§ Considered in Committee—
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 8:—
*(12.15.) THE CHAIRMAN
The First Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for West Denbighshire has already been disposed of by the Committee, for it is covered by words which were inserted in Clause 6.
§ DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)
, on a point of order, said the words inserted in Clause 6 conferred on the local authority the powers and duties of a School Board, but the Bill also proposed to repeal certain existing powers and duties set forth in Sections 5 to 18 of the Education Act, 1870, and these were the very duties which in future would devolve on the new authority. It was proposed on page 12 of the Bill to repeal Section 5 except so far as it defined public school accommodation, while Section 18, which was also to be repealed, was that 143 which declared the local authority to be in default if it did not provide accommodation.
§ MR. MCKENNA (Monmouthshir, N.)
And if you look at the bottom of page 11 you will see that sub-Section 5 states what provisions shall have effect in lieu of the section. The sub-Section only deals with free places, and it does not deal with the "adequate" amount of accommodation.
* THE CHAIRMAN
Section 18 of the Act of 1870 imposes on the School Board the duty of providing adequate school accommodation and these are the words now proposed to be inserted.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
The part of Section 18 which it is proposed to repeal begins "if at any time" If it is repealed there will be no obligation resting on the local authority.
* THE CHAIRMAN
But the words proposed to be inserted by the hon. Member for West Denbighshire are practically in the Bill. It is not proposed to repeal that part of Section 18 which lays on the School Board the duty of maintaining such additional school accommodation as may be necessary.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
The latter part of Section 18 of the Act of 1870, which provides that the local authority shall be declared to be in default if it does not provide the accommodation, is proposed to be repealed.
§ MR. CHARLES McARTHUR (Liverpool, Exchange)
Section 18 leaves it to the discretion of the School Board to say whether or not it shall provide additional accommodation, but Section 5, which this Bill proposes to repeal, imposes an absolute statutory obligation upon the School Board to supply accommodation whenever necessary.
* THE CHAIRMAN
I see no reason whatever to alter my opinion that the Words now proposed to be inserted are already in the Bill. We cannot go on inserting the same thing over and over again. The matter is now disposed of.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Morley) moved, as an Amendment to the first section of the Clause, providing that the local education authority shall maintain and keep efficient all public elementary schools within their area which are necessary, to substitute "may" for "shall" There would, he said, have been no necessity for this Amendment had Clause 7 retained its original form, but, in view of the proportions decided on for the managing body, he felt it necessary to propose an Amendment which would enable the county authority to make choice of the schools of whose maintenance and efficiency it should think fit to undertake the entire responsibility. He thought the First Lord would find it very important to consider some such proposal as this in view of the attitude taken up by many local. authorities. He might instance the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, which had now come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to perform all the duties which the Bill would lay upon them. What was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (whom he wished to congratulate on his promotion to office), going to do in face of that attitude? He was not to be envied if it was to be his duty to compel Councils to undertake work which would be extremely distasteful to them. Surely he could not by mandamus compel a County Council to carry out a policy, and this Amendment sought to obviate the friction which was bound to arise.
In page 3, line 4, to leave out the word 'shall,' and insert the word may.—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Clause"
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)
May I ask if this Amendment is in order? I listened with attention to the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, and as far as I could gather his meaning he desires to revive Clause 5, which was dropped out 145 of the Bill. Clause 5 left it optional to the authorities to administer the Bill, and that, I take it, is the object of the present Amendment.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON
My proposal is exactly the reverse of Clause 5. If this suggestion were adopted, town councils would naturally take over the public schools of which they had control, but would decline to give public money to the schools which they did not take over.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Well, I do not press the point. If the hon. Gentleman aims at a differential treatment between different schools in the same area by the authorities over that area, that, I think, is an impossible solution of the difficulty. The Government were alive to the difficulty, and it was in order to meet it that Clause 5 was introduced; but it is absolutely certain that the method proposed by the hon. Gentleman would be an intolerable way of meeting it. If the whole elementary scheme of secular education in the country is placed under the control of a popularly elected body, and the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were carried, the result in the West Riding, as I understand him. would be that while the County Council would be quite ready to take over all the School Boards, they would leave the education in the voluntary schools in the position in which it is at present—that is to say, in many cases, in an unsatisfactory position. I do not think the Government can be asked to accept that, and if the hon. Gentleman's suggestion were carried out at all it could only be, I think, by a revival of Clause 5.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)
The objection of my hon. friend is in reference to the difficulty felt by County Councils, and other bodies who are to carry out this Bill, when called upon to administer finances of which they have not control.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
That is the very point on which we want an understanding. We have now come to the Clause which deals with control, and we want an explanation from the Government as what is the nature of that 146 control. It has been stated over and over again that there is absolute control of all secular education; for that purpose there are six managers, and the authority which is to administer, and to spend the money, out of those six has one voice. The management you have here is a totally different thing from that in the board schools in London and other large places But what is the method? We are told it is not to be the old method. But the great defect of this Bill and this Clause is that there is no definition of the attributions of the various managers. In order to make the Bill intelligible and to prevent friction there ought to be a clear definition of what are the duties and powers of these several managers. I want to know is this one representative, among six, to have complete control of secular education? If so, what are to be the functions of the other five? Secular education, I understand, is to be the main part of elementary education, yet it has been thought necessary for the purpose of safeguarding dogmatic teaching that you should have four, as against the one man who is to have charge of the secular teaching. I want to know what those four private individuals are to have the power to do in the schools, and whether they will have a voice in anything else besides the clerical dogmatic teaching. If it is the case, let it be clearly understood that there is one man only among the managers who has a word to say in the conduct of the schools during the whole of the school time except that set apart for denominational teaching, and let us know where we are. That has not been explained, and I think it ought to be explained. The representative of the popularly elected body is after all human; he may sometimes be absent, but some of the four will be present, and in that situation who is going to direct the schoolmaster in matters which arise every day in the ordinary secular work of the school? Are they or are they not to control and direct the schoolmaster in any part of the ordinary, regular, daily business of the school? That lies at the bottom of the whole question. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech at Manchester said that too much importance had been given to the word "management" Then let us understand how much importance belongs to the managers, and to the managers of each separate class. We have been told, I 147 think, by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich that what he wanted was a Church atmosphere.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
Well, I do not know who has the credit of the word "atmosphere," but, if the noble Lord disavows it, I will treat it as an anonymous statement which has boon accredited certainly by the ecclesiastical party. They want an atmosphere.
* THE CHAIRMAN
I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the only question now before the Committee is the proposed option of the local authority to support some schools and not others. I do not see how the matter he is now discussing is relevant to that.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
The whole question of whether there is any objection to the inclusion of all the schools depends upon this vital question of management, and it seems to me that that lies at the root of the whole thing—whether or not the education authority, that is to say, the County Council, has entire control. I think the right hon. Gentleman the other day said that the word "management" which had been introduced into the Bill had tended to obscurity. That is perfectly true.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I think I said that it gave opportunities for misrepresentation. I do not think I said it was obscure.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
Well, that it led to misrepresentation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me for disavowing the misrepresentation, and allow me to say "want of comprehension of the meaning of the Bill" That is what I am pressing on the right hon. Gentleman. I venture to say that the whole thing turns on this question of management. No doubt you may have managers who are immediately under the control of the School Board—say of London, or of any large town—but that is not the case in the rural districts. One great objection and difficulty that we have in this Bill is the postponement 148 of Clause 12. That Clause, in my opinion, ought to have come at the beginning of the Bill, because it deals with the constitution of the education authority. Until we have some idea of what that authority is, how are we to understand what are the functions of the managers? It is quite plain that the education authority, which is a Committee of the County Council——
* THE CHAIRMAN
Order, Order‡ I really do not see how that arises under this Amendment, nor does the matter which the right hon. Gentleman was discussing arise, because, supposing this Amendment were to be accepted and passed, that would not affect the proportion of the managers. The proportion of the managers would remain exactly the same whether this Amendment were passed or not.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
I beg your pardon. I have not been referring to the proportion of managers, except incidentally. I want to know what the functions of the managers are, and that is dealt with in this Clause.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
This Amendment is founded upon the objection that because the County Council have not complete management they ought to have the option of supporting the school or not. I come to this point, that the question of this management, and the amount of it, is the keystone of the whole debate. We have the assertion of the Government that there is to be complete control of secular education, Unless we have some elucidation of that we cannot get on with this Bill, because. the intentions of the Government have not been explained. Therefore I do ask, what is the amount of control which this single representative of the County Council on the management is to have, and what is to be the power of the other managers? Is this one man to have the sole and absolute control of the school at all times, and in all matters which do not affect denominational teaching? That; is a very clear question, and I think we ought to have an answer. I venture to 149 say that in rural districts this one man is the only means of direct communication between the education authority and the managers of the school. It is impossible that the committee who are to form the education authority in a large area can be present in person, or that any of their number could be present in person, as a regular matter, in these rural schools. Tell us what will be the functions of these managers. In my own county the education authority will be at Winchester, The only means of communicating with regard to the conduct of the school must; be through the one manager, and what we want to have from the Government is a statement whether or not that one manager will be absolutely master of the whole of the schools except in regard to denominational teaching. Tell us what will be the functions of the other managers?
* THE CHAIRMAN
I really must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think he is treating me fairly. I have told him two or three times that this matter does not arise on this Amendment. It is a matter which must arise upon a subsequent Amendment, and I would really appeal to him to treat me fairly in the matter. It is extremely difficult for me to keep the Committee to the point, and a right hon. Gentleman of such long standing as the right hon. Member I should have thought would assist the Chair.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
Well, I hope that I have not deserved that rebuke. [An HON. MEMBER: You have.] I have endeavoured to ask from the Government an explanation which I believe will clear up a great many difficulties which exist, and I believe that a short and plain statement of that kind would have facilitated business. As to treating the right hon. Gentleman fairly, there is no man in this House, I hope, who more desires to treat the Chair fairly, and to treat the right hon. Gentleman with that respect which I sincerely feel for him. I thought that at the beginning of a Clause which deals with the whole question of management, and upon which all the Amendments must depend, a request for an elucidation from the Government would forward business, 150 and not retard it. I believe so still, but if it is the fact that we are not at liberty to ask for an explanation from the Government of their views upon this subject, I bow at once to your decision. I regret that it is necessary to take a course which, in my opinion, will add to the difficulties of the discussion, and which will prolong and not shorten debate.
§ *(12.50.) SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)
said he had been anxious on several occasions in the course of those debates to make one or two comments on the action of the West Riding County Council. He had considerable interests in that part of the country, and spent a certain portion of each year there, and he could not help expressing his sincere disappointment at the policy the Council had adopted with regard to the Education Bill. He was sure that the West Riding County Council would be perfectly adequate for the task which this House sought to impose on them. The County Councils in Lancashire and Yorkshire were doing a magnificent work in the cause of technical education, and the many schools over which they exercised supervision proved—
* THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order ‡ I do not see what relevance this has to the Amendment. Will the hon. Gentleman kindly apply himself to the Amendment before the Committee?
§ * SIR FRANCIS POWELL
said that, of course, if he had trangressed he was extremely sorry. He was simply controverting the argument that the West Riding County Council were not adequate to perform the duty put upon them, and therefore that the word "may" should be inserted instead of "shall" That was a proposed change of a fundamental character. The object of this Bill was to create the same authority all over the country, and if "may" were substituted for "shall" the Committee would be going back upon important decisions which it had already given. In substance the Committee had already decided that there should be a universal decision.
§ MR. M'KENNA
said that, as it now stood, the Bill imposed an imperative responsibility upon the local authority for the maintenance and 151 efficiency of the elementary education. His hon. friend proposed that the responsibility should be optional and not imperative, and he supported him in that because, under the Bill, it would be I in the power of managers to incur liabilities which the local authority would be bound to pay. If the managers failed to carry out any directions of the local authority they were under no penalty. It was not reasonable that the responsibility for efficiency should rest with that authority when it had no means of enforcing obedience to its instructions upon the managers. Of course, they could undertake the responsibility for maintenance, because the public purse was practically unlimited, but he did not see how they could be held responsible for the efficiency of the schools. He was accordingly in favour of making the responsibility of the local j authority optional, seeing that they were asking the local authority to carry out a duty which the Act gave them no power to enforce.
§ MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)
opposed the Amendment. He said it might be necessary to insert words which would make the control thoroughly efficient and effective, but if this Amendment were carried it would revive option in a much more objectionable form than it originally appeared in the Bill—a form which was condemned by a very large majority. The result would be that any county or borough authority would have the power to decline to have anything to do with elementary education. Under the Clause already passed, the powers and duties of the School Boards and School Attendance Committee had been transferred to the local authority, which was to have complete control over secular education, but if the Amendment were carried it would not be bound to give a single penny towards the support, say, of a voluntary school. It would give bodies which held opinions represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite the power to starve out voluntary schools, and would render our educational system far more chaotic than at present. It was a most unsatisfactory Amendment.
§ MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland)
said it might be an unsatisfactory Amendment, but then they were dealing 152 with a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. The whole situation had entirely changed since the House adjourned in August last.
§ MR. TREVELYAN,
continuing, said there had been an agitation in the country. The least formidable part of that agitation was the speeches made by Members of this House. Rather more formidable had been the expressed intention of Nonconformists to refuse to pay rates, but the most serious part of the agitation was the declaration of some county councils that they would find themselves incapable of administering the Bill if it became law. Three Welsh counties had announced that they could not undertake the responsibility of administering the Bill, and the great County Council of the West Riding had passed a resolution declaring their opinion that if the Bill became law in its existing form any attempt of the council satisfactorily to administer its provisions would be futile and hopeless. The fact that this county council was composed of responsible businesslike men made that a very serious consideration indeed. It was probably the most important County Council in the North of England, and surely its declaration that I it regarded it as futile and hopeless to work the Bill had created a new situation. In many towns the municipal elections in November would be fought on the education question. Test questions were being put to candidates as to whether they would refuse subsidies to schools in which religious tests for teachers were still retained, and no doubt the result of the contests would be the election of many municipal authorities pledged to protest against the working of the Bill. That would necessarily lead to friction between the local and the central authority of a very serious kind, and therefore he believed the Government would do well to accord to the local authorities a latitude of action which would prevent them from coming into collision with the central authority.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
asked what would happen if the local authorities had the right to please themselves whether they would assist voluntary schools or not? Take the case of the great towns in which 153 they had such admirable School Boards. People would no doubt be very sore over the abolition of these Boards. What would they do? They would say: "We will give no aid to the voluntary schools" But they must not forget that the voluntary schools educated half the working classes of the country, and these children were the citizens of tomorrow, just as much as the board school children. They were told that the premises of these schools were old, that the teachers were ill-qualified, that the teaching apparatus was antiquated and scanty, and that, in every respect, they failed to meet modern requirements. Yet his hon. friend contemplated that state of affairs with satisfaction, and would support a continuance of that state of things ‡ He disagreed with the policy of wiping the slate clean. Take the other case. There were eight great county boroughs which never had a School Board —county boroughs like Stockport, Wigan, and Preston—
§ DR. MACNAMARA
admitted that he had not quite accurately stated the fact. They had a School Board in Wigan which levied a small rate, but it had no board school. With regard to those great towns that had no rate, it had been said of the people that they preferred denominational teaching; that, no doubt, was quite true. The great bulk of the people of those towns would assent to any sort of religious instruction rather than pay a rate. If they had this option they would say "Things will go on very well; we have never had a rate here, and with God's help we never will" He had spoken of the hopeless condition of Stockport with regard to their schools, and their preference for the denominational system. The one good thing about this Bill was that it would make the authority come down on the ratepayers. If they came down on the ratepayers it would be a good thing, as it would make these people meet their communal obligations, which they had so long been able to contract themselves out of under the guise of piety, which was only another name for parsimony. There was a meeting at Stockport to disagree with everything he said, and the meeting was told 154 not to be frightened about the prospect of a rate, that there would be no rate, and that there was another million additional State-aid, so that they would be able to keep Stockport free from rate. And that sort of thing would continue. These eight great county boroughs, containing over 100 municipal areas—a third of the municipal areas of the country—would continue to contract themselves out. What had to be done was to make education a public charge at once and universally. Grateful as the country was to the voluntary contributor, it could not be doubted that the time had gone by when he could be of use. Yet this state of things was going to be continued by the use of the word "may" instead of the word "shall" So far as he was concerned, he was prepared to let the Bill go with all its faults, because he was convinced that those local authorities which now protested against it would see in double-quick time that if popular control were assented to, it would be complete and full. If they left the matter to the local authorities, the genius of the English people would see to it that this public money would be followed by popular control.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Caernarvon Boroughs)
said he did not doubt the genius of the English people, but it operated very slowly and took a long time to come into operation. This sort of talk went on in 1870, and the only result since then had been that whilst the voluntary contributions had gone up to something like £5,000,000, control had not been increased at all. Every one was agreed about the inefficiency of the voluntary schools, but what was the influence which kept them from being condemned in all these years while they were receiving the Government grants, when as a matter of fact they ought to have been condemned? It was a curious fact that the people who had succeeded in evading the law all these years were the very people who condemned the breach of the law when it came to a question of religion. The best way of meeting this state of things was not by making the Act compulsory. If they made the proposal compulsory, they lowered and degraded the standard of education, but if they made it optional 155 they would force up the standard all over the country. He instanced the County Council of Glamorganshire, who could not administer the Act because there would be such a feeling that they could not get a sympathetic authority, and they certainly would not go against the wishes of their constituents. Would there be a mandamus to compel the council? Did that mean that they would send some one to gaol for contempt of Court? Whom would they send? Would they send the Chairman of the Glamorgan County Council to gaol? They had provided for that already by electing a Conservative, and the Government could not imprison its friends. But they mightsay, "Well, there wastheclerk," but he was a good old Tory. Would it be the county treasurer? He was the leader of the Conservative party in the county. Although it was a liberal and progressive council, it happened that all their officials were Conservative. That only showed how broad-minded they were. And these were the County Councils to which they would not give an option ‡ It was amusing to see London Members, who had not room for one-fifth of their people in their chapels, so concerned about religion that they would not allow this matter to be left in the hands of the County Councils of Wales. He did not think the Prime Minister had gone so far as the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in contemplating the possibility of this civil war. They would have to face it throughout the whole country. The Prime Minister might think there was nothing in it, but he would know better after the November elections. It was a question of dealing not with a small Welsh County Council, but with Town Councils and County Councils all over the country. If the Prime Minister was going to put the 250,000 inhabitants of Fulham into prison he would require a new Prisons Bill as a sequel to the Education Bill. It was far better to trust these Councils. They had a great sense of duty and responsibility, and would act in moderation and even in a spirit of compromise. The Church laity, being anxious to see their schools preserved, would meet the County Councils in a spirit of conciliation, and a good working arrangement might be arrived at. If the Prime Minister desired to see his Bill a success it would be better to leave 156 this option. The extreme Nonconformists were the party of lavish expenditure on education, and the Church party was the party of economy. Unless this option was given, the party of lavish expenditure would be arrayed with the party of parsimony, and education, not merely in the voluntary schools, but as a whole, would be starved out. The Prime Minister had a chance once more of, at any rate, giving his Bill a chance. By leaving it to the County Councils and Town Councils to make the best arrangement they could, there might be something which would be workable.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
thought that anybody who had listened to the hon. Gentleman would be of opinion that he was justified, at an earlier stage of the proceedings, in reminding the Committee that the difficulty which had been raised was really the difficulty which Clause 5 was intended to meet. Clause 5 was the proper remedy. He thought the hon. Member desired this particular form of option, as distinguished from that of Clause 5, because it would give the County Councils an opportunity of squeezing the voluntary schools out of existence.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said the voluntary schools could not be squeezed out of existence, because they had the buildings and they could always say they would take the buildings away. On the other hand, the council could give or withhold the rates. At all events, they could meet as equal partners; each party would have something to give away, and that was all that was wanted to make a bargain.
§ MR. A.J. BALFOUR
said it seemed to him that the only thing the hon. Gentleman's friends would have to give away was, he would not say their consciences, but that to which they had a conscientious objection. They went about saying with great earnestness and, he was sure, with perfect conviction, that it was a wicked thing to contribute to the support of any school in which denominational teaching was carried on.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said, that without going into the comparative merits 157 or demerits of the great County Councils, he did not think it would be wise to have the parti-cloured system of support which the Amendment would introduce into the Bill. The County Councils would themselves be constantly fighting as to whether they should support this or that denominational school, and as to the amount of the support to be given. That was not a practical or a tolerable system. Clause 5 left it open to the Councils to say whether they would work the Bill or whether they would not. But, if they worked the Bill, let them work it as a scheme in its entirety, dealing with all schools in their area upon one principle, and for the common good of the children in the county. He hoped it was not in this direction, at all events, that the Committee could be induced to listen to any change desired by the hon. Gentleman.
§ * MR. ABEL THOMAS (Carmarthenshire, E.)
said the Carmarthenshire County Council had come to the resolution that if this Bill were passed they would not carry it out, because they could not, and because they had conscientious objections. Only two out of forty Members voted against that resolution, and even they, although Conservatives, did not speak in favour of the Bill, but simply said that as county councillors they ought not to pass such a resolution. Such resolutions were passed with the intention of being carried out. Thus, since the House adjourned in August a new position had arisen which they had to face, and he should vote for the Amendment because it was a way out of the difficulty.
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)
said that after the discussion of the previous evening the only foundation for the idea that there could be control of any completeness in the hands of the local authority over the local managers lay in the word used by the hon. Member for North West Ham with regard to the "power of the purse" But, if in the very forefront of the Clause it was laid down that the local authority I must maintain and keep efficient the schools, the power of withholding supplies was withdrawn, and the whole argument of the hon. Member for North West Ham was knocked on the head. "Shall" meant "must," and "must" meant a statutory obligation to maintain the schools efficiently. Cases had been cited in the 158 House in which managers had evaded the Conscience Clause by taking children from the schools to a service called the "Mass," not in the hours allocated to religious instruction but in the ordinary set hours, and the late Vice President of the Committee on Education had repeatedly stated that he had no power to interfere. Suppose in such an instance a County Council threatened to withhold the supplies from the school until the objectionable practice was discontinued, they would not have a log to stand on, because by the word "shall" they would be bound to continue the salaries of the teachers and to maintain and keep efficient that school. That was a conclusive reason in favour of the Amendment. He thought the Committee would be well advised not to let the difference between the word "shall" and "may" pass until they had got some much better assurance of real control over the acts of which they had ample evidence on the part of managers, and which this Bill gave no more power to control than they had at the present time. That was a consideration which had not yet been put before the Committee.
§ (1.30.) MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)
said that before they went to a division he should like to say one word in reply to what the right hon. Gentleman had said. The importance of the Amendment was that it brought them face to face with a serious practical problem which was threatening them. This was not the time to force upon local authorities functions which they disclaimed, and which they declared they were unable to undertake. The right hon. Gentleman must face the fact that a number of these Boards said they could not do the work. How were they going to meet that difficulty? The right hon. Gentleman had given them no light upon that point. These Boards said they had not the machinery, or the connection with these denominational schools, which would enable them to exercise effective control over them. The right hon. Gentleman had not thrown any light upon the question as to how the county and borough councils were to act in regard to these schools. If they gave an option to the local authorities they would be able 159 to make terms with the sectarian schools. This proposal would afford material for a bargain which would be better than the conflict to which the Bill was leading. On those grounds he felt that he must support the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said the House should give County and Borough Councils power to deal with all the schools in one area upon one principle, but that was exactly what the Bill did not do, and so far from doing this it created two sets of schools, one set over which they would have complete control, and the other over which they would have a smaller and qualified control. It was because they had not this power that they were obliged to make this protest.
§ * MR. CORRIE GRANT (Warwickshire, Rugby)
said the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs stated that whenever this power had to be enforced it would be by mandamus, and would be addressed to the officials of the County Council. He thought his hon. friend was wrong there. The course would be to get a resolution proposed before the council to enforce some part of these powers, and then those who refused to carry out that power would be mandamused by the central authority as having refused to carry out the resolution. Ho did not think it was fair, that in carrying out this Act, only one section of the community should be liable to go to prison. A very large number of people had said that, rather than pay the education rate, they were prepared to go to prison. Men like Dr. Clifford meant what they said upon this question. What would happen when the Government came into conflict with the local authority? They were calling upon men who had offered their services to the constituencies for particular purposes to do an entirely different class of work for which they had not offered themselves, and of which they had no knowledge when elected. When the Opposition suggested that this Bill should not be brought into force until after a County Council election, the Prime Minister refused that Amendment, and insisted upon imposing these duties upon the men already elected. In the case of the Keighley Board of Guardians, 160 they refused to carry out a particular provision of the Vaccination Act, and the Local Government Board mandamused them and the Guardians went to prison. He had looked up the records to find how they got out of prison, but he was not successful. From the information he had received from one of the guardians, the Governor of the gaol came to him one morning and said, "Well, you can go home" The guardian replied: "I do not want to go home, for I am not going to obey the orders of the Local Government Board" The I Governor said that he had nothing to do with that question, and said he had been told that he could go home, and this guardian went home. Therefore when these guardians had been in prison a few weeks the Government opened the prison doors and let them go home. Whenever the Government attempted to impose duties upon local authorities which they did not want to carry out the same thing would happen.
§ * MR. HELME (Lancashire, Lancaster)
said that Members on their side of the House fought to establish the right of popular control over secular instruction in the schools throughout the country. The Prime Minister would relieve the country of great uncertainty and Parliament of a very serious waste of time if he would put before the House the exact measure of popular control to be given by the Bill. He appealed to the Government to relieve them of the necessity of fighting one Amendment after another to secure it.
* THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is not confining himself to the Amendment, and he is discussing a subsequent Amendment. There is an Amendment on the Paper which raises this very point, and therefore the hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment before the Committee.
§ * MR. HELME
said that he should like to be assured that the control to be given to the local authorities would be effective, and he should have preferred to see the direction to them made absolute. In present circumstances he was bound to vote for the Amendment, as seeking 161 to secure for the authority the power of making what arrangements seemed to them to be best.
§ SIR WILLIAM MATHER (Lancashire, Rossendale)
asked the Chairman on what Amendment this very important question might be raised. It was the crux of the Bill.
* THE CHAIRMAN
There are several. There is one standing in the name of one of the hon. Members for Monmouthshire. There are also many others.
SIR JOSEPH LEKSE (Lancashire, Accrington)
asked if that was not limited to the control of the expenditure.
* THE CHAIRMAN
This is not a question for me to answer. All I have to decide is whether the discussion is relevant to the Amendment now before the Committee.
§ this question entirely from the point of view of administration and education. He felt confident, at all events, that in Wales, if the County Councils were allowed to have power to negotiate with the managers of voluntary schools, there would be little or no difficulty, and in a very short time terms which, would be satisfactory to those who wished to see complete popular control, and also to those who desired to retain control over denominational schools, could be arranged so as to secure the cordial co-operation of those bodies. He was confident that if negotiations between the County Councils and the managers of voluntary schools were allowed, within a very short time they would come to such an arrangement as he had suggested. The idea that Christianity in Wales was in any jeopardy was absurd.
§ (1.43.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 86. (Division List No. 391.) (2.0.)163
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton||Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm'nds|
|Aird, Sir John||Chapman, Edward||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Clare, Octavius Leigh||Gretton, John|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Clive, Captain Percy A.||Greville, Hon. Ronald|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Groves, James Grimble|
|Arrol, Sir William||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G (Midd'x|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow||Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W m.|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cranborne, Viscount||Harris, Frederick Leverton|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Crossley, Sir Savile||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Healy, Timothy Michael|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Dickson, Charles Scott||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Hickman, Sir Alfred|
|Bathurst, Hon Allen Benjamin||Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.||Higginbottom, S. W.|
|Beckett, Ernest William||Doughty, George||Hoare, Sir Samuel|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside|
|Bignold, Arthur||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Horner, Frederick William|
|Bill, Charles||Fardell, Sir T. George||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Kemp, George|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Fisher, William Hayes||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Law, Andrew Bonar, (Glasgow|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th|
|Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Flower, Ernest||Lawson, John Grant|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow||Forster, Henry William||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham|
|Carlile, William Walter||Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Gardner, Ernest||Leigh Bennett, Henry Currie|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Garfit, William||Llewellyn, Evan Henry|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'r H'mlts||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (W'rc'r||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Lowe, Francis William|
|Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Purvis, Robert||Stroyan, John|
|Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Pym, C Guy||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison||Randles, John S.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Rankin, Sir James||Thornton, Percy M.|
|MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Ratcliff, R. F.||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Remnant, James Farquharson||Valentia, Viscount|
|M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Manners, Lord Cecil||Ritchie, Rt. H n. Chas. Thomson||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.|
|Milvain, Thomas||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Ropner, Colonel Robert||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)||Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Mooney, John J.||Round, Rt. Hon. James||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n|
|More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w||Rutherford, John||Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.|
|Mount, William Arthur||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute||Seton-Karr, Henry||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.|
|Nicholson, William Graham||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)||Younger, William|
|Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n||Smith, H.C (North'mb Tyneside||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Pemberton, John S. G.||Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.|
|Percy, Earl||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard||Spear, John Ward||TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Plummer, Walter R.||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Pretyman, Ernest (George||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead||Grant, Corrie||Rea, Russell|
|Allen, Charles P. (Gloue, Stroud||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Brigg, John||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Helme, Norval Watson||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Holland, Sir William Henry||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Horniman, Frederick John||Spencer. Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants|
|Caine, William Sproston||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Caldwell, James||Jacoby, James Alfred||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Cawley, Frederick||Kinloch, Sir John George Smith||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Kitson, Sir James||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Langley, Batty||Toulmin, George|
|Crombie, John William||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Wallace, Robert|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Levy, Maurice||Wason, Eugene|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Lewis, John Herbert||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Edwards, Frank||Lloyd-George, David||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Ellis, John Edward||Logan, John William||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Fenwick, Charles||M'Kenna, Reginald||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.||Mather, Sir William||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Moulton, John Fletcher|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Newnes, Sir George||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Philippn, John Wynford||Mr. Alfred Hutton and|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Pirie, Duncan V.||Mr. Trevleyan.|
§ (2.30.) MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Brightside) moved an Amendment providing that the local education authority shall, "without financial discrimination between schools provided by themselves and schools not so provided," maintain 164 and keep efficient all public elementary schools within their area under certain specified conditions. He did not mean to argue that every school indiscriminately should be treated alike, for he could conceive cases in which the cost of living in 165 certain places might cause the salaries of teachers not to do so high as in schools elsewhere, and cases where the record of the schools was one of inefficiency. The Bill had been advocated, and indeed had also been attacked, on the ground that it would bring up voluntary schools taken over by the local authority to the same level, and would give them the same financial support, as the schools provided; out of the rates. If the intention was to be carried out, this section was the proper place in which to carry it out. He submitted, however, that the words of the section did not sufficiently carry it out. The section said that the local authority was to maintain the schools in efficiency, but did not say it was to keep all schools on a like level of efficiency. He did not propose by his Amendment that there should be absolutely no discrimination. What he proposed was that no set of schools should be less adequately supported than others because they had not been provided out of the rates—in fact that, given the necessary condition of efficiency, all schools should have equal treatment. What he feared was that in some cases—no doubt rare cases—the local authority might say: "We are compelled to take these schools over, but we will not pay them more than up to the present they have already cost" The Education Department might say: "You are not maintaining these schools in a state of efficiency," but in that case the local authority might answer: "These schools you have hitherto admitted to be efficient. Why, then, do you require more of us than you have done yourselves?"
In page 3, line 4, after 'shall,' to insert 'without discriminating schools provided by themselves and schools not so provided.'"—(Mr. James Hope.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted"
§ * THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD 0F EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University)
said he hoped that his hon. friend would not press the Amendment. His hon. friend suggested that the local education authority might not deal fairly with all the schools within the area; but they were bound by the Bill to maintain the efficiency of all public elementary schools. They had, 166 through their powers of direction, complete control of secular instruction. Therefore, if the local authority was disposed to be unfair to a school, he did not see how far any words which could be inserted in the Bill could make them act fairly. Personally, he should be sorry to suggest by any words in the Bill that this Committee contemplated such an unfair discrimination between one school and another as that which the hon. Member seemed to consider possible, and he would be very unwilling to cast such a slur on the local authorities. They had the duty thrown on them to maintain the schools in a state of efficiency, satisfactory to the Board of Education, and if they said that, in their opinion, this standard of efficiency would be sufficient for one district, and that another and higher degree of efficiency was suitable to another district, the Board of Education could not intervene.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON
thought the suggestion of the hon. Member was very significant. The object of the Amendment was to prevent the educational authority from exercising any financial control. The answer of the Secretary to the Board of Education was that the Department had no means of compelling an authority to treat all its schools equally, and that if they chose to make any difference between their schools the Department had no power to prevent them. It was therefore necessary for the Committee to know how far the power to make the educational authority treat all its schools fairly lay with the Department. It would be necessary to know whether it was possible under this Clause for the County Councils to exercise the control given to them.
§ * MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)
said that this was a matter which he had had in his mind for some time, but he had always gathered that the point was fully met by sub-Section 2 of the Clause, which provided that, it any question arose between the school management and the education authority, it should be decided by the Board of Education. He took it that if the county authority refused to accept the decision of the Board of Education with regard to a dispute, the 167 Board could refuse the grant on account of any particular school. Because it must be borne in mind that no grants would go to the managers direct—they were to be paid to the County Authority. Another point to which he would draw attention was that this subject was frequently discussed, as though the efficiency which had to be secured were merely the efficiency of instruction. If hon. Members were doubtful as to the operation of the Clause, they should turn to the definitions in the Day School Code with regard to efficiency, and they would find that it meant much more than the character of the instruction in the school. If the efficiency was merely efficiency in instruction, things could go on in the old way, but it was not so, and some discrimination would be necessary in detail. The Board had to be satisfied that the conditions were themselves satisfactory and efficient, and this condition could not be complied with unless the various classes of schools were properly financed by the local authority. The fear raised, therefore, by the Amendment was unfounded. Nothing in the Bill removed the control of the Board of Education from these schools. The Board's power to withhold the grant would be a sufficient check upon failure.
§ SIR EDWARD GREY (Northumberland, Berwick)
said that, if the hon. Member who had just sat down was right in his interpretation of sub-Section 2, this Amendment was unnecessary. But in the summer the Prime Minister said that that sub-Section merely meant that, if the dispute between the managers and the local authority related to a question of secular education, the Board of Education would not overrule the local education authority. That was a much narrower interpretation. He thought, therefore, that if there was any misconception it was desirable that it should be cleared up at once.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
expressed the opinion that it was only right that the matter should be cleared up now, because it must have a bearing on every Amendment on this Clause. The hon. Member for North West Ham was the (unofficial interpreter of the Bill on behalf of the 168 Government. Would they accept the gospel of the hon. Member for North West Ham? This was a very serious matter. What did it mean? Not that they had more control than they thought, but less. According to the hon. Member for North West Ham they could not discriminate at all because of sub-Section 2. What did that mean The managers of the denominational schools might say that this year they want £350 more, that their expenses were so and so; when they run up bills for that, could the central authority then say, "We cannot pay it. You are spending too much, your salaries are too high or your staff is too big," and then say "you are running up too big a bill?" In that case the school managers might say: "You are discriminating between school and school," and they would go to the clerk in the Education Department who wrote in the names of" My Lords of the Educational Department," and that particular clerk would overrule the supreme control. He would rather see the Amendment carried.
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SIR ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)
said that the Bill was perfectly clear. It was the duty of the local education authority to maintain all schools alike, and, therefore, any words forbidding discrimination were unnecessary. If discrimination were attempted the remedy was provided under Section 11, which said that if the local authority failed to fulfil any of its duties the Board of Education should hold a public inquiry and make an order, which was to be enforced by mandamus.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said they were back again on the mandamus. The real working power of the Bill was mandamus, although the Committee had been told the County Councils were to be independent, and to have absolute control. He had himself called attention to sub-Section 2, upon which the hon. Member for North West Ham relied altogether to bring about this reform. The supreme power in this matter was not the County Council nor the educational authority, but the hon. Member the Secretary of the Board of Education, who sat opposite. The hon. Gentleman was a man of strong opinions, but if it was supposed that this 169 was a satisfactory solution of the question of education when a question arose between the County Councils and the school managers, he was quite certain that that would be found to be a mistake; there would be a sentiment that the school managers were in the right. They had been told that this was a matter of decentralisation, and that if they chose to refrain from doing what they were ordered to do, the education authority had no power to compel them to do it except by the operation of Clause 11, to which the Attorney-General had been good enough to call attention. What were they to do, supposing that the educational authority gave a direction to the managers to do something, and the managers failed or refused to do it? The Board of Education had to call them to account, and they were to hold a public inquiry into the conduct of the County Council; a public inquiry before a criminal authority. The educational authority was to be brought by the denominational managers before the Board of Education in London, and the Board of Education would conduct the business and be the prosecutor of the County Council, the education authority, and were to make such an order as they thought necessary or proper for the purpose of compelling the educational authority to fulfil their duty. Then came the mandamus Who were they going to mandamus? The Parliamentary Grant came through the Board of Education, which was therefore the only body which was in a position of independence. If the Board of Education determined against the educational authority, and in favour of the denominational managers, the educational authority had no remedy at all, and it would continue to get the grant, though the school be conducted contrary to its direction.
§ (3.0.) MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire Mid.)
said there appeared to exist on the other side the idea that after the Bill became law there would be two classes of schools, voluntary and Board. That was a complete misapprehension. There would be but one class of schools, and the local authority would be responsible for them. Of those schools, some would meet in buildings belonging to the local authority, and others in buildings belonging to the present voluntary school 170 owners. But the school itself, and everything pertaining to it, would belong to the ratepayers, and the ratepayers alone. It was just the same as with a man's horse. Whether a man put his horse in his own stable or into a stable belonging to someone else, and paid a rent for the use of the stable, it made no difference as to the ownership of the horse. In this case, whether the school was in its own buildings, or in buildings for which a rent was paid, would make no difference, and it was a complete fallacy to suppose that schools would be voluntary schools as they were at present.
§ MR. JAMES HOPE
said he was not entirely satisfied with what had fallen from the Secretary to the Board of Education, and he hoped that between now and the Report stage he would look further into the matter. For the moment, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)
said the Amendment only brought out the madness of trying to rate a community like this towards the support of Roman Catholic, of Church of England, or of any schools which were thoroughly tarred by the denominational brush. The thing was impossible; there was certain to be resistance and discrimination. Could any man believe that with public opinion excited as it was in certain districts, or in towns where religious animosity was as strong almost as in Belfast itself, it would be possible to obtain local authorities so free from prejudice that there would be no discrimination? That, however, was not an argument in favour of the present Amendment; it was an argument against the whole scheme of the Bill. Those who had had anything to do with the working of the machinery of mandamus knew that it was totally inapplicable to circumstances of the kind that would here arise. It was a cumbersome and difficult machinery to work even when only a single issue was at stake, as in the vaccination question, but here the remedy would be perfectly futile.
§ * SIR FRANCIS POWELL
was surprised at the observations of hon. Members with regard to mandamus. It appeared to be entirely forgotten that under the Act of 171 1870 the central authority had summary power over a School Board in default. Under that Act there existed a far more drastic remedy than that now proposed.
§ MR. WALLACE (Perth)
said his only objection to the procedure was that in this case it would not work, whereas the existing remedy, though it might be drastic, was certainly efficient. They could mandamus a man to do one particular act, but they could not mandamus a corporation, such as would be here involved, to perform their duty at large.
§ Amendment by leave withdrawn.
§ MR. M'KENNA moved to provide that the local education authority should "have sole control over the expenditure of all money publicly provided" His Amendment, he said, was intended to raise one aspect of the question of the relations between the local education authority and the managers. He contended that the Bill, as it now stood, allowed the voluntary school managers to incur unlimited liabilities as to teachers' salaries and equipment, and that all they would have to do would lie to send in the bill, not to voluntary subscribers as of old, but to the local education authority. It was clearly implied by Clause 7 that the denominational managers would correspond with the old voluntary school managers, and, if so, their powers would include an unlimited right of spending money, and the only chock would be by audit after the money had been spent. Under the present Clause the local education authority, which was bound to maintain the school, would have to pay the bills which those managers sent them, provided they had acted within the law. If that were the proper interpretation of the Clause it needed amendment. [Mr. BALFOUR: "Hear, hear"] There was nothing to limit the amount of money to be spent, and the local education authority; could only be said to hold the purse-strings in the same way that the Boards of Guardians held them over the School Boards at present, by audit. That meant that, provided the voluntary school managers had acted within the law, although, perhaps, not wisely or with discretion, their accounts would have to be passed. Who, then, was guilty of misrepresentation as to the terms of the 172 Bill? And was it not right to say the Bill gave power to spend taxation without any effective control? Under these circumstances he had introduced this Amendment, which gave to the local education authority complete control over the expenditure of all money publicly provided.
In page 3, line 4, after, "shall" to insert "have sole control over the expenditure of all money publicly provided, and shall"—Mr. M'Kenna.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted"
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that when the hon. Gentleman said that the Bill practically gave to the managers of voluntary schools the same power of drawing on the rates of their district as was now possessed by Board Schools, that surely was a very extravagant proposition not justified by any specific provision in the Bill, and absolutely contradictory of that broad principle that was laid down in Clause 3—that secular education should be completely under the control of the education authority. But while ho did not think the hon. Gentleman had been right in his interpretation of the Bill, and he was ready to admit that on that there might be disputes, there could be no dispute whatever as to the policy of the Government. From the day on which he introduced the Bill, and on every convenient occasion until the speech he had made at Manchester, he had always stated that the object of the Government was to make the control of secular education by the education authority complete. It stood to reason that if the voluntary school managers were to be able to dip into the public purse without any control except such as the audit provided, the intention and policy of the Government, declared over and over again, would be utterly defeated. He had said at Manchester, what, of course, he could not with propriety have said in introducing the Bill, that the Government would welcome any modification of Clause 8 which would make this control of secular education more obvious and more complete; and he was not at all sure, while he differed from 173 the hon. Gentleman in his interpretation of the Bill, that he was not so far right—he thought he was right, that it would be desirable to make it quite clear, on the very face of this Clause, that the financial control as far as secular education was concerned was and ought to be in the hands of the body which levied the rate; that was the body which ought to have control. Therefore he was only doing what he thought the Committee would desire, and what he had indicated at Manchester, when he said that as far as the principle of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment was concerned he was in sympathy with it. He thought, however, that this was not the proper place for the Amendment. If the hon. Gentleman would look at the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for the Wellington Division of Shropshire—line 6, after 'necessary,' insert" and have control of all expenditure required for that purpose other than expenditure for which, under this Act, provision is to be made by the managers,he would see, he thought, that by his object would be completely carried out, and in a manner more harmonious with the general drafting of the Bill. The Amendment he referred to was more harmonious with the general drafting of the Bill, and if the hon. Gentleman would assure the Government that he would accept that Amendment he would recommend that course to the Committee.
§ (3.30) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said this brought them to the discrimination between secular expenditure and denominational expenditure, and he would like to know how that discrimination was to take place. The Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred declared that the education authority was to have control over—All expenditure required for that purpose other than expenditure for which under this Act provision is to be made by the managers.He did not understand what that expenditure was. Was it distinct from the general expenditure on the schools? He hoped that he might now be allowed to go into the matter of what was the province of the managers and what the majority were to do with reference to the schools. Were they to have any 174 functions whatever after they had appointed a denominational master? Were they to interfere with the management at all? In this Amendment there was provision for certain expenditure by the managers. What was that expenditure?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said ho was arriving exactly at what he wanted. They now knew that the four managers had no functions with reference to these schools except the repair of the buildings. He was much obliged to the Attorney-General for throwing more light upon this point than they had hitherto had.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
No, no. We are dealing only with expenditure at present. I say that the expenditure they will provide is in reference to buildings.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said that then it was important to know what would be their functions besides those in reference to buildings. The Clause was entirely defective in this matter of expenditure and in not defining the office of the managers. The whole question turned upon what the managers were to do and what they were not to do. He understood that the managers had to have control of everything that cost money. They ought to have a clause in some form or other defining the duties of the managers. They ought to be told what relation they bore to the old managers created under the Act of 1870. There was no clear definition of this point in the Bill, and until they got that clear distinction made they could not arrive at a conclusion as to what would he the character of the control of the education authority. They were told that the managers would not have authority to give any order which led to expenditure except in regard to bricks and mortar, and he hoped that in regard to that expenditure, at all events, the Archbishop of Canterbury was not an absolute interpreter of the Bill, because he had told them that, though it was not quite settled yet, the voluntary managers would not spend any money upon the schools except upon very large alterations 175 in special circumstances, and. therefore, that there need be no annual subscription for the repairs of the schools.
MR. ALEXANDER BROWN (Shropshire, Wellington)
said the Amendment standing in his name made clear what had been the intention of the Bill all through in this matter. What the ratepayers were asked to pay for under the Bill would be under the control of the education authority.
§ MR. BRYCE
said he should like to ask one question with regard to the salary of the teachers, which would be the most important element of expenditure. Did they understand that whenever a teacher had to be appointed the managers would have to go to the local authority and obtain sanction to fix that salary at a certain figure, or would the managers be able, before they consulted the local authority, to advertise for a teacher at a certain salary? He should like to be informed whether there was any expenditure whatever which the managers could incur upon their own responsibility without referring to the local authority.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he had indeed spoken in vain if he had not made it quite clear to the Committee on the many occasions on which he had addressed it that according to his view, the staffing of the schools and the payment of the teachers' salaries were all matters within the determination of the local authority. When he had talked in the House and in the country of secular education being under popular control, he had always meant what he said. It appeared to him that the determination of the staff and the salaries of the teachers in the various schools was perhaps the most important subject with which the education authority would have to deal.
§ LORD HUGH CECIL
suggested that the word "appropriation" was wanted either instead of, or in addition to, the word "control." They wanted the idea that the local authority should appropriate particular funds to particular expenditure. This was a technical expression which he thought, if introduced, would meet the case.
§ MR. M'KENNA
said that if he could insert the word "sole" before "control" he would be glad to accept the Amendment, if it were also possible to insert the word "appropriation," he would be glad to accept that.
§ LORD HUGH CECIL
thought the term "sole control" might interfere with the central control of the Board of Education.
§ MR. M'KENNA
did not think that would affect the "sole." He suggested the word "sole" and, if possible, the word "appropriation" also.
§ * MR. ERNEST GRAY
drew attention to the words "publicly provided," and asked whether money would be regarded as "publicly provided" in cases where the schools were supported by a voluntary rate.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he did not want any misunderstanding. He personally saw no objection to the word "sole," but he would not like to pledge himself to it.
§ MR. M'KENNA
said he would reserve to himself the right to move the word "sole" when the time came.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
* THE CHAIRMAN
The first of the two Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rugby is out of order, because that question has already been disposed of by Clause 6. The second Amendment standing in the hon. Member's name is in order.
*(3.50.) MR. CORRIE GRANT moved the insertion, in the first sentence of the Clause providing that the local authority shall maintain and keep efficient all public elementary schools in its area, of the words "as hereinafter defined" after the words "keep efficient." His subsequent Amendment was as follows—
The term "keeps efficient "shall be interpreted to mean "keep efficient to the satisfaction of the Board of Education." In determining the standard of efficiency the Board of Education shall take into consideration—
Those were the three main points which he thought the House would agree it was most desirable that the Board of Education should insist upon maintaining from year to year (no matter what Party happened to be in power) in dealing with the administration of public elementary schools. There was not enough definition in this Bill, for they had already had conflicting interpretations of this measure, and therefore he hoped that the Prime Minister would endeavour to make this Bill better than most measures in this respect, so that those who had to administer it would be able to do so without taking so many legal opinions. He hoped they would succeed in putting into the Bill some clear definition of the words "keep efficient." He was aiming by his Amendment to put in a definition to which every one who cared about education at all should be able to agree. The Board of Education, first of all, had to determine the standard of efficiency. That was the duty of the Board of Education now. One difficulty they experienced now was that they had to collect from a series of documents exactly what was the view of the Board of Education as regarded efficiency in education. The Cockerton judgment pointed out one case in which the Board of Education had not always had a clear and definite idea of what could be done under the Act. He wished to put the definition he had suggested on record for the guidance of those who would have to carry out the new Education Act. The structural suitability of the buildings for educational purposes had become under this Bill a most important matter. Any one who visited the schools in the rural districts must know that, however good they were when they were first built, many of them could not now be said to be suitable in many respects. There had been great carelessness in the provision of light, and many of the schools seemed to have been constructed so as to prevent them getting satisfactory light. Those connected with the management of schools must be aware that within the last twenty-five or
thirty years progress in school buildings had been probably greater than in any other class of buildings. Many of the schools which passed muster in 1870 and 1880 were now only permitted because to interfere with them would deprive the locality of having any school at all. With regard to the healthy recreation of the children, no one could deny that opportunities for such recreation were absolutely necessary if the school work was to be efficiently done, and this was a matter which had been very much lost sight of in the schools built many years ago. A very great effort had been made recently to provide for the recreation of the children, but a great deal more might be done if the matter was kept persistently under the attention of the authorities.
Amendment proposed —
In page 3, line 5, after the word "efficient," to insert the words "as hereinafter defined."—(Mr. Carrie Grant.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that he did not think the words of the Amendment were very appropriate to insert in an Act of Parliament. He thought hon. Gentlemen would feel that it was impossible to go beyond the word "efficient" as defined from time to time by the Board of Education. This had been the practice hitherto. The word "efficient" occurred already in our statutes, and "efficiency" was defined by the Board of Education. In his opinion, the word was rightly defined in this way, and not by statutory definition, because the requirements of education had in our time varied greatly. We had no reason to believe we had reached perfection, even in theory, and he was not sure that any common-places laid down in an Act of Parliament would help the Board of Education in the future in dealing with this point.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said he did not understand the statement that under this Bill the judge of efficiency would he the Board of Education. The Government were imposing upon the local education authority the obligation of keeping all the schools efficient, but that efficiency was not to be judged by 179 them. Under these circumstances the only real authority appeared to him to be the Board of Education in London. Therefore the statement that this Bill created an authority which they trusted was entirely unfounded.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that of course the Board must lay down a certain standard before paying a grant to the local authority, and that standard was the standard of efficiency.
§ (4.0.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said that the manner in which this Bill had been drawn left them absolutely in the dark as to the nature of the control which the local authority was to have. Now they were told that it was not to have control of the definition of efficiency. These local bodies could say: "If we are to have efficiency defined not by ourselves but by the Board of Education, then we decline to have anything to do with it." They had been told by the Secretary for Education that one of the great merits of this Bill was that the local bodies would be able to set up different standards of education in different communities. After what they had heard, he should like to know what became of the doctrine laid down by the First Lord of the Treasury that a standard was to be set up by the Board of Education for all parts of the country alike; because the right hon. Gentleman had stated distinctly that he was not merely as good a judge of what was wanted educationally in Bradford as the people of Bradford. All he could say was that when it became known throughout the country that the local authorities were to have a standard of efficiency settled for them, they would resent that they should not be recognised as the best judges of the character of the education to be given in their locality. The Board of Education, he maintained, had proved by their record in the past to be the worst possible judges of what was a good education. The condition of the voluntary schools in the country was proof of that. He remembered a Minister of Education, Mr. Acland, who had tried to do something for the voluntary schools, but who was laughed at in this House for his projected reforms. The Board of Education had never compelled the managers of the voluntary schools to make them efficient. 180 When they attempted to do so, they were always met with the most determined opposition of the managers, and one of the reasons why, in his opinion, this Amendment should be pressed was because the security for efficiency proposed in the Bill seemed to him most futile.
§ SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)
said it might not seem strange that a representative of the recent Board of Education should intervene for a moment to correct what had been said in the course of the debate. He had never stated that there was to be a different standard of education in different parts of the country. What he had said was that there would be different kinds of education according to the necessities of the district. It was a recommendation—and a very great recommendation—of this Bill that the local authorities having charge of education in various parts of the country would be able to give that kind of education which was required in those particular parts of the country. With regard to efficiency, the duty of maintaining it had, in recent years, been thrown upon the Board of Education. The Board were entrusted with the expenditure of many millions of money, and they would have committed a breach of their national duty if they did not see that the schools were reasonably efficient before paying over the money. No doubt there were many schools in the country in which the efficiency was capable of improvement, but there had been no case where the Board of Education had ever paid, except as temporary grants, a grant to a school which was believed to be, and found by the inspectors to be, inefficient. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had advanced propositions which were not capable of proof, and had certainly attributed to him statements which he had never made.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that one advantage the House had derived from the altered geographical position of the right hon. Gentleman was that, for the first time in the past ten years, he had been able to perform the functions of a Minister of Education. [Cries of "Oh, oh," and "Withdraw."] He meant in this House. [Renewed cries of "Oh, oh," 181 and "Withdraw."] If he had said anything offensive to the right hon. Gentleman he would certainly withdraw. What ho meant was that the right hon. Gentleman had not had that freedom to express his opinions as the Minister of Education which they thought he ought to have had. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the grants had been with drawn from voluntary schools which were regarded as efficient. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman—Did he mean to say that the grants had been withdrawn from every school which was unfit, badly ventilated, and ill-equipped? They knew perfectly well that there were thousands of schools in this country in that condition to which grants had been made, lie did not know whether the inspectors failed to report the condition of these schools, or whether there was some reason why they did not so report. One result of the Bill would be that something like two or three million. of money would be spent on education in the voluntary schools if the Act were put in operation; hut there was nothing in the Bill to induce the local authorities to improve, the education throughout their districts, and that was a justification for his hon. friend to move his Amendment, which called upon these local authorities to improve the buildings of the voluntary schools, some of which were not fit for little children to be imprisoned in. in pens, each and every day of their lives. The condition of many of these schools depressed the energies of the children, ruined their vitality, and sowed the seeds of disease. When they were voting more money for these voluntary schools they ought to have an interpretation in the Bill as to what was an improved system of education. The Prime Minister had given too many promises, and had put them in his perorations. What was wanted was something more than perorations. It was time that the right hon. Gentleman s perorations should be interpreted in something like the manner in which his hon. friend had interpreted them. He asked his right hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education whether there was a single phrase in this Bill which would enable the Board of Education to see that these schools were efficient.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that that sub-Section simply declared what burdens should fall upon the managers of the school: it did not say that the managers should repair the schools, and should keep them in good repair. The interpretation of the Archbishop of Canterbury was—[Cries of "Read the Bill"] Let him complete his sentence. If necessary he would read the Bill afterwards—the interpretation of the Primate was that that was a thing of such little importance that it would not be necessary to call upon the subscribers for money except once in ten years or so. The sub-Section of Clause 8 said—The managers of the school shall, out of funds provided by them, keep the school house in good repair, and make such alterations and improvements in the building as may be reasonably required by the local education authority.What was that but simply a power which they had at the present moment, and which had not been exercised, and under which there were thousands of absolutely inefficient schools. Let them make it a condition that efficiency was interpreted in such a way that the little children should not be driven into insanitary buildings to the prejudice of their health.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)
said he was very glad that this Amendment had been moved, since it had led to an exceedingly useful discussion. He would not say anything against the administration of the County Councils, because; he was a member of one himself: but be ventured to maintain that even if he held the highest view of the future administrative skill of the County Councils of England, he would not be able to blind himself to the fact that there were County Councils and County Councils, Boards of Guardians and Boards of Guardians, to whom the Board of Education ought to give a clear direction as to the maintenance and equipment in an efficient manner of their schools. In connection with the Amendment, he would like to take the opportunity of asking the Government to tell the Committee what had become of the chapter in the Code relating to building grants. For the first time that chapter had disappeared 183 from the Code this year, although it had formerly enabled the Education Department to lay down rules in regard to the improvement demanded in the buildings of the schools.
§ * SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said that in reply to the hon. Member who had moved this Amendment, he wished to express his own strong feeling of the undesirability of putting a standard of efficiency, as was proposed in the Amendment, into an Act of Parliament. It would be much better to move to reduce his salary, or that of the President of the Board of Education, and to raise questions on every possible occasion, and to secure efficiency in that way, than to put into the Bill words which would fix a minimum of efficiency. That was all he had to say in regard to the general point. As to the building rules, these had been carefully revised.
§ * MR. FLETCHER MOULTON (Cornwall, Launceston)
said he was sure that in this matter hon. Members on both sides of the House had one aim, and that was to secure that the efficiency of the schools should be real. There was one thing worse than a bad Act of Parliament, and that was an uncertain one. He wanted to set forth the reason why he thought there should be some defining word with regard to efficiency. He did not claim that the terms of the Amendment of his hon. friend were the only words that would accomplish the desired result, but if the words were "efficient to the satisfaction of the Board of Education," that would satisfy him. There ought to be some standard of efficiency that could be readily enforced. It should be an elastic standard of efficiency—elastic in such a way that the advancing views of the country, from time to time, might be reflected in the actual management of the schools. A number of his hon. friends on the other side had, in perfectly good faith, referred to sub-Section (d) of Clause 8. If they would kindly follow him, he thought he could show that that was a completely insufficient answer to the 184 objection that efficiency was not defined, because that sub-Section only applied to schools not provided by the local authority. What they wanted to do was to keep the local authority to their duty, and the provision which his hon. friends relied upon with such confidence as creating what was wanted, only referred to that class of schools not provided by the local authority. But there was a further reason. The words of the sub-Section only required the managers to obey the local authority; but they did not define the duty of the local authority. He suggested that either now, or at the Report stage, or at some other time, the Government should put in the Bill an immediately enforceable and immediately interpretable standard of efficiency. He was perfectly certain that if they left it as at present, simple "efficiency," without any administrative (as contrasted with a judicial) power of deciding what was efficiency, they made it possible to have endless delays and endless controversies as to what was efficiency.
§ MR. M'KENNA
said that on the previous day they had had a most interesting speech from the hon. Member for West Ham, who had given the Committee a description of the lamentable condition of many of the voluntary schools. These were largely out of repair, and not efficient. Now the only sanction for efficiency in the Clause as it stood was that of the Education Department, but that Department was responsible for the inefficiency of these schools during the past thirty years. Were they not, therefore, justified in saying, after an experience of thirty years, that they required some other definition of efficiency than that interpreted by the Board of Education? He agreed with what had been said by his hon. friend that if they desired that the school buildings should be kept up to date and in good repair, seeing they had only voluntary subscribers to rely upon, some other authority should be substituted for the Board of Education. For that reason he supported the Amendment.
§ (4.23.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 87;Noes, 212. (Division List No. 392.)187
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Helme, Norval Watson||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Holland, Sir William Henry||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Horniman, Frederick John||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants|
|Brigg, John||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Jacoby, James Alfred||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Burns, John||Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Burt, Thomas||Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth||Tomkinson, James|
|Caine, William Sproston||Langley, Batty||Toulmin, George|
|Caldwell, James||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Levy, Maurice||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lewis, John Herbert||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Lloyd-George, David||Wason, Eugene|
|Cremer, William Randal||Logan, John William||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Crombie, John William||Lough, Thomas||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall||Whiteley, George (York. W. R.)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)||M'Kenna, Reginald||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Mather, Sir William||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Wilson, Henry. J. (York, W R.)|
|Dunn, Sir William||Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montro-e||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Edwards, Frank||Moulton, John Fletcher||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Ellis, John Edward||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Fenwick, Charles||Piekard, Benjamin||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund||Pirie, Duncan V.||Mr. Corrie Grant and Mr. J. H. Whitley.|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.||Priestley, Arthur|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.||Gardner, Ernest|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. JA (Worc'r||Garfit, William|
|Arrol, Sir William||Chapman, Edward||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Charrington, Spencer||Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Clare, Octavius Leigh||Gordon, Maj Evans (TrH'mlets|
|Balcarres, Lord||Clive, Captain Percy A.||Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby- (Salop|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)|
|Barry, Sir, Francis T. (Windsor||Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge||Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S. Edm'nds|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Crossley, Sir Savile||Grenfell, William Henry|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Gretton, John|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Cust, Henry John C.||Greville, Hon. Ronald|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Groves, James Grimble|
|Bignold, Arthur||Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill|
|Bill, Charles||Dickson, Charles Scott||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Hambro, Charles Eric|
|Bond, Edward||Doughty, George||Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G (Midd'x|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Harris, Frederick Leverton|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Healy, Timothy Michael|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Health, Arthur Howard(Hanley|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Faber, George Denison (York)||Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.|
|Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Fardell, Sir T. George||Henderson, Sir Alexander|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasgow||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Hickman, Sir Alfred|
|Carew, James Laurence||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r||Higginbottom, S. W.|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside|
|Cantley, Henry Strother||Fisher, William Hayes||Horner, Frederick William|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Flower, Ernest||Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Forster, Henry William||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W||Kemp, George|
|Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Kimber, Henry||Nicholson, William Graham||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Knowles, Lees||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n||Stroyan, John|
|Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th||Pemberton, John S. G.||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Lawson, John Grant||Percy, Earl||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham||Plummer, Walter R.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Pretyman, Ernest George||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Purvis, Robert||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.||Pym, C. Guy||Valentia, Viscount|
|Lowe, Francis William||Randles, John S.||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sh'ffi'ld|
|Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale||Rankin, Sir James||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent||Ratcliff, R. F.||Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkmam||Remnant, James Farquharson||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Richards, Henry Charles||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n|
|MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W||Ropner, Colonel Robert||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Manners, Lord Cecil||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R)|
|Middlemore, John Throgmort'n||Round, Rt. Hon. James||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Milvain, Thomas||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Rutherford, John||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart -|
|Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.||Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.|
|Morgan, David J. (Walth'mst' W||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (I. of Wight)||yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Younger, William|
|Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew|
|Mount, William Arthur||Skewes-Cox, Thomas||Tellers FOR THE NOES— Sir Alexander Acland- Hood & Mr. Anstruther|
|Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute||Spear, John Ward|
§ (4.37.) MR. ALFRED HUTTON moved to insert after "efficient" the words "as regards secular instruction." He stated that the object of the Amendment was to make the local education authority completely responsible for all the financial arrangements with regard to the schools. He proposed the insertion of these words in order to provide that the money would be properly distributed by the Committee, and devoted only to purposes which had relation to the teaching of secular instruction. The point which he wished to make was this. It was quite possible that in schools of both classes some expense would be involved in carrying out the religious instruction. Supposing, for instance, in the case of Board Schools the pre-emption clause were accepted, there would then be a considerable amount of expense in relation to the teaching of creeds, catechisms, and the like. Not only would that be so in these schools, but also in other schools there would be the expense of prayer-books, catechisms, and various other religious books. These were things that ought to be kept perfectly clear and distinct in the 188 matter of public finance. He thought the First Lord of the Treasury could not have any objection to inserting the words, so that it would be made perfectly clear that the local education authority would be financially responsible only for secular instruction, and that they should in no way be financially responsible for the expense of sectarian or religious teaching in the schools.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
There is no idea that the local authority shall mix themselves up with the religious training or teaching in any of the denominational schools. On the contrary, both the hon. Gentleman and the upholders of the voluntary schools are absolutely agreed on that point. It is merely a question of drafting. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to accept it provisionally. I do not think there is any doubt about the meaning. It can be carried out at a later stage.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Our discussion has run so much on the voluntary schools, that I forgot for the moment that this Clause has a wider application. As regards the voluntary schools I entirely agree, but I do not think the hon. Member wishes it to apply to the board schools.
§ * MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)
said there was some distinction between the two cases, and he thought the distinction would be better made later on in another part of the Bill. It should remain lawful for the School Board to purchase copies of the Bible and such hymn-books and textbooks for teachers of Scripture history as were wanted for instruction under the Cowper-Temple Clause, while it should be unlawful to spend public money for religious instruction outside the Clause. The best plan would be for the Prime Minister to give a pledge to consider how the object of his lion, friend could be attained.
§ MR. MCKENNA
said the whole of this Clause was bad, and suggested that it should be reconstructed in such a manner as to give effect to the proposal of his hon. friend.
§ MR. BRYCE
concurred with the hon. Member for West Nottingham that there was a distinction between the two classes of schools. They were all agreed that there should be liberty in the case of ex-board schools to purchase books for religious instruction. They were all agreed that there should be no such power in the case of sectarian schools where any expenditure of money could be represented as given for sectarian purposes. He did not say whether this should be made clear by a new Clause, or by a sub-Clause, but he thought the Committee should have some assurance on the part of the Government that the point would receive consideration.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
There is no difference of opinion between hon. Gentleman opposite and the Government. I rather doubt whether any 190 Amendment is necessary, but the matter will have the consideration of the Government.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON
After the promise of the right hon. Gentleman I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
§ (4.45.) MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.) moved the insertion of the words "in their opinion" after "are," in line 3 of Clause 8, the object being to secure that the question whether particular schools were necessary should be left to the decision of the local education authority. He did not think that the words "which are necessary" in the Clause should be used without some qualification as to who was to decide what was necessary. The words he proposed to introduce were taken from the Act of 1870, and they would make it clear that the local education authority should in the first instance be the authority to decide whether a school was necessary or not. It might be said that Clause 10 of the Bill would meet the case, but that Clause dealt entirely with disputes, and they ought to try to frame the Bill so that there would be as few disputes as possible. Even if this Amendment were accepted, Clause 10 could still stand to supply the proper authority to decide in the case of disputes. In the Act of 1870 the question of necessity was dealt with boldly in a clause which was done away with under the present Bill. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
In page 3, line 6, after the word "are," to insert the words "in their opinion."—(Mr. Lough.)
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press for the 191 insertion of these words. By Clause 10 of the Bill any question that arises as to whether a further school is necessary or not is to be determined by the Board of Education. The effect of these words would be to make the local education authority the supreme and final judge in their area whether a school was necessary or not. I think the Committee will be of opinion that it is desirable to follow the practice which has hitherto prevailed of leaving to the Board of Education the controlling power in order that tolerable uniformity of action may be obtained. I submit to the Committee that the lines on which the Bill is drawn are much better than would be the lines which would follow if this Amendment were insisted upon.
§ MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN
said he had no doubt that the interpretation of the hon. and learned Gentleman was correct, namely, that the putting in of the words "in their opinion" would preclude any review under Section 10. If that was the case, he still thought it extremely desirable that the Amendment should be made. The whole aim of the Bill was decentralisation, but if the Bill remained as it was framed the Board of Education would be the sole arbiter on the question whether a school was necessary or not. He thought the Government would be acting in accordance with one of the main principles of the Bill if they accepted the Amendment.
§ MR. TREVELYAN
said the question here raised was that which would be considered when they came to deal with Clauses 9 and 10. It practically amounted to this, whether sectarian schools should be built over the head of the local education authority. It was pretty obvious what would happen in the case of a dispute if any small section wanted to build a school. They would always go to the Board of Education, and, if they had friends on that Board, the local authority would be overridden. The Amendment only sought to strengthen the hands of the local authority against the Board of Education, if it chose to take the part of the separate sections. The question raised by Clauses 9 and 10 was one of the most 192 important in the Bill. It was also one of the most objectionable features. The idea contained in these clauses was that it was desirable in order to settle the religious difficulty in the different districts that the children should be divided into sectarian pens, and brought up as little budding sectarians. This Amendment was directed against that, and he would, therefore, vote for it.
§ MR. WH1TLEY
said he intended to vote for the Amendment on purely educational grounds. There was nothing worse for children than having small schools. The Bill contemplated that a school with thirty children should be considered a necessary school. There were many places in the country where it was very desirable that small schools should be closed and the children brought together in larger schools. He read some time ago an article in one of the magazines on the development that had gone on in the rural districts of America in the direction of bringing scholars 1 together, instead of maintaining small and costly schools. Public conveyances were provided to collect the children from the scattered farm-houses, bring them to school, and take them home again. The article was written by an inspector of the American Education Department, and he gave very striking figures and opinions as to the immense benefit that system had been to education in the rural districts. In the larger schools there was more stimulus to competition, and greater possibility of having an efficient staff.
§ * MR. FLETCHER MOULTON
said he I thought he would be able to show that, in the most important point raised by: this Amendment, the provisions of the Bill were inadequate. There was no difference of object between the: Attorney General and himself. He should be exceedingly sorry to take away from the Board of Education the power to establish uniformity of standard throughout the kingdom, and if the introduction of this Amendment would have that effect he should certainly not I support it. He would, however, point; out that Clause 10, on which the 193 Attorney General relied, began with the words "In case of dispute." To a dispute there must be two parties. No doubt the local authority was one of the parties, but nowhere was there to be found in the Bill any provision defining the other party? Could a casual informer come and make a dispute and compel the local education authority to go before the Hoard of Education for a decision? If this were so there might at anytime be a dispute which would put in question any act of the local authority. It was therefore most important that there should be a provision in the Bill giving the local authority the primâ facie right to decide. It was also necessary that the provisions with regard to the dispute should be more carefully drafted and more elaborate. In Clause 10 they must have some words defining who were to be the parties to a dispute. lie was sure the Attorney-General would not think that in saying this he was attempting to put difficulties in the way of attaining the object the Government claimed to have in view.
§ (5.0.) MR. M'KENNA
said that as the Attorney-General was aware Section 5 of the Act of 1870 disappeared, and also the last part of Section 18 was repealed as far as the present discussion was concerned. Therefore, to define the meaning of the word "necessary" they would only have the first part of Section18. The Committee would see that the Amendment of his hon. friend was in accordance with Section 18, which said that the School Boards should maintain efficiently every school, and should from time to time provide such additional accommodation as was "in his opinion necessary." Clause 10 provided for cases of dispute, but between whom was not mentioned. They had to make a choice of line of two principles. Either they should restore Clause 5 of the Act of1870, and make it the duty of the local education authority to provide school accommodation for every child, in which case the words would not be necessary, or they should confine themselves to the first part of Section 18 of the Act, in which case the words would be necessary. Clause 10 was altogether insufficient to guide the local authority in coming to a reasonable conclusion, and therefore he would support the Amendment.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said that what his hon. and learned friend opposite said in reference to Clause 10 would, of course, receive that respectful consideration which anything his hon. and learned friend suggested deserved. His present impression, however, was that the Clause as it stood was sufficient. The point suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Monmouth had not escaped attention, and if the hon. Gentleman would look at the notice Paper he would see that his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education had put down an Amendment making it clear that there would be no liability on the local authority in the matter.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said he desired to call attention to the view taken by the Government of their new education authority. The Government were placing the control of education in the hands of self-governing bodies as the County Councils and the Borough Councils. One would have thought that if there was any subject on which bodies of that kind were fit to judge it would be what schools were necessary within their areas. All that was said now or on sub-Section 2, or that would be said in Clause 9 and Clause 10 about future schools, was and would be based on the assumption that those bodies were unfitted to discharge the duties to be put upon them. Any body which was not to determine what new schools were necessary, or what old schools were unnecessary, within its area was unfitted to be a great educational authority. Up to the present they had a kind of haphazard method by which schools were set up here, there, and everywhere, without regard to distribution. Now the Government claimed to be setting up a new single national authority for the co-ordination of the education of the country, and yet it was to be set forth in the Bill that that authority was not capable of finally deciding what schools were or were not necessary in its own area. That was a condemnation of the whole principle of the Bill, and to refer such a matter to the Education Department was to lay down that the local authority was in-capable of discharging one of its first duties. Who would dispute the right 195 of the local authority? It would be the private adventurers who managed the voluntary schools and who would ask the Education Department to declare that the local authority was unfit to discharge its duties. The moment he saw the Bill he thought it was dictated by an internal distrust in the authority that was to be created under it, and that was why the Government thought it right at every stage of the Bill to give to the Education Department in London power to overrule and set aside the local authority as not being fit to form a judgment in such matters. If the Government were right, it was the severest censure they could place upon the character of the new authorities they were creating.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Not at all so severe as the censure of a precisely similar kind which the Liberal Government of; 1870 placed upon the School Board which they themselves created.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N.E.)
said that as the representative of a rural constituency who had had an opportunity of seeing the work of small schools, he hoped the Bill, with such Amendments as would render these Board Schools more efficient, I would be passed. It was absolutely impossible to have efficient education in the rural districts in the very small schools that there existed. In such a school they would find a teacher with perhaps children from five to fourteen years of age in all standards. He was quite aware that it was most desirable that where compulsion existed the schools should be as near as possible to the children, especially to the infants, and he believed it would be economical 196 even to devise methods of getting the children to the schools rather than to spend—
* THE CHAIRMAN
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are really relevant to the Amendment before the Committee. The Amendment is as to who is to decide, the local education authority or the Board of Education.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITE
said that he was attempting to show that if they gave the local authorities power to do this they would be so impressed with the necessity of it that they would be bound to do it in the interests of education and in the interests of the teachers. It was manifest that there should be greater power centred in the local authority, who would have the opportunity on the spot of seeing the disadvantages of these very small schools. If the authority thought that the schools were too far away from the children they ought to have the power of gathering the children to a centre, both to the: advantage of the children themselves and to the teaching profession, as well as to the advantage of education all round. He would, therefore, support the Amendment.
§ MR. LOUGH
said that the Attorney-General stated he would pay attention to the argument of the hon. and learned Member for the Launceston Division, but that only referred to one part of the Amendment, and that, in his opinion, the least important. The hon. and learned Member pointed out that the local authority might be in peril in carrying out its duties if some such Amendment were not included. There had been a great many cases recently, 197 especially in London, where the local authority was surcharged for exceeding its powers. That was the danger he wished to guard against. The local authority might he held responsible for work which it carried out, and no standard was laid down in the Bill by which the question could be decided. Surely the harmless words he proposed would be a great help. They would only give the power to decide the matter primâfacie, and if any one wanted to question the decision there remained
§ Clause 10. He was following the exact precedent of Section 18 of the Act of 1870. He really thought that it the Committee would give the matter more attention they would admit the Amendment, which would be a great improvement to the Bill.
§ (5.13.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 82;Noes, 199. (Division List No. 393.)199
|Allan, Sir William (Gates head)||Fuller, J. M. F.||Priestley, Arthur|
|Allen, Charles P (Glouc, Stroud||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Robertson. Edmund (Dundee)|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Grant, Corrie||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B||Harcourt Rt. Hon. Sir William||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Brigg, John||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Northants|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Helme, Norval Watson||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Burt, Thomas||Holland, Sir William Henry||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E)|
|Caine, William Sproston||Horniman, Frederick John||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan. E.)|
|Caldwell, James||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Thomson, F W (York. W. R)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Jacoby, James Alfred||Toulmin, George|
|Cawley, Frederick||Jones, David Brynmor (Swanea||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Wason, Eugene|
|Crombie, John William||Levy, Maurice||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Lewis, John Herbert||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Lloyd-George, David||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan||Logan, John William||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||M'Kenna, Reginald||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Dunn, Sir William||Mather, Sir William||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Edwards, Frank||Morley, Charles Breconshire)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Emmott, Alfred||Moulton, John Fletcher|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Fenwick, Charles||Philipps, John Wynford||TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Lough and Mr. D. A. Thomas.|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Pickard Benjamin|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Aird, Sir John||Baldwin, Alfred||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Balfour Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Bignold, Arthur|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds||Bill, Charles|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Banbury, Frederick George||Blundell, Colonel Henry|
|Arrol, Sir William||Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Bond, Edward|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bartley, George C. T.||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Boulnois, Edmund|
|Balcarres, Lord||Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Midd'x||Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward|
|Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm||Purvis, Robert|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Pym, C. Guy|
|Carew, James Laurence||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Randles, John S.|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Rankin, Sir James|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Healy, Timothy Michael||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Henderson, Sir Alexander||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Higgin bottom, S. W.||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Horner, Frederick William||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Kemp, George||Rutherford, John|
|Chapman, Edward||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Charrington, Spencer||Keswick, William||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Kimber, Henry||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight|
|Clive, Captain Perey A.||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Knowles, Lees||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Lawson, John Grant||Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Cox. Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Spear, John Ward|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Denny, Colonel||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)||Stewart, Sir Mark J.M'Taggart|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Stroyan, John|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Lowe, Francis William||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)||Thornton, Perey M.|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Faber, George Donison (York)||Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Macdona, John Cumming||Valentia, Viscouut|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||M'Arthur Charles (Liverpool)||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffi'ld|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r||M'Iver Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Manners, Lord Cecil||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Milvain, Thomas||Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E. (Taunt'n|
|Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts.)|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Flower, Ernest||Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Forster, Henry William||Morrell, George Herbert||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Gardner, Ernest||Mount, William Arthur||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Garfit, William||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham(Bute||Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.|
|Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Nicholson, William Graham||Younger, William|
|Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc,)||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Palmer. Walter (Salisbury)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington||TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Alexander Acland- Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S Edm'nds||Perey, Earl|
|Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Hambro, Charles Eric||Pretyman, Ernest George|
§ Committee report progress, to sit again on Monday next.
§ Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes after Five o'clock till Monday next.