parent who sent his child to a school. That was not the only case in which the hon. Gentleman had shown his respect for the penny-a-week gentlemen. On every occasion when they asked for more control for the parent, he was found in the lobby voting it down. Whenever they asked for a voice to be given to the parent, the hon. Member said "Oh no, we prefer that other people should speak for him." The hon. Member said something about Salford. If he made such mistakes as he had in the figures with regard to that town, what mistake would he not make with regard to the rest of the country? He had said that the cost of repairs there was £11,000.

MR. PLATT-HIGGINS

said the School Board had borrowed certain sums to build schools, and those sums amounted to £11,000 in the year.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

thought the hon. Member did not understand the figures he was quoting, or he did not understand this Clause. In the sum he had quoted they had the loan interest and repayment of capital as well. All this Clause dealt with was the cost of repairs. The hon. Gentleman had thrown a very curious sidelight upon the denominational position. He had pointed out that the wear and tear of the schools on Sunday was as nothing to the wear and tear of schools on week days, when for five hours a day there were three or four times as many children in them as there were on Sunday. That supported the contention which the Opposition had always pressed, that these were not denominational schools at all; that they were State Schools to which children of other denominations went, the control of which was in the hands of a minority in the locality. The hon. baronet the Secretary to the Board of Education asked as to the poor districts where there were no subscriptions and where the fees paid by the parents represented the subscriptions. In that case the parent was a subscriber, and he asked again, if the parents represented the subscribers of the district and were in fact the subscribers of the district, why should they be deprived of the right which every other subscriber had got of electing the managers. The Government could not have it both ways; if they said the parent in this case was a subscriber, they could not say "He shall have none of the privileges that other subscribers have, he shall only bear the burden." He congratulated the hon. Member for North Camberwell upon his pointing out the results which were being obtained by means of the guillotine Resolution. The Bill was being changed without any opportunity being given to discuss it. He was amused to hear the hon. Baronet the Member for one of the Divisions of Manchester denounce his hon. friend the Member for North Camberwall as a narrow sectarian bigot. He had never been able to discover what his hon. friend's convictions were, though he believed he was a manager of a voluntary school in conjunction with the Archbishop of Canterbury. If that was narrow sectarianism, it was the narrow sectarianism of the hon. Baronet's own faith. The whole thing was unfair to the country, and it was very unfair to the Committee that a Bill should be brought in, that the Committee should discuss it for weeks and weeks, that a Resolution should then be tabled which made discussion impossible, and that then Amendments should be introduced by the Government which changed the whole character of the Bill. After all, discussion, thorough discussion, and even the consumption of time, was the most potent weapon the Opposition possessed, and once deprived of that weapon they were powerless. When the Prime Minister went to the country in the recess he foreshadowed Amendments to strengthen control, but never said a word about giving endowments to the repair of the fabrics, and above all he never said a word about establishing convent schools and withdrawing them from the control of the authority. This was done by the next Clause to be discussed, a Clause only put on the Paper a few hours previously. During the recess there had been a free and open discussion. Meetings were held. The Prime Minister consulted his constituents at Manchester, and the Colonial Secretary consulted his, under lock and key, at Birmingham, and the result of those consultations was that promises were made to strengthen the control. But the bishops got frightened, and assembled in their multitudes, with their friends; they flourished their croziers at the Government and flung Kenyon-Slaney at the head of the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister got unnerved. He congratulated the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, who need not look so innocent, upon the way in which he had done it, for he was at the bottom of the whole conspiracy. The noble Lord did not look the part, but what had he done? He had denounced the Prime Minister for over-throwing the trusts, and had attacked him for having accepted the Kenyon Slaney Amendment. What was it all done for? It was done to keep the Prime Minister up to the mark. It was part of the Albert Hall business from start to finish. What was given away at Birmingham and Manchester was taken back at Albert Hall. The Bill had been completely changed. His hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell had been too moderate. It was absurd to say that £5 was even an adequate ground rent, as ground rents now were, for a teacher's house, let alone an adequate rent. He knew some of these teachers' houses, and very excellent houses they were. He did not believe they would get any subscriptions after the Bill was passed. The £120,000 for endowments, the £200,000 for fees, the £170,000 for rent of the school houses, if the rackrent was charged—£590,000 a year altogether—would be handed over to the Church to pay for the repairs. The usual charge for the repairs of a building was 10 per cent. Even if it was put at 20 per cent., the rate at which the Bishop of London himself put it, only £150,000 a year would be required for repairs, yet this was the bargain! As the matter stood now this was the latest edition of the bargain with regard to which the other party had not been consulted. £500,000 was given to the Church towards repairs, which cost only £150,000, so that £350,000 a year out of the rate imposed to maintain the education of the country was to be handed over to the richest Church in the world. And taking into consideration the fact that the country had never been consulted in the matter, this was nothing less than a fraud upon the electors of the country.

MR. WHITLEY

said the action of the Government in putting down these Clauses after the guillotine Resolution had been passed was an action to which the Committee ought not to be subjected. To all intents and purposes by this Clause they were making a fresh endowment of the Church. The Clause provided that the local authority might continue to exact fees where fees were now paid, which would be handed over to the managers, who would, of course, apply the money to what the bishops called the "parochial purposes." Where had the principle of "rent free" gone to? So far, the managers of the voluntary schools had the whip hand. They could say to the local authority, "Unless you continue to charge fees and allow us so much out of them, we will throw the cost of this school upon the parish." This Clause was a compulsory power to extract fees from the parents in the first place, and from the local authority in the second. The Government had gone back, under pressure, on the understanding on which they introduced the Bill, and on which they presented it to the country. What they gave on the one hand they had taken back with the other. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Board said this Clause was introduced "to ease the situation." What was the situation that required easing in this indirect manner? It was a situation the hon. Baronet had previously described. He had said the managers should be assisted, because the rich subscribers would not subscribe sufficiently. The hollowness and the sham of all the talk of the desire of the parents had now come to an end. The system of the Government was assuming a character suitable to the title of the National Society for the Education of the Children of the Poor in the Principles of the Church of England. That was at the bottom of the whole business. The words of the hon. Member for North Camberwell were not in any way too strong for this proposal. It was outrageous that by a side wind they should be asked to leave these local authorities in many cases with no option but that of imposing a heavy rate for building on a small parish ill able to bear it or of compelling parents to pay fees in respect of these schools, such fees being handed over to the managers without a word as to the purpose for which they were to be used. In addition to the great relief from subscriptions given by this Bill, amounting to £800,000 a year, the chief managers were to have these fees, and yet the Church was not satisfied. The cry was "More, more, more." He was quite sure that the result would be to damage that Church which proudly called herself the Church of England—the national Church—but which represented not one-half of the nation. The avarice, the grasping nature of the claims which the Church had put forward, and which had been pressed upon the Government, would do that Church more harm than it had suffered in any of the controversies of the last hundred years.

*MR. BOND () Nottingham, E.

believed that the violent language which had been used with regard to the Clause would turn out in the long run to be "much ado about nothing." He was pretty confident that the cases would be few, if any such cases there were, where the local authority, when in working order, would continue to charge fees even in schools where it had been the practice to charge them hitherto and where the fees had been willingly and voluntarily paid. If fees were charged it would not be in the rural schools, because fees were not charged in these schools to any great extent. But fees were charged in Church of England schools in very poor districts, where there were no rich subscribers and where the payments that had to be met by the managers had to be met, if at all, by fees willingly paid by the parents. He said "willingly," because in some parishes, where there was a choice of schools, parents preferred to pay the fees in order that they might send their children to a school which gave the instruction they liked. He could understand the local authority in such cases, seeing that parents in a district evidently preferred denominational teaching, saying "What are we to do?" In these particular districts managers have nothing to look to for the upkeep of the buildings but voluntary subscriptions in the shape of these fees, which parents have shown themselves willing to pay. We have such a clear manifestation of the wish of the inhabitants that respect should be paid to it, and these schools continued as voluntary schools. On the opposite side many Members tried to mislead the House by talking about the riches of the Church. They said it was the richest Church in Christendom—as if that had anything to do with the question with which the Committee were dealing. The endowments of the Church were expended upon buildings and salaries of ministers. The riches of the Church for other purposes in a particular district depended upon the riches of the Churchpeople in that district. the whole basis of his argument was that in many districts there were no rich Churchpeople. The inhabitants were all poor people who were willing to give out of their poverty in order that they might have the kind of education they desired. In such cases, if the local authority came to the conclusion that in order to gratify the desire of the inhabitants of the district it would be better that the voluntary schools should be maintained, they might in the last resort, there being no subscriptions of the ordinary kind, consent to the continuance of the fees. If they did that they could only do it with the intention that the people who used the schools, continue to contribute to their upkeep should and in such a case nothing could be fairer than that they should pay over to the managers about as much as they were in the habit of expending out of the fees up to the time that schools were taken over, for the purpose of maintaining the fabric and effecting current repairs. If he had presented the case fairly, as he had endeavoured to do, where was the ground for all this violent indignation? After what he had said he hoped that even his hon. friend would feel that the Church might, without a stain on her conscience, receive such benefit as the Clause proposed to give her, and that the hon. Member for North Camberwell, whose moderation and ability in these debates he was ready to recognise, would regret, on further consideration, that he had been betrayed into unusual and unseemly violence.

MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR () Liverpool, Exchange

did not wish to associate himself with some of the language which had been used in reference to the Church of England in relation to this matter. There was no evidence to show that it emanated from, or that it was approved by the Church of England. But he did desire to associate himself with the hon. Member for North Birmingham in his arguments against the proposal, and to express his regret that such a Clause should have been put forward by the Government. An attempt had been made to excuse the proposal on the ground that it was comparatively trifling, but, in his view, the smallness of the amount was an additional reason for not accepting an unsound principle. What would the managers require this money for, except repairs or improvements? Clause 18, however, provided that the managers should, out of "funds provided by them," keep the school house in good repair, and make necessary alterations and improvements. Surely that meant out of funds provided by private sources; not out of funds provided by the school children. This stipulation was being inserted by a side wind to provide the managers with a source of revenue out of money given for educational purposes. The present proposal, as it seemed to him, undid the effect of Clause 18. He did not think it was fair, and he would vote against it.

(7.0.) MR. BRYCE

said he noticed that no member of the Government had risen to reply. All that had been said by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division was perfectly true. The Church of England did not desire this change. He was glad to hear the hon Member for the Exchange Division and the hon. Member for North Birmingham repudiate the contention that this proposal had been demanded by the Church of England. This proposal was the work of a small section of persons who, in their passionate ardour for denominational instruction, were prepared to go to all lengths, and had unfortunately obtained the ear of the Government. He did not believe that the Church of England as a whole either desired or approved of that policy. When the Bill was first introduced the First Lord of the Treasury said that the managers of voluntary schools would be required to devote their buildings to educational purposes, to keep them in good repair, and to make all reasonable alterations and improvements. Upon every occasion when the question of denominational schools came up in June and July last for discussion, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said that the managers would have to pay the cost of repairs. That was constantly repeated as a serious burden upon the managers, and he believed that argument had great force at the time. Whether they called it a bargain or a concordat, this Bill had been understood as being an arrangement by which the rates were to bear the cost of maintenance of education in voluntary schools on the understanding that the managers would bear the cost of the repairs. That was the case until the House met in October last, and since then the position had entirely changed. First they had, upon the introduction of an Amendment by a private Member which was accepted by the Government, provision to give the rent of the school houses to the managers; then they had a new Clause dealing with the endowments, and now the Government were making this provision with regard to the fees. Those were three most material departures from the declarations of the First Lord of the Treasury which he made in the earlier months of the session. This proposal was now introduced on the very eve of the ending of the Committee stage. He did not desire to use any stronger language, but he thought they had a right to complain that the understanding under which the Bill was introduced in the first instance had been wholly departed from, and he noticed that no defence was offered by the Government. He agreed with the hon. Members for North Birmingham and the Exchange Division of Liverpool that these changes would injure the Church of England, would be an offence to local authorities, and would certainly be a very powerful stimulus to those who desired to repeal the whole of these provisions which they believed to be unjust and oppressive.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

As the right hon. Gentleman opposite has complained that no member of the Government has defended this modest proposal, I will do so myself. But modest and useful as I believe my proposal to be, I was fully prepared for the outbreak which has occurred on the other side. I was fully prepared for the volume of statistics with which the hon. Member for North Camberwell always illuminates his arguments. I may say, however, that I was hardly prepared for the extreme violence of the language used by the hon. Member. Such language, must however, have some opportunity for utterance, and I am not surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite are seizing the last occasion when these matters come before the House. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no!"] Well—the last occasion this week. I think hon. Members opposite will enjoy the week-end more completely if they thoroughly relieve their minds upon these matters. Hon Gentlemen opposite have again referred to a bargain, the existence of which I need hardly say has been repudiated by the Prime Minister; and as one of the humblest members of the Government at the other end of the scale, may I equally beallowed to repudiate altogether any knowledge of a bargain. The hon. Member for North Camberwell quoted some words of mine in which I spoke of terms. It is true that I spoke of terms, but it was in this sense—that we are creating a new and double ownership of the schools. The managers are bound to provide the fabric both outside and in for the use of the local education authority for the purposes of these schools. The managers are, however, bound to give up the use of the building for three nights a week, and that was not part of the original scheme. They are also bound to submit to the complete financial control of the local education authority, to the complete control of their secular instruction, and to representation on the board of management. That is what the managers have to do on their side. On the other side, the local education authority provide the salaries of the teachers, furniture, school books, and so forth. That being so, it does seem reasonable, and no departure at all from anything in the original scheme of the Bill, that the various sources of income which are actually coming to the school as a school shall, as they come in, to some extent, be divided and shared between the local education authority and the managers. These fees, it has been said, were originally paid in mitigation of the rates. If they were then, they will still be so paid, because they will continue the existence of a non-provided school, whereas provided schools are necessarily a heavier charge upon the rates of the area. These fees are paid by the parents in support of a particular school and in support of a school of a particular character to which the parents desire to send their children. Is there anything unjust if some portion of the money which the parents give towards the continued existence of a school of a particular character should be contributed to the maintenance of the fabric, outside and in, of that particular school? Really the indignation which has been expressed seems to me to have been somewhat misplaced, as also have been the unfavourable comments made upon my remarks that this arrangement of fees, at any rate for a year or so to come, would, as I described it, ease off the situation. What is the position of these non-provided schools? The first impression will be that voluntary subscriptions are no longer necessary, and they will not flow in as liberally as before. In the first instance there will be that impression, and I do anticipate an immediate falling off in this respect. Then it must be borne in mind that these schools will not be allowed to use the Parliamentary grants, and, more particularly, the aid grant, for the maintenance of their buildings. That they will no longer enjoy after this Bill comes into force, because all those Parliamentary grants will go into the hands of the local education authority and will be pooled, and the managers will receive no more than is necessary for the secular instruction of the schools. And, lastly, the managers have been accustomed in many parts of the country to make something towards the upkeep of the school and its maintenance by the use of the school, either in the way of letting the building or using it for remunerative purposes of their own. In the future they will have the school taken away from them under this Bill for three evenings in the week. For these and other reasons I believe it will be good policy on the part of the local education authority to continue to allow the managers to charge fees and to share those fees, as the Clause provides. I believe the arrangement to be convenient and just, and I am prepared to defend it against the indignation to which some hon. Members have given expression.

*MR. RUNCIMAN () Dewsbury

said he desired to emphasise the arguments which had been submitted by hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House. Not one substantive or adjective had been used with every syllable of which he did not agree. He spoke as one outside the Anglican communion; he spoke as a member of a body who under the Clause would receive some monetary advantage. The Wesleyan body, he believed, had never been consulted on this Clause, and if they were he fancied the proposal would be thrown back in the face of the Government with contempt. They had in their schools for years past charged fees, and their people had been prepared to pay fees because of the high standard of education they had maintained. They had been, on their part, prepared to hand over to the public authority the use of their buildings on terms laid down in the Bill without any sense of dissatisfaction, and, he believed, with a greater sense of generosity than had been shown by the Anglican communion. But when a proposal was made that the fees which they received in their schools should not be handed over to the body which was to maintain their schools, but were to be received by the private managers for their own private purposes, he believed that to be outside the under- standing come to when the Bill was first introduced. No concessions could justify the addition of these words to the Bill. On the Second Reading the present Secretary to the Board of Education told them that the terms were fair. He thought they were justified in saying that the Church had gone back on its bargain. [AN HON. MEMBER: There was no bargain.] If there was no bargain what was the use of the word "terms"? Once hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House had said that it was a just proposal. If it was a perfectly just proposal, why was it not put forward before? It was not put in the Bill at first, and therefore the Bill was either badly conceived in the interests of the Church of England or the Government had this proposal up its sleeve. If the latter proposition were accepted, the denunciation of his hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell was absolutely justified. A fortnight ago the House by passing the Closure Resolutions practically gave the Government a blank cheque. The result had been that the Government had been filling up that blank cheques for large amounts ever since the Resolutions were passed. He did not wish to say a single word in denunciation of the Church of England—he had never done so in public or private—but any

sober-minded man, whether in the Church or out of it, must see that the continued cry by the Church for more money was detrimental to the best interests of the Church.

*MR. RANDLES () Cumberland, Cockermouth

said he did not think that Nonconformists would treat with contempt any proposal which was likely to relieve those responsible for schools of a charge which might become a serious strain on the funds of the Churches that maintained the schools. He believed that those responsible for the Wesleyan day schools did not contempate with unmixed feelings the prospect of the loss of the sum which they received in the form of rent, and which in Wesleyan schools amounted to £9,000 a year. This, together with the added cost of repairs of about £7,000 a year, would be a real difficulty. It any relief could be given from fees, where fees are charged, or other sources, he did not think a proposal of this kind would be unacceptable to them.

(7.15.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 207; Noes, 116. (Division List, No.564.)

DR. MACNAMARA

rose to move an Amendment to provide that fees if continued should be credited to the parish or parishes served by the school as a contribution in relief of the charge upon the rates for the purpose of elementary education. He had no objection to the local authority continuing fees, but he very strongly objected to their continuance if a proportion of the amount was to be paid to the managers of voluntary schools for various private purposes not known to him at present, except the keeping up of the fabric of the school.

It being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening,