§ As amended, further considered.
§ Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [this day] proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended.
Which Amendment was—
In page 3, line 18, to leave out the word 'four,' and insert the word 'two' instend thereof."—(Mr. Compton Rickett.)
§ Question again proposed, "That the word 'four' stand part of the Bill."
*MR. THEODORE TAYLOR
, continuing his speech, said he believed the substitution of four elected managers for two would make the measure more workable. It was not right to suggest that hon. Members were not honest in their desire to amend the Bill. They fully recognised the difficulties of the Government, but still they were anxious, as the Bill was to pass, to get one which would last a considerable time and commend itself to the people of the country. They believed that if the Bill gave what its authors professed that it gave—full control over the secular education of the elementary schools—it would be, if not what Nonconformists would desire, at all events generally acceptable to them. But it seemed impossible to have full control by a popularly elected authority when one of the most important functions of school management,i. e., the appointment of teachers, was left in the hands of a body which was not popularly elected. What woluld be thought if he went to a shipbuilding yard or a large manufactory and said to the owner: "You shall have full control of the works, but I intend to engage all the men, with the exception, perhaps, of a few apprentices." Yet that was practically the position here! They were honest when they said they did not oppose the National Church as such. The persons elected, if the Amendment were carried, would not necessarily be 574 Nonconformists, but if they were Nonconformists he did not believe they would be hostile to the Church, and they would properly carry out the provisions of the trust deeds. Whether Nonconformists or not, they would be honest Englishmen. It was a mistake to put the Church in this attitude of mistrust and hostility to the rest of the community. There was less of mutual hatred and suspicion than people sometimes thought. He was one of those Nonconformists who hoped that some day we should have national religious reunion, and that the Church of England might form a nucleus for that purpose. But this Clause did not show a comprehensive national spirit. It was lowering the National Church to the level of a sect. He believed that church wardens were now elected by the parishioners generally, without regard to the religious faith of the electors. Did Nonconformists however, interfere in these matters, except in a few cases where there had been perhaps some objectionable practices carried on against which even Church people protested? The Bill was not in accord with the spirit of a National Church. He was a Nonconformist, but he had no hostility to the Church of England. He recognised it as the National Church, and was willing to give it all the respect it deserved. He was glad to recognise among a considerable number of hon. Members opposite the spirit of compromise and for that reason he followed the example of the Prime Minister the previous day and did not vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Greenwich. He wished it were possible, even at that last moment, to get rid of the spirit of hostility. Many of their grievances could be got rid of by giving popular control, as asked by the Amendment, and in the intersets of the real unification of educton, of real co-ordination, and of social and religious peace, he asked the Government whether, if they could not agree to this Amendment, they could not do something to recognise the principle of popular control in our educatinal system.
§ MR. BROADHURST () Leicester
said he did not think that the Secretary to the Education Dapartment could have 575 followed very closely the speech of the hon. Member for Scarborough, whose main argument was that where public money was concerned there should be a considerable proportion of publicly appointed persons to spend it. The hon. Gentleman in his reply lost sight of that argument altogether. He was, of course, in an unfortunate position, for he was the Parliamentary representative of a privileged class who had the power of voting not only in the Division in which they happened to reside but also of voting for a Member for the University. Brought up amid such surroundings, the hon. Gentleman had naturally lost sight of the principle of public control by popularly-elected persons. The mind of the Secretary for the Education Department was wholly bent on a sectarian monopoly in the management of public institutions. These schools were essentially public institutions, maintained out of public funds, and the hon. Gentleman could not get his mind from the narrow groove in which, unfortunately, he had been trained, into the broader position, that we ought to have public men to control public money. So alarmed was the hon. Gentleman for Church interests that he would trust nobody with a voice or veto in regard to religious education unless he was assured, and doubly assured, that they were quite safe. If the Church diplayed less suspicion of public control it would occupy a much stronger position than it now did. Pesonally, he was a pronounced Nonconformist, and one of the poorest Members, perhaps, of the House of Commons. Yet, in spite of his strong convictions, he was no enemy of he Church, and out of his modest means he had been glad to make contributions to Church purposes in the parish in which he lived. Of course the Government did not dare to accept the Amendment. Their hands wee not free. They were under the control of two or three prelates who were their masters in the matter of this Bill. Nonconformists were not the enemies of the Church, and they were not anxious to rob, despoil, dishonour or ridicule it. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister by his action was depriving the Church of much moral support. The Amendment was a reasonable one, for there ought to 576 be a majority of publicly-elected representatives to control the large expenditure of money involved in the administration of the Bill. Under the plan the Government proposed the four managers would be responsible to nobody, and yet they were to have control of the vast revenues to be obtained from public sources. Only the other day he heard a manager of a school state publicly that he would reather that the children in the schools grew up ignorant than that they should fail to thoroughly learn the Church Catechism. Of course, he did not mean to suggest that all managers were so bigoted and narrow-minded, and even many of them who were were far too clever to express such views openly, but the fact remained that great powers were being placed in the hands of such men. It was very unfortunate that the Secretary to the Board of Education had been brought up in a University atmosphere; he might otherwise have been broad-minded. He sincerely regretted that the hon. Gentleman had dealt with the Amendment in his remarkable speech in so narrow and evasive a spirit.
*MR. BOUSFIELD () Hackney, N.
said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen had complained that no new arguments had been addressed to the House in support of the position taken up by the Government. But he forgot apparently that this was a fundamental part of the solution of the education problem which the Government was offering, and probably he would be the first to complain if hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House were to consume the small space of time left for discussion in repeating former arguments. In his opinion the proportion of four managers to two was essential to the maintenance of the denominational system. Everybody knew that the real object of hon. Gentlemen opposite was to do away with the denominational system. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman showed very clearly that that was the ultimate object he had in view. He told the House that nothing would meet their sense of injustice but the provision everywhere of undenominational schools.
§ MR. BOUSFIELD
said he was only pointing out the view of the right hon. Gentleman, and he took it that it was the view of the majority of those who were supporting the Amendment. It would mean that in many areas the undenominational school would have to take the place of the denominational school. The right hon. Gentleman forgot that the system the Government was asked to modify, in the sense of giving more popular control, was first established in 1869, when it was decided to incorporate denominational schools in the education system of the country. The right hon. Gentleman should haved made his protest at that time; it was too late to do it now. Where was the sense of injustice of which the right hon. Gentleman complained, when one-fourth of the cost of those schools was paid out of public funds; where was it when a half, and eventually three-fourths, came to be so paid? All they were now doing was to secure complete control over secular education, and to bring the schools up to the highest standard of efficiency by providing the remaining fraction of public money necessary to keep them going. And what was the country getting in return for that? In the first place, the local authority was to have absolute control over secular education, and on every board of voluntary school managers there were to be placed two popularly appointed members. Remember that, hitherto, while nearly the whole cost of keeping up the schools had been paid out of public funds, there had been no popular representation on the management. That was not a system initiated by the present Government, but one that was started in 1869. The third thing they secured was the school-houses rent free, but that was a very small thing in comparison with the control that was to be given. It was objected that that control was not full or efficient, and that the only way to make it efficient was to have two managers representing the foundation and four popularly elected. But in many districts there would be practically direct control. He would take his own parish of Hendon as an example. That was an urban district with a population of over 20,000. Under the Bill, 578 instead of their present School Board, they would have the District Council as the education authority. Each of the schools, whether board or voluntary, would have its board of managers under the direct control of the Council, and that control would be precisely the same as regarded secular education, whether the school was a board, Roman Catholic, or Church school. In every case it would be a direct control, and the managers would be bound to carry out the wishes of the popularly elected authority. There was, of course, the question of teachers. He would not go back on that point. All he would say was that it was the only way in which these schools could be retained as denominational schools and as part of the system of public elementary education, and it was the price that had to be paid by the public for that retention. He agreed that in the case of counties the control was more remote, though the remoteness was a question, not of machinery, but of distance. Under the Amendment the control would pass into the hands of a small body of elected parishioners, instead of being vested in the County Council, and some of the worst evils of the present system would be perpetuated. In the best interests of education it was absolutely essential that the control by the County Council, the more enlightened body, should be an effective control, and the idea of parochial control was out of the question. As to the contention of the right hon. Gentleman that this provision would introduce strife, it was simply idle rhetoric. What difference would the Amendment make? Simply, that instead of there being two on the one side and four on the other, there would be four on the one side and two on the other. The four would have the upper hand. [Opposition cheers.] If the object of hon. Members who cheered was to do away with denominational schools, let them say so. The object of the four managers was to preserve the denominational system. If hon. Members said they did not want that, they would show their honesty of purpose, but they could not in the same breath say that they wished to retain the denominational schools as part of the educational system of the country, and also that they wanted four undenominationalists to have the upper hand in regard to the maintenance 579 of denominational teaching. If there was to be strife—and unfortunately there would be strife as long as people persisted in considering that this or that dogma, or that opposition to this or that dogma, was of more importance than true religion—the best thing that could be done was to set the different interests down at the same table, as the Government proposed to do. He would guarantee that there would be far less strife in the future over the management of the schools than there had been in the past. The essential principle of representative government was that conflicting interests should be brought together to discuss the points in dispute between them. If denominational schools were to be maintained, as they must be, as part of our system of national education, the denominationalists must have the upper hand in matters of religion.
§ (9.37.) MR. PERKS () Lincolnshire, Louth
understood that the object of the Amendment in reducing the four foundation managers to two, and possibly increasing the elected managers to four, or leaving them on an equality, was to convert the sectarian schools, not into secular schools, but into Christian schools. There was a great distinction between a strictly denominational school, in which dogmatic theology was taught, and a Christian school in which there was nothing savouring of sectarian or dogmatic teaching.
§ MR. PERKS
said he was not prepared to give a definition, but he knew from practical experience that the greatest distinction existed between a sacerdotally governed sectarian school and a school in which plain common-sense Bible teaching was given by the teachers. On the introduction of this Bill the First Lord of the Treasury said that those whom he called militant Nonconformists were to derive various benefits from this Bill. They had discovered none of those benefits so far. The paltry concession as to pupil teachers was worthless, and there was nothing in the Bill to justify the right hon. Gentleman in holding out the expectation that the Bill would meet some of the admitted grievances of Nonconformists. The right hon. Gentleman was not the first Prime Minister who had fed Nonconformity upon illusions; they 580 were accustomed to that, to some extent, even under the regime of a Liberal Prime Minister. The compact of 1870 was forced upon Nonconformists by an ominous coalition between the then Leader of the Liberal Party, and a large number Gentlemen who at that time sat on the Opposition side of the House. The claim that there should be four members of this local governing body appointed by the foundation managers was a grave injustice to vast masses of the community, especially in the great central counties. It could not be denied that in many counties, such as one or two of the Ridings of Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Cornwall, Nonconformity was in an enormous majority, and that there was hardly an elementary school in those counties in which the children of Nonconformists did not greatly outnumber those of Anglican parents. Yet it was said that this majority of four against two must be maintained in order to impress upon the children in those schools the tenets of the Anglican Church. That was a grave injustice.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
pointed out that the Amendment would leave the necessity for teaching Anglican theology in these schools absolutely unaffected; it would not make the schools Nonconformist.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he was taking the interpretation placed upon the Amendement by its mover, viz., that if the Amendment were passed the instruction in each school would be according to the trust deed of the school, so that in denominational schools the teaching would be denominational.
§ MR. PERKS
did not agree that it had nothing to do with it. If it was said 581 that it was totally unimportant whether the four or two managers were appointed by the local authority or the foundation managers, because the religion to be taught in the school had nothing whatever to do with the managers, that it was altogether outside their purview, and that they were to have the religious instruction forced upon them by the dictum of the local clergy, with an appeal to the bishop—if that was the view taken, it was totally at variance with the speech of the Prime Minister a few days previously. This majority was distinctly defended on the ground that it would maintain the sectarian control of the schools, and one of the reasons why he wanted this majority reduced from four to two, was that he desired that these schools should be conducted not as sectarian schools, but in a more Christian spirit and more in consonance with the views of the overwhelming majority of the parents of the children who attended them in some of the great counties of the country. He feared it was almost too late to hope that the Government would make this important concession. It was one of the fundamental points in the whole Bill. The tests of teachers was one, the appointment of teachers was a second, and this was a third, and on these fundamental questions Nonconformists had received no concessions whatever. There was a growing feeling of discontent on their part—a feeling that they had been unjustly treated and, he was sorry to say, misled to some extent by the too friendly or too optimistic views of the Prime Minister as to the concessions that would be made with a view to removing Nonconformist grievances. He hoped that even at this late hour something might be done to fulfil the pledges which the Prime Minister unquestionably made when he introduced the Bill in March last.
§ (9.50.) DR. MACNAMARA
said that this was one of the few questions in a very complex Bill in regard to which the issue was absolutely clear and simple. The Government averred that they must preserve the denominational system, while the Opposition declared that for every penny of public money spent there must be public control. Those two views were not in themselves incompatible, but they were entirely incompatible under 582 the scheme of the Bill. The scheme of the Government was to create in each case a body of managers which should do two things at one and the same time—preserve denominational instruction and secure public control. He believed that it was impossible to do these two things with one and the same body of managers, and that in endeavouring to do it the First Lord of the Treasury was setting himself an impossible task. He had himself several times suggested a scheme by which the schools would be placed under full public control, and, at the same time, denominational teaching preserved. That plan was to rent the denominational buildings—to buy them out if they were for sale, or to supplant them by others—and then, having the schools under public control, to give the fullest facilities outside the time-table of the school to the denominationalists to come in and give denominational teaching.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said he would have all the children join in a simple family Bible observance and prayer.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said he had always admitted that the Roman Catholics would require special treatment—a sort of special treatment which was compatible with the system of popular control in existence all over Scotland at the present time. As to the Cowper-Temple Clause, it would not be maintained in its entirety. The school would be opened with common family worship—the singing of a hymn and the recitation of a prayer—and that would be an end of it so far as the school was concerned. After school he would give the fullest facilities, free of any charge, to anybody to come in and give religious instruction according to the faith preferred by the parents of the children.
These details as to the mode in which religious instruction should be carried on do not arise on this Amendment. To some extent they are 583 involved in the question of whether the foundation managers are to have a majority, and hon. Members may state their views as to what the result may be, but this detailed discussion is out of order.
§ DE. MACNAMARA
said he would at once bow to Mr. Speaker's ruling, and he would not pursue that point any further. Whatever might be the result of this Bill, the system arrived at in our Colonies, after a chastening which this country was likely to go through for the next ten years, would be the system they would arrive at. The Government said they would put denominational schools upon the rates. He was very glad they had done so, and he was extremely glad that that bold step had been taken. He was tired of the system which was maintained by voluntary subscriptions, for it was a dangerous anachronism. The Government intended to evade popular control, which was a consequence of rate aid. In that they were pursuing quite a futile course. The most remarkable thing in connection with the discussions on education during the last ten years was the extraordinary change of front on the part of the Church of England. He had made a close study of the attitude of the Church of England for the last ten years, and he was quite astonished at the change of front which had taken place, more particularly on this question of rate aid. In 1895 the position of the Church was not to touch the rates under any circumstances, because the feeling was that popular control must follow, and that that would be the undoing of the denominational system. In 1895 the Archbishops' Committee submitted some recommendations to Lord Salisbury as a basis on which the Government should legislate upon the education question, and they were then of the opinion that if the schools came upon the rates they would cease to be denominational. Therefore, they were afraid to come on the rates. Dr. Temple, at that time, was of the opinion that it would be best for the Church to consider whether it would not be better to surrender some of their schools to the School Board than put the Church schools on the slippery slope of the support of the rates. On the 9th June, 1896, the Bishop of 584 Gloucester said that in regard to accepting aid from the rates, the objection seemed to be insurmountable, for if they received money from the rates they could not remain free in the management of the schools. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India spoke at Stepney on November 3rd, 1896, and he asked, "Could the right to religious teaching be maintained if voluntary schools were put upon the rates?" The Government had tried to maintain that right. The noble Lord in that speech went on to say that he very much doubted this, because the moment a charge was put upon the rates those who paid the rates would try to get control over the expenditure of the money. Lord Cross's Commission of 1888 suggested a rate aid of 10s. per child for voluntary schools, and that was scouted by Churchmen. The then Bishop of London, at the Church Congress in the same year, said he was confident that any proposal to put the schools bodily on the rates, and so do away with the necessity of voluntary subscriptions, was tantamount to giving up the voluntary schools altogether. Therefore hon. Members opposite, who with their eyes open placed these schools upon the rates must stand the consequences. Lord Selborne was a member of the Archbishops' Committee which sat in 1895, and he said that he looked with the greatest fear to their having to take any such course as that of claiming any share of the rates, for that would be handing the schools over body and soul to the enemy. He had no shadow of a doubt that the rate aid meant absolute public control in the long run, and they could not keep down the public representatives to the proportion of two out of six. Up to the last year or two all the leaders of the Church had been profoundly against rate aid, because it would mean the destruction of the voluntary system. Dr. Temple had said that to take a share of the rates would, to his mind, have a disastrous and lowering effect, and he did not see how the rates could possibly come to them without popular control accompanying it. He thought they were creating a Frankenstein which would destroy the system which, before the State had any concern in the matter, many Churchpeople made sacrifices to build up. They 585 could not possibly avoid the inevitable consequence of rate aid, which was complete popular control.
He had found that in the immediate future the cost of maintenance of each child in denominational schools would be about 55s. per year from public funds. The denominationalists were to contribute roughly about 3s. per child for the use of the buildings, and the Church was to keep up the fabric, or, rather, that was intended during the early discussion of the Bill. One of the early Clauses provided that the managers should maintain the fabric out of funds provided by them, and that was called a fair bargain. Since then that bargain had been whittled down. The total cost of maintenance would come to about 60s. per child, and 55s. of this would come out of the public funds. In other words, eleven-twelfths of the money would be found by the public, and one-twelfth by the denomination. Under this Bill, in return for finding eleven-twelfths of the money, the public was to have two-sixths, or four-twelfths, of the management of the schools. The public ought to have at least eleven-twelfths of the management if they found eleven-twelfths of the money. Personally he viewed the future with the utmost equanimity. He very much objected to the Accommodation Clauses, which he thought were vicious to the last degree. He objected to the sweeping off from voluntary funds of the obligation to keep up the fabric. He felt sure that by this proposal the Government were endeavouring to do an impossible task. When they came down upon the ratepayers and presented a demand upon them for their schools, they would find that the ratepayers would want to have something to do with the management.
§ (10.15.) MR. TOMKINSON () Cheshire, Crewe
said that as a Churchman, and as one actuated with nothing but the best wishes towards the Church, he desired to say a few words about this Clause and about the Amendment which had been moved. As one who had listened a very great deal to the discussion and said very little, he was astonished to notice that there appeared to exist on the part of the clergy a rooted distrust of the people. He was sorry to say this, 586 but he was afraid the evidences of it were too strong to be ignored. The Church claimed to have a distinct majority in the country. He thought that in some cases very exaggerated claims had been made. He heard of a clergyman the other day who stated that in his opinion the Nonconformists were in the habit of overrating their numbers and their strength, and he said that if they could be numbered accurately, they would be found to be in a considerable minority. This clergyman said he was the chaplain of a prison where there were 103 prisoners in the gaol, and of that number no less than ninety-eight were members of the Church of England. The explanation of that was that in a country with an Established Church, every prisoner whose religion was unknown was put down as belonging to the Established Church. The claim made by the Church was the inalienable right of the parents to have their children brought up in the faith of their fathers and their forefathers. Surely that also applied to the children of Nonconformists. Why could not the clergy trust the people? If they would only do so it would strengthen their position enormously, and by refusing to do this they were striking a blow at their Church. They had heard repeatedly of the almost insane dislike on the part of the Chruch to publicly elected bodies and to School Boards. They had heard over and over again charges of irreligious tendencies brought against board schools, which had often been refuted. The Leader of the Opposition the other day gave a number of statistics in regard to the composition of five of our largest School Boards, and it was found that over 60 per cent. of them were Churchmen, and about 30 per cent. Nonconformists. They had had the testimony of the Archbishop of Canterbury in regard to the efficiency of the education given in board schools. The Country Council of the country which he represented had had a special meeting to consider this Bill. On that Council there was a considerable majority of Conservatives, but after discussing this Clause they passed a resolution by an overwhelming majority of quite two to one that inasmuch as the public were going to find most of the money the public 587 ought to have a majority upon the board of managers of voluntary schools. In order to prevent an agitation in the shape of resistance to the rates, he urged upon the Government the necessity of adopting some suggestion which would remove the grievance complained of.
§ MR. SPEAR (Devonshire,) Tavistock
regretted that the Government had not seen their way clear to accept the recommendation made, he thought from both sides of the House, to give the public an equal representation with those representing the trust. He ventured to think that if that policy had been pursued, and the denominational character of the schools maintained, it would have done away with a good deal of the suspicion and friction that had since arisen. He was fully aware that it would have been necessary to modify Clause 73 of the 1870 Act, otherwise the denominational character would not be preserved. He was not partial to the preservation of the denominational character in our schools. He would very much prefer a national system of education with the simple reading of the Bible, and a simple exposition, but he was convinced that that was impossible of attainment at the present moment. Notwithstanding his disappointment that the Government had not been able to give a larger public control on these committees, he was still hopeful that, with the control of the County Council and the Borough Council, and with the two representatives of the public on the committees, a more liberal method of carrying on these schools would obtain in the future than had been the case in the past. If he had to make his choice, he had no hesitation in saying, as a sincere Nonconformist, that he would much prefer this Bill, with all its defects, to the suggested policy of preferential treatment for Roman Catholics.
§ COLONEL NOLAN () Galway, N.
hoped that this dreadful Amendment would be withdrawn. If it was not withdrawn, let the House understand the position so far as Catholics were concerned. The mover of the Amendment proposed that in regard to every 588 Catholic school a majority of Protestants should control the teaching of Catholic dogma. [Cries of "No."] They would have full power to send four Protestants to control Catholic education if the Amendment were carried. He did not look upon the hon. Member for North Camberwell as a bigoted secularist, but he would like to know what his general Christian teaching was. Did he now really want a majority of Protestant managers to control Catholic schools? Did he want to send to a Catholic school a Protestant teacher? They had been told that Catholics should get separate preferential treatment, and that had been advocated on the Liberal side of the House. There were over 500 Amendments to the Bill put on the Paper, but did a single Liberal Member put down an Amendment in favour of preferential Catholic treatment? He was not aware of one, but if any hon. Member did, he apologised to him. The fact was, the Roman Catholics had been used by the Nonconfirmists as a sort of red herring drawn across the trail. Catholics were quite aware of that. He believed that the Liberal Members were really, in their hearts, fairly disposed to Catholics, but they did not dare propose preferential treatment and face their constituencies. Catholics were now offered a good Bill. Mr. Davitt stated recently in the United States that they would now get 15s. per child more. Mr. Davitt was not a friend, but an opponent, of the Bill, and yet that was his opinion. That was a very large sum of money to the Catholics. If the Leader of the Opposition would get up and say that he would bring in a Bill proposing preferential treatment for Catholics, he would be ready to say, "Let the Church of England and the Nonconformists fight their own battle." But as there was no prospect of that, he thought Catholics were right to accept what they could get now under this Bill. The hon. Member for North Camberwell said that as the taxpayers found the money they ought to have the control of the schools. But ssurely the hon. Member was aware that Roman Catholics also paid taxes. It had been stated that an agitation was springing up against the Bill; but if the Roman 589 Catholics were true to themselves in Ireland and in England it would be of little avail.
§ MR. ALEXANDER CROSS () Glasgow, Camlachie
said it appeared to him that the question now before the House was one of great gravity from the broad point of view. Those who sent him to Parliament had been giving consideration to this Bill. While he accorded a general support to the Government, he believed that he had a clear mandate from his constituents on this subject. He did not think the Government were entirely aware of the popular sentiment in Scotland. His fellow - countrymen in Scotland were
§ unable to understand this principle of four and two managers as arranged by the Bill. The Government could not dissociate the principle of public control from the granting of public money from the rates. He believed that a blunder had been committed by the Government in this matter, and he urged them to concede equality of representation as a wise and prudent policy in the interest of those whom they were desirous to serve.
§ (10.38.) Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes, 97. (Division List No. 585.)591
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Loder, Geral Walter Erskine|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fisher, William Hayes||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Fison, Frederick William||Lowe, Francis William|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Austin, Sir John||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred|
|Balcarres, Lord||Flower, Ernest||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r||Forster, Henry William||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds||Galloway, William Johnson||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gardner, Ernest||Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Garfit, William||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Gibbs. Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)||Milvain, Thomas|
|Bignold, Arthur||Godson, SirAugustusFrederick||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Bigwood, James||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Graham, Henry Robert||More, Robt. Jasper(Shorpshire|
|Bond. Edward||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Morgan, DavidJ.(Walth'mst'w|
|Bousfield, william Robert||Greene, HenryD.(Shrewsbury)||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Groves, James Grimble||Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute|
|Bull, William James||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry|
|Butcher, John George||Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Carlile, William James||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Newdegate, Francis A. N.|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.|
|Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire||Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Henderson, Sir Alexander||Percy, Earl|
|Chamberlain, RtHnJA(Worc'r||Higginbottom, S. W.||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Champman, Edward||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Hobhouse, RtHn H.(Somers't, E||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Hoult, Joseph||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm||Purvis, Robert|
|Colomb, SirJohnCharlesReady||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Rankin, Sir James|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fre.||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Kemp, George||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Kennedy, Patrick James||Renwick, George|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.||Ridley, Hon. M. W(Stalybridge|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Keswick, William||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Dewar, Sir T. R. (TowerHamlets||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Doughty, George||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lawson, John Grant||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Rutherford, John|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Fellowes, Hon. AilwynEdward||Lockie, John||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Fergusson, RtHn. Sir J. (Manc'r||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(IsleofWight)||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Sharpe, William Edward T.||Tully, Jasper||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Sinclair, Louis (Romford)||Valentia, Viscount||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn, E. R. (Bath)|
|Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.||Wylie, Alexander|
|Smith, James Parket(Lanarks.)||Warde, Colonel C. E.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)||Webb, Colonel William George||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Stewart, SirMark J. M'Taggart||Welby, Lt.-Col A. C. E (Taunton|
|Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Whiteley, H.(Ashton-und. Lyne||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Talbot, RtHn. J. G.(Oxf'dUniv.||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Taylor, Austin (East Toxeth)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Allen, CharlesP(Gloue.,Stroud||Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Shackleton, David James|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Bell, Richard||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Black, Alexander William||Horniman, Frederick John||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Spencer, RtHn. C .R(Northants|
|Brigg, John||Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Kitson, Sir James||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)|
|Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)||Lambert, George||Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Langley, Batty||Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower|
|Caldwell, James||Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington||Tomkinson, James|
|Cameron, Robert||Levy, Maurice||Toulmin, George|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Lewis, John Herbert||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Lloyd-George, David||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lough, Thomas||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Macartney, RtHn. W. G. Ellison||Weir, James Galloway|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Macnamara, Dr. Thoman J.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Morkham, Arthur Basil||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Williams, Osmond(Merioneth)|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Moulton, John Fletcher||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Newnes, Sir George||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.)|
|Ellis, John Edward||Perks, Robert William||Woodhouse, SirJT(Huddersf'd|
|Emmott, Alfred||Philipps, John Wynford||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith)||Price, Robert John|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Rea, Russell|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Rickett, J. Compton||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.|
|Grant, Corrie||Rigg, Richard|
|Griffith, Ellis Sir E.(Berwick)||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
§ Amendments made—
§ "In Clause 7, page 3, line 34, leave out 'so long as,' and insert 'but.' In Clause 7, page 3, line 35, after 'them,' insert 'only so long as.' In Clause 7, page 3, line 41, and page 4, line 1, leave out 'with respect to,' and insert 'for.'"—(Sir William Anson.)
§ MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)
said he wished to move the omission of sub-Section (b)of Clause 7, in order to ascertain the views of the Government in regard to inspection. This was the only place in which inspection was mentioned in the Bill. He thought it was understood by the Government and the House that His Majesty's Inspectors should still continue to inspect all the schools; but the local education authorities would also appoint their own inspectors, and he hoped something would be put into the Bill in regard to the duplication of inspec- 592 tion of the schools all over the country. Duplication of inspection would not be good for the schools, for the local education authority, or for the ratepayers, and he was anxious that this should be avoided.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page4, line 6, to leave out sub-Section (b) of Clause 7."—(Mr. Henry Hobhouse.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
*SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said that he was fully alive to the risk and the evil of duplication of inspection, and it should, so far as it lay in his power, be avoided. His right hon. friend would not expect him to say what line the Board of 593 Education would take up in every case, because much would depend on the local authority and on local circumstances; but he might safely say that it would be the desire of the Board of Education to act with the local authorities, and to enter into some arrangement by which the results of their inspection could be utilised for the benefit of the local authorities.
§ MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE
said that after that explanation by the Secretary to the Board of Education he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN () Montgomeryshire
said he was glad that the answer of his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education foreshadowed some amount of Departmental action in regard to inspection. If that could be done without endangering the efficiency of the schools it would prove of great advantage
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. LAMBERT
, in moving that the words "the consent of" should be omitted from the beginning of sub-Section (c), said that his intention was subsequently to move the insertion of other words, the effect of which would be that the local authority should appoint and dismiss teachers. That was, indeed, the clear issue which he proposed to submit to the House. It was said that the local authority would have the control of all secular education; but it was impossible that they should have such control unless they had the absolute right to the appointment and dismissal of teachers. Ninety-five per cent. of the instruction in the schools was secular, and it was absolutely impossible for the local authority to have control over it unless they had the power to appoint and dismissal the teachers. The local authority ought to be trusted and given as much power as possible. At present there was a form of dual control in regard to the appointment of teachers, but there was, unfortunately, no provision for the dual payment of the teachers. Not a single penny of the teachers' salaries would be paid by the managers; and he insisted that the principle should be observed that those who paid the teachers should control their appointment and their dismissal. They knew very well that the success of a school largely depended upon 594 the masters, and if the control of the local authority was to be real it was absolutely necessary that his Amendment should be carried. Under the Bill the Board of Education was to be called in, in the event of any dispute arising between the local authority and the managers. He had not a profound confidence in the Board of Education. The hon. Gentleman the present Secretary to the Board of Education would not always be in power. A change was possible, and another gentleman might be appointed head of the Department who had different views from those held by the hon. Baronet. But if the local authority were made responsible for the appointment and dismissal of the teachers, they would maintain the even tenor of their way, and their policy would be far more stable than under the control of the Board of Education. They had been told that to give the power of appointing the teachers to the local authority would be to destroy the denominational character of the schools. He could not see that. There was, he contended, a great deal of truth in a statement of an hon. Member that in this matter the Church would be far better off if they trusted the local authorities. These would not be revolutinary bodies. Most of the County Councils had a large majority of Conservative members, and they would not be likely to do anything which would inflict any grievance on the denominational schools which they had under their control. The defects in the Bill were bound to be cured in the long run, because the country would assert itself. They had had a division the previous day on a most extreme clerical Clause, and although the Prime Minister gave the House no lead in the matter, that extreme clerical Clause was rejected by an enormous majority. They had seen over and over again that the right hon. Gentleman would not give any real power to the local education authorities. This could not be a lasting settlement unless his Amendment were carried. There would be no security for the teachers, who would be under the harrow of the managers, whereas, if his Amendment were carried, the teachers would be under the control of the local education authority, which was the local education authority, which was a body more likely to give them fair 595 play than the managers. It seemed to him that they had no right to ask that something like 11,000 head teachers in the country should be submitted to a denominational test. Such a thing was unknown in National Government. He did not suppose that the Prime Minister asked the members of His Government what their religious convictions were; and why should they ask the teachers? The Bill put the clock backwards, and apparently religious tests were to be revived. It was an insult to the Nonconformists of the country to say that they were not to have a share in the teaching of any of these 11,000 schools. It had been said that concessions had been made to the Nonconformists; but he would like the head of the Education Department to tell the Nonconformists how they were to benefit under this Bill. He was afraid that the hon. Baronet would have the greatest difficulty in doing so. If the power were given to the local authorities to appoint and dismiss the teachers, that would, he was convinced, reduce a large amount of objection to the Bill. The concession which had been given in regard to assistant and pupil teachers was no concession, when the appointment of the head teachers was left in the hands of the managers, who were to have regard to the religious convictions of the head teachers. It was stated by the Prime Minister that the Roman Catholics formed an effective bar to giving the local education authority the right to appoint teachers, but for his part he did not see that the Roman Catholics presented any obstacle in the way. He said most distinctly that time was on their side in this matter, and that the system organised by the Bill would not go on. From a political point of view he believed that nothing would be better for his party than that the Government should reject his Amendment, because if they accepted it a great part of the opposition to the Bill would, as he had said, fall to the ground. Directly the ratepayers realised that they were to be saddled with all the expense of maintaining these schools, and at the same time were to be deprived of the power of appointing and dismissing teachers, they would rebel and there would be a change probable much more drastic than he suggested by his Amendment. The Clause was contrary to fair play. It was 596 against fair play that one half of the community should be banned from putting teachers into these schools. He insisted that the Bill would not be workable, and that it would not effect that educational reform which they had all hoped to see.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 4, line 8, to leave out the words 'the consent of.'"—(Mr. Lambert.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
*SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said that hither-to they had been reviving, with zest and at some length, the discussions of last summer, but now they were asked to reconsider a matter which was discussed with great animation and also at considerable length a month ago. He hoped it would not be considered disrespectful if he did not answer the hon. gentleman in great detail. The managing body constituted by Clause 6 was constituted with the definite object of preserving the denominational character of the schools. They ought to have something to manager, and the principal business of their management was surely the appointment of the teachers. He did not think that the House would go back on what it had already done in regard to school management.
*MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE () Essex, Saffron Walden
said he moved a similar Amendment a month ago, but the arguments then advanced had not been answered; neither had the arguments which his hon. friend had brought forward to-night been answered. There was a grievance, which was not inconsiderable, felt by Nonconformists in the matter. There were about 11,000 voluntary schools out of the 20,000 public elementary schools in the country; and, mainly speaking, in those 11,000 schools the teachers were members of one denomination, while in the remaining 9,000 schools half the teachers at least were members of the Church of England, because the training colleges, which Nonconformists contributed, were absolutely closed to members of the Nonconformists were unable to receive a proper training as teachers.
*MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE
said a large number of Nonconformists would still be in a very inferior position as he understood the Bill. The training colleges of the country had as boarders only those who belonged to one denomination, and the result was that members of that denomination were placed in a privileged position.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that under the Bill all that would be changed, as there was unlimited power to train teachers in rate-aided institutions.
*MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE
said he was quite prepared to admit that certain powers were conferred on the County Councils.
*MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE
said that the Prime Minister must be aware that there was no prospect of such institu-
§ tions being provided in any event for some years to come, and the prospect of an immediate increase of rates of 6d. to 1s. in the £ above those at present enforced in connection with elementary education, made it most unlikely that County Councils would further add to the rates and provide new training colleges. It was, therefore, most important, if only to secure efficiency, that all State-aided denominational colleges should be thrown open to Nonconformists. Out of the 20,000 headmasters in the country he believed that some 16,000 or 17,000 would be selected from one denomination alone, and as long as that grievance existed they were justified in protesting against this Bill and supporting this Amendment.
§ (11.18.) Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes 82. (Division List No. 586.)599
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Doughty, George||Lawrence, SirJoseph(Monm'th|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Lawson, John Grant|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Llewellyn, Evan Henry|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Fergusson, RtHn. Sir J. (Mane'r||Lockie, John|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine|
|Balfour, RtHn. Gerald W (Leeds||Finlay, Sir Robert bannatyne||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Fisher, William Hayes||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S)|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft|
|Bignold, Arthur||Forster, Henry William||Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth|
|Bigwood, James||Galloway, William Johnson||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Gardner, Ernest||Macartney, RtHn W. G. Ellison|
|Bond, Edward||Garfit, William||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Godson, Sir AugustusFrederick||Maxwell, W J. H(Deumfriesshire|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir FrederickG.|
|Bull, William James||Graham, Henry Robert||Milvain, Thomas|
|Butcher, John George||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Carlile, William Walter||Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury||Montagu, Hon. J . Scott (Hants.)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Greville, Hon. Ronald||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Groves, James Grimble||Morgan, David J.(Walthamst'w)|
|Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x||Morton, Arthur H Aylmer|
|Chamberlain, RtHn. J. A(Worc.||Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.|
|Chapman, Edward||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd||Murray, RtHn. A. Graham(Bute|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Henderson, Sir Alexander||Newdegate, Francis A. N.|
|Colomb, Sir. John Charles Ready||Higginbottom, S. W.||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Hobhouse, RtHn H.(Somers't, E.)||Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway. N.)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Hope, J. F.(Sheflield, Brightside||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Hoult, Joseph||Percy, Earl|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Kemp, George||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Denny, Colonel||Kennedy, Patrick James||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. ([...]alop||Purvis, Robert|
|Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. SirJoseph C.||Keswick, William||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert|
|Rankin, Sir James||Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Spear, John Ward||Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne|
|Remnant, James Farquharson||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Renwick, George||Stewart, SirMark J. M'Taggart||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge)||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Roberts, samuel (Sheffield)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Wilson-todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.|
|Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxf'dUniv.||Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. E. R(Bath|
|Rolleston, Sir John F. L.||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Round, Rt. Hon. James||Thornton, Percy M.||Wylie, Alexander|
|Rutherford, John||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.||Wyndham, Rt. Ho. George|
|Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Tully, Jasper||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Valentia, Viscount||Younger, William|
|Seely, Maj . J . E. B. (IsleofWight||Walrond, RtHon SirWilliam H.|
|Sharpe, William Edward T.||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Sinclair, Louis (Romford)||Webb, Colonel William George||TELLERS FOR THE AYES— sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Smith, AbelH.(Herford, East)||Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E.(Taunt'n|
|Smith, HC(North'mb, Tyneside||Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.|
|Allen, Charles P.(Glouc. Stroud||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Shackleton, David James|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Bell, Richard||Hayne, Rt. Hon. CharlesSeale-||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Black, Alexander William||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Spencer, RtHn. C. R(Northants|
|Brigg, John||Holland, Sir William Henry||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Horniman, Frederick John||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Kitson, Sir James||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Lambert, George||Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower|
|Caldwell, James||Langley, Batty||Tomkinson, James|
|Cameron, Robert||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Toulmin, George|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Levy, Maurice||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Cawley, Frederick||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Channiing, Francis Allston||Markham, Arthur Basil||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Newnes, Sir George||Williams, Osmond(Merioneth)|
|Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.)||Norman, Henry||Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Ellis, John Edward||Philipps, John Wynford||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Emmott, Alfred||Price, Robert John||Woodhouse, Sir JT.(Huddersf'd|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Rea, Russell||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Foster, Sir Walter(Derby Co.)||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Rigg, Richard|
|Grant, Corrie||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstoneand Mr. William M'Arthur.|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)|
*(11.30.) MR. YOXALL () Nottingham, W.
said the object of the Amendment which he desired to move was to provide that the appointment of teachers of all grades in non-provided as well as in provided schools, should be made without reference to religious creed or denominationa. The words in the Bill referred only to the appointment of assistant teachers and pupil teachers, and that was qualified by the mysterious words "if it is thought fit." It was not clear by whom it was to be thought fit; but presumably it would be by the managers, and they would be unlikely to appoint teachers without reference to creed or denomination. He desired to omit the words "if it is thought fit," and also the limitation of the Clause to assistant teachers and pupil teachers. It was 600 held that in a denominational school an assistant teacher or a pupil teacher of another denomination might be appointed; but that the head teacher should be of the denomination to which the school belonged. He admitted that the option to appoint pupil teachers and assistant teachers of another denomination was a slight advance on the present system; but he based his Amendment on the change which was to be made with regard to the maintenance of the schools. Hitherto, a denominational school had been a quasi-private institution. It had relations to the State which were very loose and indirect, and the contract between the teacher and the managers was one in which the Board of Education took no part. That was all to be changed. The denominational schools, so far as secular education was 601 concerned, would be under the local authority, and were to be wholly maintained from public sources; and, therefore, he claimed that the provision with reference to the appointment of teachers in those schools should be similar to that in provided schools. What was the case at present with regard to the board schools? A School Board laid down the syllabus of religious instruction. It was known to the applicants for positions as teachers under the Board, and it was understood that every person applying was willing and prepared to give that instruction. He submitted that that should be the case also with regard to the denominational schools. He was not prepared to say that it was the proper thing for a man who did not accept the creed of a certain denomination to accept to accept employment as a teacher in a school belonging to that denomination; but he was prepared to say that the question of his sincerity was not a question into which other people should go. If the test proposed to be applied to teachers in denominational schools were to be applied to incumbents in denominational benefices, he thought strange results would emerge; and he claimed that freedom to undertake the duty of giving religious instruction should be granted to teachers, as well as to persons who were engaged in giving religious instruction in a higher sphere. They had done away with religious tests at the universities, and the tendency of the time and of public feeling was against their perpetuation, especially in institutions maintained by public funds. The denominational school of the future would not be a quasi-private institution, but would be a wholly public institution; and, to all intents and purposes, so far as its funds were concerned, it would be under the general control of the local authority, and would be on the same footing as a board school. They had not laid down in the case of board schools, that no one should teach whose religious creed or private views went beyond the Cowper-Temple Clause; and he submitted that they had no right in a new kind of board school to lay down the principle that a teacher should be tested to see if his religious views were such as the school required. That was a matter between the teacher himself and his conscience, but if he was found not 602 to discharge his duty properly, or not to give the religious instruction which was required, he could, under the Bill, be dismissed. If the teacher did his work satisfactorily, that would be sufficient. If he did not, then he could be dismissed; but let them not lay down a theological test of an invidious character which was entirely opposed to the spirit of the time and the feeling of the nation, and which was the sole survivor of many tests which had existed in the past. That would be wrong in theory, fallacious in practice, and repugnant to the free institutions of the country, and ought to be removed from the Bill. No practical difficulty would arise if the test were removed, as the main stream of teachers who would apply for employment in non-provided schools would belong to the Church of England; but if the test were removed, a measure of religious liberty would be given to a class who, after the passing of the Bill, would be in all respects public servants, without in the least interfering with the efficient teaching of the articles and creed of the Church of England in non-provided schools. It was not as if the immediate result of his Amendment would be that teachers would be appoionted to Church of England schools who were Agnostics, or Baptists, or Methodists. The bulk of the teachers would be, for many years to come, qualified to give religious instruction in Church of England schools. What he claimed was that the fact that a candidate presented himself for employment in a non-provided school, whether it was Church of England, Wesleyan or Roman Catholic, ought to be taken as evidence that he was willing to give instruction in that school, and if his educational credentials were satisfactory, he ought to be allowed to enter that school without being asked whether he was a communicant of the Church of England, or a believer in the Athanasian Creed. After the passing of the Bill, a teacher in a non-provided school would be, to all intents and purposes, a public servant. At present he was not a public servant, and was engaged on a contract between himself and private persons who, by an anachronism, had the management of a school eleven-twelfths of the income of which was provided out of public sources. By a legal fiction, a denominational school was at present a private 603 institution, and the teacher was a private person, and it might be said that the House had no right to interfere with any test which the managers of a denominational school might set up. But all that was to be changed. Although the appointment of teachers in the future would rest with the managers, the teachers would be public servants; and was it to be contended that any Government would think of setting up a system of theological tests, direct or indirect, for the public servants of the country? It was not done in the case of the Welsh Intermediate Act, or in the case of the Technical Education Acts. The stream of tendency for the last twenty or thirty years had been in the direction of removing theological tests, and he asked the House to follow that stream, and not to attempt to obstructor dam it. If they did, they would do violence to the feeling of the country and to the consciences of many thousands of future public servants. It might be said that the teachers would not suffer in the future any greater hardship than they had suffered in the past, but the position was changed, and the teachers, as citizens and Englishmen, had a right to claim that this matter should be put on a proper footing. The teachers were not willing to submit to those tests. They had perhaps to submit to them in the past as a condition of their employment, but not willingly, and he ventured to express the warning that such a condition in the Bill would set up another subject of irritation in every locality, and would be another reason why the Bill would not be regarded as a settlement of the question. In the name of the teachers, he protested against such a test being applied to them. It could be removed without any practical difficulty, and he claimed that the sole judge in the matter should be the teacher as between himself and his conscience. If he failed to give the teaching required he could be dismissed. For all these reasons he claimed that justice should be done to the teachers, and it was for that reason that he moved his Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 4, line 14, to leave out the words 'Provided that assistant teachers and pupil teachers may be appointed if it is thought fit,' and insert the words 'the appointment of teachers shall be made from among persons willing to teach in the school.'"—(Mr. Yoxall.)
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill,"put and negatived.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
*SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said he was not sure how far the words proposed by the hon. Member would carry out his object. As the Bill originally stood the managers had discretion in the choice of teachers, except in cases where it was limited by the trust deed to persons of a particular denomination. The Government had introduced an Amendment extending the discretion of the managers where the trustdeed imposed a limitation, except as regarded the head teacher, and by that the Government were prepared to stand. As he understood the hon. Member, he not only wished the managers to have the widest possible discretion whatever the trust deed might say, but that the managers should be forbidden to ask a teacher whether he was or was not prepared conscientiously to give denominational teaching, on which the very existence of the school as a non-provided school depended. That would impose on the managers a disability so gross as to be almost ludicrous. It was a disability which would not be imposed on any other employer, and he really hoped the House would not consider long before rejecting the porposal of the hon. Member.
§ Mr. HENRY HOBHOUSE
said he wished to submit that if the words were inserted they would inflict a blow on Nonconformists rather that confer a benefit on them. Was it likely that anyone would be unwilling to accept the appointment of teacher? The words were perfectly futile, and if they were accepted they would be substituted for words which, although they might not go as far as hon. Members opposite desired, would certainly have the effect of throwing open thousands of places in the schools to Nonconformist teachers.
§ Mr. BRYCE
said that the answer given by the Secretary to the Board of Education entirely passed by the salient feature of the position, which was that the schools would change their character, 605 and that the teachers would become practically the public servants of the State. The imposition of a test on civil servants had no parallel in any part of the administration of the country. In some respects the position would be worse than it was at present. Many trust deeds did not restrict the appointment of a teacher from a particular denomination, but the provisio which the Government intended to insert in the Bill referred only to assistant teachers and pupil teachers, and, therefore, implied that the head teacher should be appointed from the denomination.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said the object of the Clause which would be inserted at a later stage was to give the managers a wider discretion where the trust deed limited that discretion.
§ MR. BRYCE
said he thought that this might very well be construed by the managers as a direction to them to appoint teachers from the denomination. That would be the interpretation which the managers would be likely to put upon the Clause. The whole case had been very fully and clearly argued by his hon. friend, and he would only add that, to his mind, there was not in the whole Bill a provision more retro-grade or unfortunate, or more calculated
§ to prejudice the teaching profession, and that interest which the public had in securing the widest choice of competent men to enter the teaching profession. That was the broadest interest the public had, and it would be narrowed by the proposed provision.
*MR. BULL () Hammersmith
said he should like to ask the hon. Member who moved the Amendment whether it was not a fact that the London School Board, on more than one occasion, refused to appoint teachers who professed Free Thought. Without entering into the merits of the matter, was not this a religious test? If it was not, what was it?
said he was not aware of the case to which the hon. Member referred, but the inference he drew was not correct. He had already stated his own view —
§ (11.53.) Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 69; Noes, 168. (Division List, No. 587.)607
|Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Holland, Sir William Henry||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Horniman, Frederick John||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Black, Alexander William||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Spencer, RtHn. C. R.(Northants|
|Brigg, John||Lambert, George||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Caldwell, James||Levy, Maurice||Tomkinson, James|
|Causton, Richard knight||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Toulmin, George|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Markham, Arthur Basil||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Norman, Henry||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Donglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Philipps, John Wynford||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid)|
|Ellis, John Edward||Price, Robert John||Wilson, Henry J.(York (W. R.)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Rea, Russell||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Rickett, J. Compton||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Grant, Corrie||Rigg, Richard|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Roe, Sir Thomas||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Runciman, Walter|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Methyr Tydvil)||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Shackleton, David James|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bain, Colonel James Robert|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Balcarres, Lord|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn .GeraldW(Leeds||Groves, James Grimble||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Hamilton, Rt HnLordG(Midd'x||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Bignold, Arthur||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd||Purvis, Robert|
|Bond, Edward||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley)||Rankin, Sir James|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Bull, William James||Hobhouse, RtHn H.(Somers't, E||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside||Renwick, George|
|Butcher, John George||Hoult, Joseph||Riddley, Hon M. W.(Stalybridge|
|Carlile, William Walter||Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon Arthur Fred.||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire)||Kemp, George||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Kennedy, Patrick James||Rutherford, John|
|Chamberlain, RtHn J. A (Worc.||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W . (Salop.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Chapman, Edward||Keswick, William||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Clive, Crptain Percy A.||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow||Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(IsleofWight)|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Lawson, John Grant||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Colomb, Sir John CharlesReady||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Smith, HC.(North'mb, Tyneside|
|Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Smith, James Parket (Lanarks.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Lockie, John||Spear, John Ward|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Loder, Gerald Walter(Bristol, S.||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Cust, Henry John C.||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham||Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Long, RtHn. Walter(Bristol, S.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxf'dUniv.|
|Denny, Colonel||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowesteft)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Doughty, George||Macartney, RtHn. W. G. Ellison||Tully, Jasper|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Macdona, John Cumming||Valentia, Viscount|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||M'Cann, James||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Egerton, Hon, A. de Tatton||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Maxwell, WJH (Dumfriesshire||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E(Taunton|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Mane'r||Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.||Welby, SirCharles G. E. (Notts.)|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Milvain, Thomas||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Whiteley, H(Ashtonund. Lyne|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Willonghby de Eresby, Lord|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Morrison, James Archibald||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Forster, Henry William||Murray, RtHnA. Graham (Bute||Wylie, Alexander|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Garfit, William||Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)||Younger, William|
|Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)||Newdegate, Francis A. N.|
|Godson, SirAugustusFrederick||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Greene, HenryD.(Shrewsbury)||Perey, Earl|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ It being after midnight, further consideration, as amended, stood adjourned till tomorrow.