§ Considered in Committee:—
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 8:—
§ (10.35) MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not think the Committee should proceed with the consideration of this Clause until they really knew what the intentions of the Government were in regard to it. He therefore moved the postponement of the Clause in order to enable the Government to put down their Amendments to it. This was the last Clause on which they would be able to discuss the management of voluntary schools and the relations between, the education authority and the managers. It was clear from a recent speech of the Prime Minister that his intentions were not clearly expressed in the Clause. Here they had a long list of the things which the managers were to do and not to do; but that was not the line which the Prime Minister had taken in his speech in Manchester. There he spoke 112 as if the relations between the managers and the Education Committee were to be the same as the relations between the London School Board and their managers—for instance in regard to the appointment of their teachers, which was a most important question. The London School Board appointed their own teachers, although the managers might recommend. Was the final appointment of teachers to vest in the local authorities, as in the case of the London School Board? There was a second question which the Prime Minister had indicated in his Manchester speech. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose that there should be an appeal not merely on the appointment, but on the dismissal, of teachers by the managers, to the local authority? He put it to the Attorney General that at any rate that was not the meaning of the Clause as it stood. Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared now to make clear what his ideas were with regard to the relations between the local education authority and the managers in regard to the appointment and dismissal of teachers, and generally what control the education authority would have over the managers? The words of the Clause were that "The managers of the school shall carry out any direction of the local education authority." What did that mean? Did it mean that the whole of the power was in the local education authority? How far, for instance, did it go in regard to the appointment of pupil teachers, and in regard to the number and the quality of the teachers, and things of that kind? He contended that the Committee ought to get a complete answer from the Prime Minister in regard to these points before the Clause was proceeded with, and therefore he moved that the Clause be postponed.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed," That Clause 8 be postponed."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was in some difficulty, not that he had really any uncertainty as to the general policy of the Government, but because he had some doubt whether the discussion of these details was in order on a Motion to postpone the Clause. The hon. Gentleman wanted him to make an explanation on various points.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the Amendments to be proposed by the Government were not down on the Paper, and that was his objection to going on with the Clause at present. The Prime Minister asked the Committee to proceed with a Clause which the house of Commons was not to be asked to sanction. The Committee were entitled to ask, before they proceeded to the discussion of the Clause, to have the proposals of the Government in writing.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if the Amendments to be proposed were fundamentally different from the Clause in the Bill there might be some justification for the argument of the hon. Gentleman; but while the Government had indicated their desire to accept Amendments in certain directions those Amendments would be in no sense, if accepted, as he hoped they would be, counter to the general sense of the Clause. The hon. Gentleman had referred to a phrase which fell from him in Manchester a few nights ago, and lie seemed to interpret that speech in the sense that he (the Prime Minister) had indicated that in his view the relations between the managers of voluntary schools and the education authority ought to be precisely identical with the relations of the managers of the London School Board to that authority. That was not what he said. [Cries of "Oh, oh‡"] He thought if hon. Gentlemen would look at any full report of his speech they would find that what, he stated was correct. What he did say was that there had been the greatest misconception and the most extraordinary misrepresentations on the subject of managerial authority. What he said was that the word "manager" lent itself, no doubt, to misrepresentation, intentional or unintentional, and that he regretted that it had been found to be necessary to use the word. But that necessity had been practically forced upon the Government from a drafting point of view, from the fact that that word was the word used in the original Act of 1870, and if anybody would look at that Act he would see that the word did not carry with it the idea of control. He further pointed to the relations between the London School Board and its managers by way of illustration, and asked, Could there be a 114 greater proof, not in the English language but in Statute, language, that the word "manager" did not carry with it the notion of control which had been foisted, into these controversies in connection, with it? But he never said that the relations between managers of voluntary schools and the local education authority should be identical in all respects with the relations between managers of. London Board Schools and the London School Board. What he did say, and what he adhered to, was that, so far as secular education was concerned, it was not the managers who should control the voluntary schools, but the education authority, and he indicated the readiness of the Government—if the House were doubtful that the Bill carried out that policy—to accept words which would make the matter clear. Then the hon. Gentleman had also asked him whether he was prepared to put down an Amendment which would give an appeal to the local education authority in the case of the dismissal of a teacher by the managers on religious grounds. He thought that in such a case there ought not to be an appeal. But if the hon. Gentleman had put to him another question, which was often asked—namely, whether, if a teacher was incompetent adequately to deal with secular education given in the school—if he was not either by his scholastic qualifications, or if for any other reason, competent to deal adequately with secular education—the education authority should require his dismissal—he had not the slightest hesitation in answering it in the affirmative. In his opinion the education authority had under the Bill, and ought to have it, that power.
MR. LLOYD-GEOKGEasked what would happen suppose a question arose about the Church Sunday School? He could give many instances of that. Would that be a religious ground?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that that question was hardly relevant to the point at the present stage of the Bill. That question was inopportune; and he was not certain whether he had not been trespassing order in referring even remotely to it. He hoped that after the answer he had given the right hon. Gentleman would allow the Committee to come to the discussion of the Clause itself.
§ * MR. McKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)said he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had clearly grasped the point of the hon. Member for Carnarvon. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech at Manchester had dealt with Clause 8 as if it were fundamentally different from the Clause in the Bill, and they asked that the Clause should be postponed until they knew exactly what were the intentions of the Government in regard to it. At Manchester the Prime Minister said:—
I think some of the difficulty has arisen owing to a misunderstanding of one of the terms used in the Government Bill, the term 'managers.' I think it is very natural that anybody who saw the term manager in the Bill would say, 'These are the people who have got control of the schools.' It is a mistake, but it is a natural mistake. I don't think it is a mistake for which either the Government draughtsman or the Government are responsible, because we have borrowed the term manager from the preceding Act of 1870, and in the Act of 1870 'management' and 'manager' are terms which do not carry with them the idea of control.But sub-Clause (a) stated:—The managers of the school shall carry out any directions of the local education authority as to the secular instruction to be given in the school.What did the insertion of that sub-clause mean? It meant that if it were not in the Bill the managers need not carry out any directions of the local education authority. Hon. Members opposite might not be familiar with the construction of an Act of Parliament. There was no definition in the Bill of the terms, ''managers" and "management," nor any reference whatever to the terms "managers" and "management" in the Act of 1870, and he would show that the terms used in the Act of 1870 could not apply. They had to construe the intention of Parliament from the Bill itself. When an express provision such as he had read, was put into the Bill it implied that, but for the express provision, the managers would not be bound to carry out the directions of the local authority in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. If the local authority had power to call upon the managers to carry out any directions as to secular instruction to be given in the schools, there would be no necessity to insert a special sub-Clause in the Bill. Sub-Clause (b) stated that "the accounts of the managers shall be subject to audit 116 by that authority." If the managers were to be mere creatures of the local authority, and were to have no control independent of the local authority, the accounts of the managers would be the accounts of the local authority. But when the accounts of the managers were to be submitted to the audit of the local authority, that implied that the accounts of the managers were not to be the accounts of the local authority. Sub Clause (c) stated" The consent of the local education authority shall be required to the appointment of teachers, but that consent shall not be withheld except on educational grounds." What did that mean? It meant that consent should not be withheld, for instance, on financial grounds. If the managers chose to double the salaries of the teachers, the local authority would have no power to object. There was no provision in the Bill stating what were to be the general powers of the local education authority over the managers. The local authority was to be given the power of refusing assent to the appointment of teachers on one ground, and one ground only. The veriest tyro in the construction of an Act of Parliament knew that the mention of that express condition implied that but for it the local education authority would have no right to refuse assent to the appointment of teachers at all. That brought him to another quotation from the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury at Manchester, which he submitted was an entire, but, of course, an innocent misrepresentation of Clause 8 as it now stood in the Bill. He therefore assumed that there would have to be a new Clause 8, and that was a good ground for asking for the postponement of the present Clause. The First Lord of the Treasury said:—Who raise the rate, who pay the rate? The County Council and the Borough Council raise the rate. The constituency of the Borough Council and the constituency of the County Council pay the rate. Let them manage the schools. Let them have the real control over secular education. If, for example, in a country parish you were to make the real controllers of the school the local managers, if you allow them to draw upon the funds of the County Council, then, indeed, you would violate that constitutional principle; then, indeed, you would divorce representation from taxation; then, indeed, you would be open to some of the criticisms which in my judgment are most unfairly passed upon this Bill.117 Now it was surprising, it was almost incredible, but the Bill actually did what the First Lord of the Treasury admitted would give good ground for the criticisms of the Bill by its opponents. The Bill did allow the managers to call upon the local authority for funds. The voluntary schools at the present time were managed by trustees who drew their funds from grants, and any deficiency had to be made up by voluntary subscriptions. It was the trustees who settled the teachers' salaries, who bought the books and the necessary equipment, and who were responsible for all the expenditure in the school. Under the Bill nothing was taken away from the powers of the managers of voluntary schools, but, instead of their having to call upon voluntary subscribers to make up a deficiency, under the 'Clause all they would have to do would be to send in the Bill to the local education authority and the local education authority would be bound to pay it. That was the Clause as it now stood. [Hon. Members: "No, no"‡] He challenged any hon. Member opposite to point to any single provision in the Bill which was capable of a different meaning. In support of what he said he would again refer to sub-Clause (b).
* THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member really seems to be doing what he is asking the Committee not to do, namely to discuss the Clause. The hon. Member is going through the Clause sub-clause by sub-clause, and is discussing it in relation to the other parts of the Bill. The motion before the Committee is that the Clause shall not be discussed. The hon. Member must give some reasons for not discussing it, and these reasons must be so put as not to lead to a discussion of the Clause.
§ * MR. MCKENNAsaid he thought the argument was perfectly simple. He was showing that the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury as to the intention of the Government referred to something wholly different from the existing Clause8, and, therefore, he assumed that the Government proposed to introduce Amendments which would make Clause 8 consistent with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He argued, 118 therefore, that the discussion of Clause 8 should be postponed until they had on the Paper the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman which were necessary to carry out his stated purpose at Manchester. He argued further that, as the Clause stood, the local education authority would have no control over expenditure in the voluntary schools, other than by the audit of the accounts, and that the First Lord of the Treasury stated something wholly different from that at Manchester. He therefore suggested that it would be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to introduce Amendments in order that they might have the Clause in its final form before they began to discuss it. If the managers could not spend money except on the previous authorisation of the local education authority, the accounts of the managers would be the accounts of that authority. The managers would merely be the agents of the local authority. They did not speak of a principal auditing the accounts of his agents. The accounts of the agents were the accounts of the principal. At present the Local Government Board audited the accounts of the School Boards and exactly the same control over the accounts of the voluntary school managers was to be given under the Clause to the local education authority. It was not only the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that led him to that conclusion. He was also led to it by the statement of the Colonial Secretary at Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman apparently had no doubt about the construction of the Clause. He admitted that taxation and representation did not go completely together. He said it was a mere matter of degree, and he admitted that there was not complete control over the expenditure. The First Lord of the Treasury said there was, but if that were so why did he at Manchester advise the supporters of the Bill to move Amendments to strengthen the already existing complete control of the local education authority over secular education. The right hon. Gentleman invited Amendments to strengthen control which he declared to be already absolute and complete. The Clause as it now stood gave the managers of voluntary schools exactly the same power that the existing managers of voluntary schools had, subject to such modifications as existed in Clause 8. They would have complete control over the expenditure, 119 with power to send in the bill to the local education authority, who would have to pay it whether they liked it or not, their only control being the control of the audit. Under those circumstances he submitted that the Clause was altogether different from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman at Manchester, and that they were therefore entitled to have before them the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to introduce before they proceeded to consider the Clause. Did the First Lord of the Treasury think that the Clause as it now stood gave the local education authority complete financial control? If he did, he was anxious to hear his arguments on that point before ho said anything about the misrepresentations of the Bill as it stood.
§ (11.0.) MR. A. J. BALFOURmade an appeal to the Committee. The hon. Member had made a speech which was more appropriate to the question that the Clause be added to the Bill. If when the Clause had been discussed in Committee, and when the Government had accepted Amendments, it was then found to be inconsistent with anything he had said in; public there would be good grounds for the objections now urged. But surely the Committee should begin first of all; with the Clause, and see whether it did not carry out in detail the general policy of the Government. If it failed to do this, then they ought to see whether Amendments could not be introduced to make the Clause conform with what had been stated. The arguments advanced by hon. Members were a reason not for postponing the Clause, but for amending it. If the hon. Gentleman would give his intelligent support in the discussion of the Clause, they might be able to bring it into general harmony with the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
§ MR BRYCEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to appreciate the benevolent intentions with which the Amendment had been moved. His hon. friend's object was to save the time of the Government. His hon. friends understood, possibly erroneously, the right hon. Gentleman at Manchester to mean that he conceived that the Clause ought to give control to the local authority over 120 the local managers, as far as secular education was concerned, so complete that the local managers would be nothing more than the mere agents of the local authority, that they would have no independent status at all, and that they would be more or less in the position in which the managers under the School Boards at present were. That was the impression which the right hon. Gentleman conveyed, but when they looked at the Clause they found nothing to carry out that intention. They found, on the contrary, that the Clause assumed a semi-independent authority, because it was necessary to give special powers of audit, to make provision for veto in particular cases, and because there was no provision at all with regard to the dismissal of teachers. Therefore, his hon. friends naturally concluded that the position of the managers was to be a quasi- independent position. If that was not the intention of the Government, why should his hon. friends encumber the Notice Paper with a largo number of Amendments to carry out what they conceived to be the intention of the Government. Let the right hon. Gentleman put down his own Amendments. If they met the wishes of his hon. friends then they need not put down their Amendments, and the discussion of the Clause would be expedited. He hoped that even now they would elicit from the right hon. Gentleman a declaration as to the substance of the Amendments which he would propose, and in that case he had no doubt his hon. friend would withdraw his Motion.
MR. A. J. BALFOUEsaid that there was some misconception on this point. He was represented as having at Manchester started a new theory about the Bill. He had sent for the speech which he made in introducing the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Manchester."] He was appealing against that speech to what he said on the introduction of the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "What does the Bill say?"] He was speaking of the policy of the Government. If the hon. Member thought that the Clause did not carry out that policy let the Committee amend it. He had not shown himself to be hostile to Amendments in conformity with the policy of the Bill. But what was the policy of the Bill? Was it a, 121 new policy started in Manchester, or was it the original policy of the Bill? These were the words used by him on the introduction of the Bill:—
So much for the authority; now for its powers. We lay it down, in the most absolute terms, that the new education authority is, in the words of the Bill, to control all secular instruction in public elementary schools in its district. Whether those schools are voluntary or whether they are rate-erected, in future, if this Bill becomes law, the local education authority which we create will be absolutely the master of the whole scheme of secular education in every elementary school in its district, voluntary or otherwise.Those words put an end to all idea of a new interpretation. Let the House now consider the Clause, and, if it did not carry out the policy announced if the introduction of the Bill, and again at Manchester, see if they could not bring it into full conformity with this most explicit statement of policy, which he ventured to say could not be made clearer by any amount of explanation.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Morley)said it was not the first time that the Committee had experienced a similar inconvenience in connection with the Bill. They went through the same experience in clause 7, to which the First Lord of the Treasury put down very substantial Amendments, at a very late hour, which practically changed the whole intention and scope of the Clause. It was then found that they did not carry out the right hon. Gentleman's intention, and they had to be removed and other Amendments substituted. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman should repeat that action with regard to Clause 8. The right hon. Gentleman had described on various occasions the action of the Bill in respect of managers in a manner which he thought did not agree with the words of Clause 8, and he declared that he was going to make certain proposals. These proposals, however, should be put on the Paper and not left until the last moment, as in the case of Clause 7. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was some misunderstanding about the word "managers." He himself doubted that. It was true that the word was taken from the Act of 1870, but the right hon. Gentleman was probably aware that the word "managers" was always used in the code issued by the Education Department. 122 All the work under the code was given to the managers, and in no case was it given to the School Boards. He thought that there was less misunderstanding about the word "managers" than about the powers and duties of the education authority. The right hon. Gentleman in an attempt to make the words "managers" and "management" clearer referred to the London School Board working through its managers. If the right hon. Gentleman did not mean that Clause 8 should square with t be work carried on by the London School Board through its managers, and that the methods adopted by that Board should be also adopted by the managers appointed under Clause 7, he was at a loss to understand why the right hon. Gentleman should have alluded to the London School Board at all. The only possible inference was that the managers would be the creatures of the local education authority, and should be only able to carry out such work as was deputed to them by that authority. But that was not the case at all. What they wanted to know was what were the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman intended to put down. When the right hon. Gentleman said that the whole object he had in view was to give control to the education authority and not to the managers, he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the amount of control to be apportioned between the local authority and the managers almost entirely referred to the appointment and dismissal of teachers. That was a matter on which the right hon. Gentleman had promised Amendments, and they ought to have them on the Paper and avoid the confusion which arose on Clause 7. That was their demand, and he thought it was a very fair and reasonable one.
§ * MR. ERXEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)said that for months past they had heard that one of the main objections to the Bill, in the view of its opponents, was that it did not give popular control over voluntary schools. Here was a Clause under which the Government claimed, and in his judgment rightly claimed, that that control was given. 123 The opportunity was open to hon. Members who did not consider that full control was given to put down Amendments making that control clearer, stronger and more emphatic, but, instead of seeking to carry out what they had claimed to be their great desire for months past, there was now a Motion to postpone the consideration of the Clause. He thought that in order to accomplish the object which hon. Members opposite declared to be theirs, and also in order to remove what was evidently the wildest misapprehension as to the interpretation of the Clause itself, they should proceed with its discussion at once. He would remind hon. Members that every penny of money now received out of Government grants by the managers of the voluntary schools would in future be paid to the education authority with perfect freedom to dole it out exactly as they liked. The education authority would receive the whole of the money, and the managers of the schools would be bound to carry out all the instructions of that authority with regard to secular education. There was not a word in the Bill which told the local authority to hand over a single penny to the managers. It was the local authority which would be responsible for the maintenance of the schools, not the managers. There was not a shadow of doubt that if the local authority chose, they might, and no doubt in the great majority of cases they would, as the large School Boards at present did, pay the salaries of the teachers from a central office on the scale adopted by the county. That authority would also, for purposes of economy, equip the schools from one central store, and not allow every set of managers to purchase for themselves. All the money would go into the hands of the central authority, the control would be in the hands of the persons holding the purse; and they would be at liberty to impose whatever directions they pleased Hon. Members opposite objected to the consideration of the Clause on the ground that the speech of the Prime Minister at Manchester was not a correct paraphrase of the Bill. Ho had read that speech with the greatest care, and, in his judgment, it would have been impossible to have given a more accurate paraphrase of the Clause than was given by the Prime 124 Minister on that occasion. All who had; studied the Bill would recognise its absolute accuracy. Surely hon. Members I could not now contend that the Government had executed a volte face and were about to introduce a fresh scheme? He hoped, therefore, that not merely for the enlightenment of the Committee, but for the removal of misapprehension in the country, they might be allowed to come to a detailed and careful consideration of: the Clause, which, from first to last, they had claimed did give popular control over every voluntary school.
§ DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)said he had not the advantage of hearing the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury, but he understood that at Manchester the Prime Minister had used the case of the managers under the London School Board as an illustration of the whole system of management under the Bill.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had not heard his speech. What he used the illustration of the London School Board for was to show that under the interpretation given to the word "manager" in their statutes manager did not imply control.
§ DR. MACNAMARAsaid that he had read the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman at Manchester. The managers under the School Board of London were first of all the servants of a directly elected Board of Education for London.
* THE CHAIRMANI would remind the hon. Gentleman that the question before the Committee is the postponement of the Clause.
§ DR. MACNAMARAsaid he desired to correct a serious misapprehension into which the Prime Minister had fallen in regard to the system of management under the School Board for London.
* THE CHAIRMANThat willarise when we reach the word "manager." It is not relevant to the discussion now before the Committee.
§ DR. MACNAMARAsaid he thought it was desirable that the clause should be postponed until they got the mater cleared up
§ DR. MACNAMARAsaid he wished to point out that they would find plenty of opportunites for discussing the matter, even, if the clause were postponed altogether. What he wished to point out was that the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury at Manchester was not in accordance with the facts. The system of management under the School Board for London was not the system of management under this Bill.
DR. MACNNAMARAsaid that the right hon. Gentleman certainly used the London School Board as an illustration after describing the term "manager "in this Bill.
* THE CHAIRMANI think the hon. Member really ought to have made himself acquainted with what has passed. The quotation he is about to read has been once, if not twice already, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should inflict it again on the Committee.
§ DR. MACNAMARAsaid he wished to say on behalf of the London School Board that there was really no connection whatever between the system of management proposed in this Bill and the system of management in the London School Board. Was the First Lord prepared to say that the public authority should have the entire appointment of the teachers as the School Board for London had?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether it was in order to discuss a speech he made at Manchester, to put on it an interpretation which he absolutely denied and did not think the words bore, and then to argue upon that as if it were the policy of the Government.
* THE CHAIRMANI have pointed out to the hon. Member already once or twice that his speech is really not relevant to the question before the Committee. The only question before the Committee is that the Clause be postponed.
DR. MACNAMARsaid he was anxious for the postponement of the Clause in order that the Prime Minister might make himself more fully acquainted with the real system under the London School Board.
§ SIR W. HART DYKEsaid he wished to appeal to the Committee to proceed with the Clause. They were touching on the crux of the big question, and the debate turned on whether the local authority was to be the supreme authority on education or not. He had always assumed that under the Bill the local authority would be absolutely supreme in future in regard to all matters of secular education, and for the 127 very substantial reason that they were to be holders of the purse strings. They would hold the money and would distribute it. They would have the power over the schools which the Board of Education at present had, and by which the Board were enabled to with hold grants and to apply a penal remedy where anything was wrong. He assumed that a similar penal remedy would rest in the hands of the local authority in the future, and that where the managers voluntary schools abused their trust the local authority would be sufficiently supreme and would have sufficient power to refuse grants. Surely, therefore, as practical men they should proceed to deal with the Clause line by line, and endeavour where the Clause was weak as regarded that supremacy to strengthen it.
§ (11.30.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he thought they were entitled after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who was such an authority on education, to ask the Prime Minister whether he accepted the interpretation which had just been put upon the Clause. If he did, then it was not Clause 8, and that was a good reason for postponing the Clause until they got hold of some words which expressed, as clearly as the right hon. Gentleman had, the intentions of the Government. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman had not put a proper interpretation on the Clause, that showed that the Clause was not even clear to the supporters of the Government themselves. The right hon. Gentleman either understood the Clause or he did not. If his interpretation were correct, then the Clause ought to be altered. The point before the Committee was that the 128 Clause did not carry out the intentions; of the Government as declared by the Prime Minister at Manchester that night or as declared by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and certainly not as declared by the hon. Member for North-West Ham, who said that the managers were to be reduced to mere dummies. Was that the view the voluntary school managers took of their position? He wondered whether that was the interpretation placed on the Clause by the Archbishop of Canterbury. If it were, he could hardly believe that the Church Congress would have passed a strong resolution in favour of a Bill which reduced the managers to the position of dummies in regard to voluntary schools. [An HON. MEMBER: As regards secular education.] Secular education was given by the teachers, and if teachers were appointed by a certain body, the members of that body were something more than dummies. The man who appointed the manager of a works was not a dummy in connection with such works. The Prime Minister charged them with misrepresentation.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI never charged the hon. Gentleman with misrepresentation, as far as I know.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was glad to hear that. At Manchester the right hon. Gentleman's speech would lead any ordinary average intelligence, like that represented at his meeting, to believe that the position of the managers in regard to the local authority was exactly the position of managers under the London School Board. [HoN. MEMBERS: No, no.] That was his proposi- 129 tion, and he would prove it. At Manchester the Prime Minister said—
But the London School Board has the control of its schools. In each of these schools—
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURasked if the hon. Gentleman would read what led up to that.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGECertainly.
It is only necessary to remind you of the case, for example, of the London School Board. The London School Hoard controls all the rate-supported schools in London, and the rate supported schools in London contain the majority of the children in London, and, as you know, the metropolitan area is the largest area probably which ever has been, which ever could be, placed under the control of one local education authority. But the London School Board has the control of its schools. In every board school under the London School Board there are managers, but they have not got the control, and the theory of our Bill is that the control should be not with the manages, but with the Borough Council or with the County Council as the case may be, and I would venture to urge upon those friends of the Bill—for in this part of my speech I am dealing with the friends of the Bill—I shall have a word to say about its enemies directly—I would say to the friends of the Bill, that if they desire, as the Government most heartily desire, that public control should be made a reality—and it shall be adequate to the amount of support given out of pubic funds—I would earnestly ask them to turn their attention, not to the balance of power among the managers for secular education, but to increasing the authority of the Borough Council or County Council as the case may be.What did those words mean?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that what he was trying to show was that the Government had used the word "managers" in the Bill as it was used in the Act of 1S70; the term was used without carrying with it the idea of control. He did not intend to show that they meant that the precise degree of subordination 130 of the managers in the voluntary schools should be that of the managers under: the London School Board.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he quite agreed with the interpretation put on the first part, that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to distinguish between management and control. But he quoted the example of the London School Board, and it was obvious what interpretation would be put on the speech by every man of intelligence who listened to it. If any other interpretation was intended, the right hon. Gentleman was quite capable of putting it into clearer and less misleading terms. Did the Prime Minister mean that these managers should be "dummies," as stated by the hon. Member for North West Ham.
§ * MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he had not the faintest recollection of using the word "dummies."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought the substance of the hon. Member's remarks was that the managers would have no real control over the schools.
§ * MR. ERNEST GRAYAs regards secular instruction.
§ MR. LLOYD GEORGEasked whether the hon. Member included in "secular instruction" the appointment of teachers, if not, what did it all mean? The Government ought really to give the Committee some clear idea of what they intended.
§ MR. MCKENNAASKED whether the First Lord of the Treasury accepted 131 the interpretation of Clause 8 as prohibiting school managers from spending money except that provided by endowment or voluntary subscription unless the expenditure were authorised by the local authority.
§ * MR. ERNEST GRAYCertainly.
§ MR. MCKENNABut that was not the view taken at the Church Congress,
§ when the Bishop of Coventry suggested certain modifications of the Bill.
* THE CHAIRMANsaid the time to raise that point would be when the Clause was reached. The hon. Member was not entitled to take the cream off all the Amendments.
§ (11.43.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 78; Noes, 227. (Division List No. 390.)
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Fisher, William Hayes | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Fison, Frederick William | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose- | |
| Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds | Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon | |
| Balfour, Kenneth K. (Christch. | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Flower, Ernest | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor | Forster, Henry William | M Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Foster, Philips. (Warwick, S. W | M'Calmont, Col H. L. B. (Cambs. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W. | |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire) | |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Gardner, Ernest | Manners, Lord Cecil |
| Bignold, Arthur | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Milvain, Thomas |
| Bigwood, James | Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) |
| Bill, Charles | Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts. | Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc. | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire |
| Bond, Edward | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Morgan, David J. (W'lthamst'w |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Mount, William Arthur |
| Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Greene, Sir E W (B'ry SE dm'nd) | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray, C. |
| Brown, AlexanderH. (Shropsh. | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsburys | Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute |
| Grenfell, William Henry | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | |
| Gretton, John | ||
| Carew, James Laurence | Groves, James Grimble | |
| Carlile, William Walter | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | ||
| Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton | ||
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hall, Edward Marshall | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh. | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Parker, Sir Gilbert |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hambro, Charles Eric | Pease, Herbt. Pike(Darlington |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rdG (Midd'x | Pemberton, John S. G. |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc 'h | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Percy, Earl |
| Chapman, Edward | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd | Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard |
| Charrington, Spencer | Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Healy, Timothy Michael | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley | Pryce-Jones Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Heath, James (Staffords., N. W. | Purvis, Robert |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Henderson, Sir Alexander | Pym, C. Guy |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Hickman, Sir Alfred | |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow | Higginbottom, S. W. | |
| Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Hoare, Sir Samuel | |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. | Randles, John S. |
| Crossley, Sir Savile | Hogg, Lindsay | Rankin, Sir James |
| Cubitt, hon. Henry | Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside | Rasch, Major Frederick Carne |
| Cust, Henry John C. | Hornby, Sir Willam Henry | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Renwick, George | |
| Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil | Richards, Henry Charles | |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Ridley, Hon. M.W(Stalybridge | |
| Denny, Colonel | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson | |
| Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye | |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Ropner, Colonel Robert | |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon | Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop | Round, Rt. Hon. James |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Keswick, William | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | King, Sir Henry Seymour | Rutherford, John |
| Duke, Henry Edward | ||
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | ||
| Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | ||
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- | |
| Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm 'th | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | |
| Lawson, John Grant | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehonse) | |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | ||
| Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Lee, ArthurH(Hants., Fareham | Seton-Karr, Henry |
| Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew | |
| Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie | Skewes-Cox, Thomas | |
| Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W. | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East) |
| Faber, George Denison (York | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Smith, HC(N'rth'mb. Tyneside |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S. | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc 'r | Lowe, Francis William | Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Stroyan, John | Walker, Col. William Hall | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks. |
| Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier | Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Wanklyn, James Leslie | Wrightson, Sir Thomas | |
| Warde, Colonel C. E. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George | |
| Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Warr, Augustus Frederick | Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. |
| Thornton, Percy M. | Webb, Colonel William George | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Tollemache, Henry James | Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton | Younger, William |
| Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts. | |
| Tritton, Charles Ernest | Whitemore, Charles Algernon | |
| Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Tuke, Sir John Batty | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord | Sir Alexander Acland- |
| Willox, Sir John Archibald | Hood and Mr. Anstruther. | |
| Valentia, Viscount | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) | |
| Vincent, Col. Sir C E H(Sheffield | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N. |
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.