§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
§ (3.30.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)
said he had an Amendment down to insert in page 3, line 6, after the word "necessary" the words "and which are provided by them." He wished to omit all the words after "necessary" to the end of the Clause.
* THE CHAIRMAN
Both those Amendments are out of order. It has already been decided to include "all elementary schools," and the Committee have decided to include the provided as well as the non-provided schools.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that surely the word "necessary" was a limitation of the word "all." As the Clause stood, it was absolutely ungrammatieal. This would be the only opportunity they would have of raising the question of the responsibility of the local authority to maintain out of the rates denominational schools, and they ought to have a clear issue in regard to this matter.
* THE CHAIRMAN
But the matter has already been discussed. On Friday last we discussed the question of leaving out "shall" to insert "may," and the debate turned upon whether a distinction was to be drawn between the schools provided and non-provided. The whole argument turned upon that, and the question was raised in that form.
§ MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W. R., Elland)
said that was only a question of discretion on the part of the local authority.
§ MR. M'KENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)
pointed out that the local authority would have had power as proposed, but under this Amendment the local authority would not have the power.
said that if "all" meant "all" and included all qualifications, it must mean all unnecessary schools as well as necessary. "Necessary" was a qualification of "all."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
contended that, it having been ruled that "all" meant "all," the Clause was out of order.
* THE CHAIRMAN
The test is, what did the House mean when it passed the word "all." The Clause provides for "all public elementary schools within their area which are necessary." I think the intention of the Committee was to include all schools whether provided or not provided. I will deal as fairly as I can with hon. Members if they will deal fairly with me. ["Oh, oh ‡"]
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he hoped that observation did not apply to him. He submitted that the Opposition were entitled to discuss this issue. He contended that they ought to be allowed to discuss the question of rate-aid in some form or other.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)
said that surely they had to consider the words grammatically. The words were "all public elementary schools," but that provision was subject to conditions which were afterwards added. The word "all" did not exclude all conditions, and why should this condition be excluded. "Which are necessary" was a condition put upon the word "all." Therefore, if there was one condition there might be another.
* THE CHAIRMAN
According to the general rule of interpretation upon which we have always acted where any general 255 word such as "all" or "every" is inserted, the Committee intend that it shall have some signification, and that it is to have more signification than a word such as ''a" or "the." In this case, however, there is a difference because of the words "which are necessary." That being so, I will give the hon. Member for Carnarvon the benefit of the doubt.
§ MR. SEELY
said the object of the Amendment he had to move was to raise the question whether it was desirable that the voluntary schools should be compulsorily placed upon the county and borough rates. He did not move this Amendment from any motive of hostility to the Bill, which he thought would bring about a great improvement in education, but he was very anxious to avoid difficulties in the future. As an old manager, and a strong advocate for voluntary schools, he thought the method he was about to propose was better on the whole than the one which was at present in the Bill He foresaw very great difficulties in regard to the arrangement contained in the Bill if it came into force. Ultimately they would find that the people who paid the money for education would call the tune, and unless the voluntary subscribers continued to pay a reasonable share of the expenses of their schools, they would find these schools taken from them. Two proposals had come to the front during the agitation in the country this autumn. One was the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Newark Division, that four of the managers should be elected by the public authorities, and two by the foundation managers. Secondly, there was the proposal foreshadowed in the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury at Manchester, in which he spoke of the position of the managers as being like those under the School Board for London. In London managers were the servants of the School Board, and, as an advocate for voluntary schools, and a manager of them now, he did not appreciate the idea of being made simply the servant of the local education authority. He did not think the advantage they gained by this change would be maintained if the managers wore deprived of all authority, deprived of the power of appointing and dismissing teachers, and relegated to the position of managers 256 under the London School Board. He did not think there would be the great I difficulty which, some people seemed to think in obtaining the money from voluntary subscribers. He had put down an Amendment later on in the Bill to deal with the difficulty in those cases where subscriptions were not sufficient to maintain the schools in a state of efficiency. The Amendment was that instead of compelling the counties to support the voluntary schools the counties and boroughs should be given the power, if they chose to exercise it, and if they could agree with the voluntary school managers, to give the voluntary schools such assistance as they required. That was all that was necessary. There was no real hostility between the voluntary schools and the public schools in the district generally. The voluntary schools were liked, and they got on very well with the people. Under a system of freedom, instead of a system of compulsion, these people would be able to manage their own affairs, and would lie able to get over any difficulty and get sufficient money to support the schools in a state of efficiency. It was for that reason that he brought forward the Amendment, and it was for that reason that he pressed it upon the consideration of the Government and those anxious to maintain the voluntary schools in their present position. Many were anxious to maintain them for several reasons; for the sake of religious education—he did not mean for the sake of any particular dogmatic religious doctrine, but for the sake of the general religious atmosphere in the school—which, on the whole, had been preserved in the voluntary schools, and for the maintenance of which the continuation of the voluntary schools was exceedingly desirable. The number of board schools against which the allegation could be made that they had not given religious education was very small indeed, but the allegation had been made, and, having been made, it would be a great pity to do away with those schools which, at the present time, definitely stated that they wished to preserve a religious atmosphere. The Committee had heard a great deal as to giving to the School Board control over secular education, and no control to the managers over religious education. The superiority of the voluntary schools 257 over the very small board schools in the country districts was due to the fact that the clergyman of the district was actively engaged in the welfare of the schools. he was the only educated man in the locality who had the time to give to its welfare. He usually had a university education and a knowledge of educational matters; at the same time, from the nature of his office, he was not a man who would be particularly anxious to submit himself to popular election and all the controversies arising therefrom; so that it was only by maintaining a system: similar to the present voluntary school system that the interest of the large class of educated men in the country, who had sufficient time and opportunity for the purpose of maintaining their interest in elementary schools, could be retained. If full control were given to an outside body over the short time devoted to religious education, it would have the effect of taking away from the country schools one of the most valuable elements in their management. Under these circumstances it was most desirable to get over the difficulty in some way which would leave the voluntary schools in the same position as they were under the present system; not by giving greater control over secular education to the County Councils, but by leaving the voluntary schools as they were and giving an optional power to every borough council, and an opportunity to every voluntary school to obtain assistance from the rates. By such means every difficulty which had been urged upon the Committee could be got rid of. The difficulty of taxation without representation would be got over, because there would be no compulsory rate for the school. With the consent of the authority they could obviate the difficulty of the possibility of a rate going for the support of a school where the clergyman was foolish, and insisted upon teaching to the children doctrines contrary to the Church, because no County Council would give assistance to a man of that kind. It seemed to him that, while this would keep the Bill with all its value for the co-ordination of primary and secondary education in this country, it would place the voluntary schools in as strong a position as they were before, 258 instead of placing them in the weaker position that they would be placed in under this Bill. There was one other thing that would have to be done if this proposal were adopted; the Clause in; which the cost of the school was placed entirely on the county rate would have to be altered, and the cost of the annual maintenance, like the cost of the building, would have to be put on the individual parish in which the building was situated. There would be no difficulty in such a course, which had several advantages to commend it. It provided a way out of the difficulty of what to do with the endowed schools. What was to happen to the endowed schools under this Bill? The people in the parishes possessed of an endowed school had now no school cost, neither had they any school rate, yet these schools with their endowments were going to be placed under the whole county rate. Were these people going to be allowed to pay the county rate and get nothing for it? Or was the rate going to be taken away from them? Whatever was done, it would be found that the lumping of the parishes which managed their schools economically together with those which had been extravagant, would be very unpopular, and such a course would be strenuously opposed by the country. The county rate would be unpopular, and it would end in one thing and one thing only, the taking away in some way or another of the whole of the power of the management of the voluntary schools. For these reasons he urged the Government to think seriously before they attempted to compel the county authorities to support the voluntary schools out of the rates, and before they compelled the voluntary schools to receive money from the rates.
In page 3, line 6, to leave out from the word "are," to the word "to," in line 7, and insert the words "provided by them, and, in the case of schools not provided by them, shall pay over to the managers of the school all moneys, including the annual Parliamentary grant received by them on account of the said school, subject"—(Mr. Seely.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'necessary' stand part of the Clause."
§ (3.55.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I had rather hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon, who, as I 259 understand, has a similar Amendment on the Paper, would have risen before I addressed the House upon this subject. The form of the Amendment by the omission of the word "necessary" agrees with that of the hon. Member for Carnarvon, though the object of my hon. friend is fundamentally opposed to that of the hon. Member opposite. It may be almost sufficient to remind the Committee that the acceptance of the Amendment would mean the actual destruction of the scheme of education which this legislation is to carry out. I do not agree to my hon. friend's Amendment, and cannot accept it, though I agree with much that has been said in its favour. I have never attempted to disguise the fact that there are voluntary schools in many parts of the country where the managers are under no pecuniary strain or difficulty, and regard the Bill as a very great interference with managerial rights which they have hitherto exercised, subject to no control but that from Whitehall. My hon. friend says that if this Amendment were passed many voluntary schools would assent, and I am not disposed to dissent from him. I have always said in the House, and out of it, that the great scheme of national education which the Government asks the country to accept, is one which requires some sacrifices from almost every class engaged in working the anomalous, unsatisfactory, and contradictory system under which the country; groans. While I so far agree with my hon. friend, I hope he will notice that the whole plan of the Government for co-ordinating primary education would be absolutely shattered by the Amendment. It would be absolutely shattered, as far as voluntary schools are concerned by the fact that some would deliberately stay out of the scheme and others would be kept out by the action of a hostile or indifferent local authority. But it would not merely touch the voluntary schools, it would touch also the board schools. My hon. friend has truly pointed out that you could not possibly accept this Amendment without altering the whole principle of the county rate. The county rate would have to be abolished, and you would have to revert to the system which now prevails in the county area of having a 260 local rate for each local school. That is an absolute destruction of the central county authority. From the very terms of the Amendment, that education authority would be excluded from the management of the voluntary schools except in those cases where they came to some kind of arrangement with the managers, and it would also be clearly impossible to maintain their authority over the present board schools. They will have authority over the provided schools for the future, because they pay for them, but as soon as you put the whole charge for the provided schools, upon the locality, then the locality has a conclusive and irresistible right to manage the schools which it entirely maintains. Therefore I feel that, whatever else may be said, this Amendment is so absolutely revolutionary in character, it cuts so deeply at the very root of the Bill, and so effectually destroys the foundation on which the Bill is built, that it is one the Government could not possibly accept. I hope under these circumstances the hon. Member will think it hardly worth while to press it to a division.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Morley)
said that the question raised by the Amendment was really that of the application of rates to the support of denominational schools. He was not surprised that the hon. Member saw the danger of the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, on the previous Saturday, had justified the Clause, on the ground that it satisfied the Church of England. It was a matter for thankfulness that a clause had been devised which did satisfy the Church of England, but that was hardly a sufficient justification for the Committee accepting the proposal of the Government.
§ SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)
pointed out that he did not say it was a justification for the support of voluntary schools out of the rates, but that it was a provision which satisfied the Church of England and other religious bodies as to the maintenance of the denominational character of their schools, and that on that ground it might be acceptable.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON
accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but thought it was not an argument which could be expected to justify the use of rates for the maintenance of voluntary schools. It was very convenient to use the county rather than the local rate, as by that means much local jealousy would be obviated, but it was still the use of rates for denominational purposes. If the right hon. Gentleman had a right to differentiate as to the management of the schools, the authority had a right to differentiate with regard to the treatment of the money which they provided out of the rates.
§ * MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)
thought the hon. Member for Lincoln had based his Amendment largely upon his fear that the Bill in its present form would ultimately bring about the downfall of the denominational management of denominational schools. That was a contingency which perhaps the friends and foes of the Bill had not sufficiently perceived. In practice, the anticipation was likely to come true, and he was not concerned that it should not. The downfall of the denominational management of denominational schools was a condition precedent to any complete reform of the primary educational system of the country. He took it that the promoters of the Bill were as wide awake to the probable result of the measure in that respect as others could be, but possibly they thought that a plan whereby they got rid of denominational management, and yet retained the right to give denominational teaching in denominational schools, was one worth having amidst the general downfall which might come upon the system in other respects. The present Amendment, however, was only the preamble to another. Its mover was anxious to exclude from the compulsory part of the Bill voluntary schools as such, and to leave in their present unfair condition towards other schools the voluntary schools in parishes which at present did not contribute adequately, or even at all, by rates or otherwise, to the local cost of education. The effect of the Amendment would be that in the more than one-third of the country which contributed to education not at all by local rate, and very meagrely by subscription, this national and local 262 grievance would remain untouched, and the great majority of voluntary schools would be left for an indefinite period in the present inefficient condition. By a subsequent Amendment the hon. Member for Lincoln proposed to empower the County or Borough Council, or other local rating authority, to extend to the voluntary schools within its area aid for the rates, if the Council could arrange with the voluntary school managers for that to be done. But that proposal depended on the Amendment before the Committee, and under the Bill the extension of rate-aid to denominational schools could take place only on conditions laid down in the Bill. Those conditions were certainly better than no. statutory conditions at all. By the proposal of the hon. Member for Lincoln the County or Borough Council was to be free to come to terms in regard to rate-aid. This was very seldom done now, although the School Board could do it upon the condition that the management for secular purposes should be wholly under the control of the School Board. If this difficulty was so great under the statutory limitations of this Bill, how much greater would it be under the absolute absence of limitation which was foreshadowed by the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite. Option in this matter either from the point of view of education, or the welfare of the children was a mistake, and he should vote against the Amendment.
§ DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell N.)
said he was surprised that this Amendment should come from the quarter it-had done, because upon a former Clause the hon. Member voted in favour of striking out this option.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said he understood that the hon. Member was rather anxious for the future of the denominational system, but he (Dr. Macnamara) was not. He was more anxious to get something done for the children. He had taken the trouble to turn up a Parliament Paper issued in 1900 which gave particulars for all elementary schools in England and Wales. It was issued in 263 August, 1899, and it gave the expenditure on all items. He would quote a few instances of schools in the County of Lincolnshire. In one school, with an average attendance of thirty-two, the expenditure on fuel, light, cleaning, repairs, taxes, and rent for the whole school for one year was 13s. 6d. or about 3d. per child. The effect of this Amendment would be that this school would continue with an expenditure of 3d. per child. In another school there were; sixty-four children in average attendance, and upon the items he had mentioned they spent 5s. or about Id. per child. Another column in the same Return gave the entire expenditure on books, apparatus, stationery, and furniture, and in one Lincolnshire school upon these items they spent 11s. 2d., or less than 2d. per child for seventy-five children. That would be continued under this Amendment. He objected to the continuance of this starved condition of education. In another Church school in the same county, with 150 children, the total expenditure upon the items he had mentioned was 26s. 4d. There were also schools in Carnarvonshire where they spent only 33s. 4d. on books, apparatus, stationery, and furniture for the whole year, and 29s. 7d. for lighting, fuel, cleaning, and repairs. This Parliamentary Paper was full of such instances. If they left these schools to the voluntary contributor, he would not pay, and those schools would continue in their present condition. The proposal of the Government he admitted would cause trouble, but the only way they could get a reform of their educational system was through the medium of a row. He did not object to a row at all. This Bill, at any rate, would wake up the English people, and he believed that the result would surprise his hon. friends opposite. He was, however, more concerned about the village schools being efficiently maintained. Rate-aid would cause great trouble and controversy, and if they had to have a row the sooner it came the better, and the sooner they got their schools on a proper basis, maintained from the public funds, the better.
§ *(4.30.) SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)
said the figures quoted by the hon. Member for North 264 Camberwell could be easily explained. They knew perfectly well that it was the custom on some estates to provide the whole of the fuel for a school in the shape of coal and firewood. With regard to the cost of apparatus and other items mentioned by the hon. Member, he would remind the Committee that in those small country schools the cost might be very small one year because in the previous year a large amount had been expended upon those items. The argument of his hon. friend was therefore not valid as regarded those small schools. His hon. friend the Member for West Nottingham said he should vote against this proposal, because of a subsequent Amendment on the Paper. They were rarely logical having regard to Amendments. What they had to consider was the Amendment itself on its merits. If he understood the hon. Member for Lincoln, his proposal was: "Let the present state of things remain." That was to say, so long as the voluntary schools were carried on in this country efficiently and in every respect equal to the board schools, and what would now be the now county schools, they could go on on condition of receiving no rate-aid at all. He should be perfectly ready that the education authority should take over the schools if they were starved, and were inefficient, but he knew that in his own county the schools were as a rule carried on perfectly well and efficiently with the aid of subscriptions of money they received from the Government grant, and it was utterly unnecessary and quite gratuitous to impose these schools on the local rates of the county. The First Lord of the Treasury said the Amendment would destroy his great scheme. Well, undoubtedly it would destroy his great scheme of increasing the county rate. When the ratepayers were complaining of the rising rates in the country, the Government were proposing to put on the county rates a charge which was altogether unnecessary, they were going to take away a large part, if not the whole, of the benefit which had resulted from the passing of the Agricultural Rating Act. On these grounds he would support the Amendment.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said the policy on which the hon. Member for North Camberwell opposed this Amendment 265 was: "Let us do evil that good may come." The hon. Member wanted a row. That was a very proper spirit in which to approach the consideration of this subject. At the same time they might as well try to make a good Bill, and if they failed they would all be ready for a row. Some cases in Wales had been mentioned, and although he did not catch the names, he had no doubt that what the: hon. Member said was in substance correct. One parish was mentioned where the charges amounted to 33s., but if the hon. Member only knew that parish he would know that this sum would go a long way. At the same time he was perfectly certain that what was now proposed would serve the purpose he had in view. Would it raise the level of education in that parish? There were parts of the country where they had very efficient School Boards. In these districts there was a rate of probably 1s. There was 1s. rate in the particular parish in which he lived. What would be the result if they had to levy rates for education all through the country? Places which were at present doing good work for education would suffer. They would be pulled down to the level of the country. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment supported it from the point of view of the voluntary schools. If the Amendment were rejected there was going to be great trouble and difficulty, and it was just possible that education might suffer for a whole generation. At the same time one would like to see his own generation get full educational facilities. That was the point of view he and his friends took. They objected to rate-aid being given to schools which were not managed by the ratepayers and where doctrines were taught which the majority of the ratepayers in a large number of districts thoroughly disapproved of. He knew it was asked why should they discriminate between rates and taxes? Well it was the genius of the English people. It was a genius which went in for illogical compromises. In Scotland, where there was a logical race, they did not draw the distinction, and a logical system was the outcome. In Wales, where there was a logical race, they objected to the Government proposal. 266 That was the only reason he could give for discriminating between rates and taxes on this particular point. When they objected to the payment of taxes they could not really say how much went to education and how much to other objects, but they could do it when they paid rates. In connection with the payment of rates they could say how much in the pound in a particular county would go towards education in voluntary schools, but when they paid taxes on tobacco, beer, and tea they could not possibly divide. The reason why they discriminated between rates and taxes was that in the case of taxes it was utterly impossible to ascertain the amount contributed to a particular object. The amount contributed by a particular Church per child in the voluntary schools was about 6s. That covered the time that was devoted to the teaching of dogma and doctrine. Now the whole time was placed on the rates—the time given to dogma and that given to secular instruction—and, therefore, the Nonconformists said that in future religious instruction would be ' placed on the rates for the first time. It was said, "You want a religious atmosphere." That was the point of view of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. But they wanted the atmosphere of their own particular sect. There was a good deal to be said for a good atmosphere in these schools, but what sort of atmosphere had they in hundreds of squalid little schools throughout the country? It was an Anglican atmosphere, and he objected to any rates going in aid of that atmosphere. At present a certain sect enjoyed privileges by which they were enabled to increase the number of their adherents in the Sunday schools. They had the patronage of 60,000 teachers, and they had all the honour, and glory, and glamour which came from managing the most important State communal institutions in 14,000 parishes in the country. What were they going to pay for it? It was all very well for the Member for Greenwich to say "If you decline to pay rates for our schools, we will decline to pay rates for your schools." Half the School Boards of the country were manned by Churchmen. The 267 School Boards of Manchester and Liverpool, and, until recently, the great School Board of London, and even the School Board of Birmingham were manned by denominationalists. Wherever Churchmen were in a majority they manned the board schools, but if they went to the sectarian districts it did not matter whether the Nonconformists were in a majority or not, they had not this monopoly of the management. In the board schools the majority of the teachers were Churchmen. In a board school nothing was taught which was of offence to the conscience of any Churchman, but he could point to many cases of voluntary schools in which doctrines were taught which were of offence to the Nonconformist parishioners. Was it not therefore fair that those who had special privileges, advantages, and patronage should be asked to contribute something towards the maintenance of these schools? If this were done—he did not say it would remove their objections—at any rate there would be still substantial objections remaining—but it would remove a certain objection. It would simply put them on the same footing as did the Bill of 1895–6, which provided for a grant in aid, subject to conditions-That Bill was objected to, but this Bill was far worse and more offensive. All that they asked was, to begin with, that rate-aid should be eliminated from the Bill, and that this special privilege given to the Church should be paid for. The same thing applied to all the other sects. If that were done pressure could be brought to bear by the County Councils to improve the school buildings, and the condition of the Church schools would thereby be forced up and put on a level of efficiency with the board schools. He insisted that the Government would do wisely, and in the interest of their Bill, if they did something to eliminate this matter. They must know perfectly well that this rate business was intolerable to the vast majority of the electors of the country. [Cries of "No‡" from the Ministerial Benches.] The hon. Member opposite who cried "No" represented a constituency not far removed from Devonport. What about rate-aid there? Did the Conservative candidate stand for rate-aid there to the voluntary schools? 268 On the contrary, he avoided all reference to rate-aid, but talked of a grant-in-aid to the dockyard labourers. If he were elected and came into the House it was not rate-aid for voluntary schools he would support the Government on, but if the Government did not give the extra shilling to the dockyard labourers he would, Education Bill or no Education Bill, vote against them. Really this Education Bill was running up a big account against the Government. It would cost them 1s. a week extra to the dockyard labourers, as it had cost them £900,000 in the interest of their own supporters. If the Government accepted this Amendment the Colonial Secretary would then be free to address an open meeting in Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman need not then lock the doors against his own constituents and turn out the reporters. He need not unnerve them all by his lurid pictures of what would happen if he did not control the destinies of the world. They might return to their normal condition and discuss things, afterwards on a purely educational basis. Let the Government eliminate this great controversial issue of rate-aid to the voluntary schools and then they could go on to the next Amendment.
§ (4.50.) MR. M'KENNA
said he wished to say a few words in regard to the Nonconformist objections to paying the educational rate for voluntary schools. That objection had been misunderstood by the First Lord of the Treasury. In his speech in Manchester the right hon. Gentleman said—Well, I make a challenge. I make a challenge of a very simple kind. Will any one tell me what this fundamental principle of morality is? I will engage to show either that it is, on the face of it, not a fundamental, principle of morality, or that if it is, it has been consistently violated in England and Scotland by Nonconformists for the last thirty-years.Although he was a humble member of the Nonconformist body, he nevertheless ventured to take up the challenge and to show the right hon. Gentleman that there was a moral ground on the part of Nonconformists to resist paying education rates under this Bill, and that that moral ground had not been consistently violated for the last thirty years. There was a vital 269 difference between the payment of rates and taxes for the support of voluntary schools. The payment of taxes during the last thirty years was for work done, viz., the teaching of certain defined secular subjects—the value of that teaching being tested by inspection and examination. That was the principle of the Bill of 1870. On the Second Reading of the Bill of 1870 Mr. Gladstone said—It was in our view essential to the success of this measure that so far as the funds of the State—and I use the term now in the narrow sense of that which proceeds from the Imperial Treasury—that so far as the funds of the State were concerned they should be applied only for secular results."*Then later in the same speech Mr. Gladstone said—On the one hand, there is a very strong and vivid opinion among a large and active part of the community, that the safe course in the matter of national education is to limit the application of public funds to secular instruction. That is the principle on which our Privy Council System has always been founded; because, although it may be said that you had deviated from the rigour of that system in permitting inspection in regard to religious results, yet it has been always seen that the amount of public aid has left a large void to be supplied by private benevolence, and this it is which supplies the means of religious instruction."†Again, in the same speech, the right hon. Gentleman said—We may entirely escape from the evils attending these controversies in the local Boards in connection with voluntary schools, and we may, at the same time, do justice to these voluntary schools, and prevent any of that action of religious prejudice against particular, and possibly, in some places, obnoxious, Communions, which may give cause of complaint; and we may at the same time adhere to what 1 hold to be the fundamental principle of the Bill——nothing could be clearer than this—Namely, that the funds of the Exchequer, whatever discretion yougive to the local Boards, are to be dispersed solely and exclusively for secular results.That was the account of 1870: the funds of the State were to be "dispersed solely and exclusively for secular results."‡ A margin was to be found for the provision of a religious atmosphere by the voluntary subscribers. It was that margin which was now under this Bill to be put* (3) Debates ccii., 269†(3) Debates ccii., 272‡(3) Debates ccii., 279270 on the rates. Therefore, the Nonconformists said that they had a moral ground of objection to supplying the money for the teaching of denominational creeds and dogmas in which they did not believe. It might be said that that was only a technical objection to voting money to pay for religious instruction, and that there was margin enough in the payment for the schools and their maintenance and repair to cover the cost of the religious teaching. That contention was altogether fallacious. In the first place they had it on the very highest authority that the teaching in the denominational schools must include the maintenance of the religious atmosphere; and, therefore, it was idle to say that the religious instruction was limited to two or three hours in the week. The instruction must be in an Anglican atmosphere, because it was only in that way that the schools could be used as a back door to the Church.
§ LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)
said that that was putting his views in a manner in which he did not recognise them at all.
§ MR. M'KENNA
said he understood the noble Lord to claim that in the denominational schools, it was necessary that the religious atmosphere should be maintained.
§ LORD HUGH CECIL
said he did not remember saying that. He was referring to the training colleges, and perhaps that was what the hon. Member was thinking of.
§ MR. M'KENNA
said he was referring to a most eloquent speech which the noble Lord delivered on the Second. Reading of the Bill.
§ MR. M'KENNA
said that then, in that case, he would withdraw his remark. Whether it had been said by the noble Lord himself or not, the point had certainly been raised over and over again by persons responsible for controlling the voluntary schools. It was raised at the Church Congress: and it had certainly been raised in behalf of the Roman 271 Catholics. Therefore, it could not be said that three, four, or five hours per week of denominational teaching covered the whole of the expenditure of public money. The point raised by his hon. friend remained unanswered. The Government proposed not only to give rate-aid to those denominational schools, but to allow to the Anglican Church the whole of the patronage of 70,000 civil servants, which the schoolmasters would become, drawing salaries amounting in the aggregate, to not less than £4,000,000 sterling a year. Was it to be said that that annual asset would be covered by the annual value of the buildings used? The Nonconformists objection to the payment of the education rate was, therefore, not merely technical, but a matter of principle, and they were justified in drawing a distinction between taxes and rates. Formerly, the voluntary schools were private schools used by the State for giving secular instruction, but now they were to be made public schools, and the rates were to be used for the direct purpose of denominational education.
§ MR. SEELY
said he should like before the debate closed, to say a word or two in regard to it. The First Lord of the Treasury had said he could not accept the Amendment, because it would destroy the Bill; but he would like to urge on the right hon. Gentleman for his future consideration that this Clause was not an essential part of the Bill. It seemed to him that the really essential and valuable parts of the Bill in the point of view of the country were two—first, that providing for secondary instruction, and second, that providing for the co-ordination of education in the hands of the County Councils and District Councils. Those objects would not be interfered with by this Amendment, which would provide a way out of the difficulties which were not so obvious in this House, but which in the country were very real and very grave indeed. A number of public authorities had declared that they were not willing to carry out the provisions of this Bill unless a majority of the managers of the voluntary schools were given to their appointment. That difficulty might be overridden, but great difficulty would be placed in the way of the working of this Bill if it was sought to override these authorities. His opinion 272 was that it would be wiser to give up the compulsory assistance from the rates to the voluntary schools, and make it optional. Hon. Members opposite in their opposition to the Amendment had rather let the cat out of the bag, and had shown that those interested in the teachers had been exerting a similar kind of pressure to that which was being put upon candidates at Devonport at the present time. The desire for the County rate was not so strong on the part of managers and those interested in education, as it was in the interest of a number of people who desired to have an unlimited fund into which they might put their hand. He asked County Members to consider what would occur under this Bill. All over the country pressure would be exercised to raise every school up to the position of the most expensive, quite regardless of efficiency or any necessity for it, but simply because every parish would desire to get as much out of the rates as possible. He was not prepared to agree with what had fallen from hon. Members as to the inefficiency of voluntary schools. He knew many of them, and his experience was that they were thoroughly efficient. And when all this talk was heard as to the want of education in I the country; of the loss of trade and commerce because of the want of education, without which we could not compete with foreign countries; of commercial travellers being unable to compete with foreigners owing to their ignorance of foreign languages, he would point out that that was not primary but secondary education. His contention was that by retaining the compulsory power in the Bill they were, so far from doing good to education, doing evil, and it was for that reason that he had moved this Amendment, and not, as it had been suggested, for the purpose of destroying the Bill. He did not wish to detain the House, and as it was well known that at the present time a division was simply a waste of time he begged leave to be allowed to withdraw the Amendment. [Cries of "No."]
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid)
thought it was a novel method on the part of an hon. Member to initiate a discussion lasting an hour and a quarter, and then to ask leave to 273 withdraw the Amendment. In his opinion it would be no waste of time to go to a division, and he trusted the House would not allow the Amendment to be withdrawn without an opportunity being given to divide upon it. Why was it a waste of time? Was it because the whip of the Party opposite was so strong that hon. Members opposite dare not vote for it? Had the command gone forth that any one might voice their opinion, and that when the time came to divide they must walk out of the House? The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member was a very invidious one. He had not appreciated the full importance of it when listening to the first speech of the hon. and gallant Member, but in his second speech he had thrown a great deal of light upon it. The hon. and gallant Member had spoken about option. Who was to have the option? The position which the hon. Member had advocated, appeared to be that wherever these schools could be maintained the managers need not go to the educational authority, and could say "Hands off ‡" so that there would be no power over these schools, although the grant from the Treasury was going to be increased. Then the hon. and gallant Member took up the position that if these schools did desire a contribution they were to have it. The option was altogether on one side, and it showed that the desire was to keep the denominational schools intact, and entirely separate. As the Prime Minister had said, if the speech of the hon. Member carried the Amendment, the whole of the Bill would be gone, but the real object of the Amendment was to see that
§ the voluntary schools were aided either by grants or rates. He submitted that the voluntary schools had no right to receive assistance unless they were governed by the people themselves.
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)
said he was not surprised that the Prime Minister was unable to accept the Amendment, because it certainly went to the heart of the Bill. The Bill aimed at replacing the voluntary sub-sections by compulsory sub-sections in the form of rates. The voluntary subscribers came to the House and said, "We will subscribe no longer; will you put the ratepayers in such a position as to be compelled to subscribe to these schools? "In this case the old proverb, "Beggars cannot be choosers," apparently did not hold good, because the Church in this matter wished to do the begging and to choose as well. That was what the country resented. The Vice President of the Council had said at Cambridge recently that the Church, managers had come and said they would accept certain conditions, and the Government agreed. That was what was objected to. If the Church came in forma pauperis, and said she could no longer afford to carry on these schools, it was only right that the ratepayers who had to support them should choose the conditions under which they should continue to exist. If the Amendment went to a division he should support it.
§ (5.13) Question put.
§ Committee divided:—Ayes, 235; Noes, 99. (Division List, No. 395.)277
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Bill, Charles||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc|
|Aird, Sir John||Bond, Edward||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Chapman, Edward|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex||Charrington, Spencer|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Bowles, T. (Gibson (King's Lynn||Clive, Captain Percy A.|
|Arrol, Sir William||Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Cohen, Benjamin Louis|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Butcher, John George||Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready|
|Balcarres, Lord||Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Carew, James Laurence||Compton, Lord Alwyne|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds||Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Cripps, Charles Alfred|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor||Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Davenport, William Bromley-|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham|
|Bignold, Arthur||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Denny, Colonel|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Houston, Robert Paterson||Rankin, Sir James|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Howard, John (Kent, Fav'sham||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Johnstone, Heywood||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Kemp George||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Kimber, Henry||Rutherford John|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Knowles, Lees||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Samuel, Harry S. (Limestone)|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight|
|Finch, George H.||Lawson, John Grant||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Shaw-Stewart, H. M. (Renfrew)|
|Fison, Frederick William||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Smith, Hon W. F. D. (strand)|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Lock wood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Spear, John Ward|
|Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Flower, Ernest||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesbam||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Forster, Henry William||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W||Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Gardner, Ernest||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Stroyan, John|
|Garfit, William||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans||Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts||Macdona, John Cumming||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester|
|Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.)||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Manners, Lord Cecil||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Middlemore, John Throgmort'n||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Valentia, Viscount|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Milvain, Thomas||Vincent, Col. Sir C E H. (Sheffield|
|Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.||Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Gunter, Sir Robert||Morgan, David J. (Walth'stow)||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Hain, Edward||Morrell, George Herbert||Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E (Taunton|
|Hall, Edward Marshall||Morrison, James Archibald||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Hambro, Charles Eric||Mount, William Arthur||Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute||Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Myers, William Henry||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Nicholson, William Graham||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Harwood, George||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n||Worsley, Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Pemberton, John S. G.||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Healy, Timothy Michael||Percy, Earl||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.)||Pierpoint, Robert||Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Younger, William|
|Henderson, Sir Alexander||Plummer, Walter R.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Hornby, Sir William Henry||Purvis, Robert||Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Randles, John S.|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Burt, Thomas||Davies, M Vaughan-(Cardigan|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Buxton, Sydney Charles||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Caine, William Sproston||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Caldwell, James||Duncan, J. Hastings|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Dunn, Sir William|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Causton, Richard Knight||Edwards, Frank|
|Bell, Richard||Craig, Robert Hunter||Ellis, John Edward|
|Black, Alexander William||Cremer, William Randal||Emmott, Alfred|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Crombie, John William||Evans, Samel T. (Glamorgan)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Farquharson, Dr. Robert|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Markham, Arthur Basil||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Mather, Sir William||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose||Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Newnes, Sir George||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Norman, Henry||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Hayne, Kt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Partington, Oswald||Wallace, Robert|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Paulton, James Mellor||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.|
|Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Pickard, Benjamin||Wason, Eugene|
|Horniman, Frederick John||Pirie, Duncan V.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Priestley, Arthur||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Reckitt, Harold James||Whitley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||Rigg, Richard||Whitley, J. H (Halifax)|
|Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis.||Runciman, Walter||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Leigh, Sir Joseph||Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Shipman, Dr. John G.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Seely and Mr. Lloyd-George.|
|Logan, John William||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR (Northants|
§ (5.30.) MR. HELME (Lancashire, Lancaster)
thought all would agree that they should try to make the new educational machinery work as smoothly as possible. According to the recent reports of inspectors, many schools in different parts of the country were not structurally suitable for the purposes for which they were used. At present the grants made to schools were dependent on certain conditions, and returns had been presented of schools that failed to comply with those conditions. Under the Code, the Board of Education required to be satisfied that the school premises were healthy, properly constructed and arranged for teaching, efficiently lighted, drained, and ventilated, and so on; but a number of schools, both voluntary and Board, failed to come up to the standard required by the State. It was therefore very desirable that before the great transfer to the new local authorities took place due inquiry should be made into these matters, and that in order to avoid the friction which might otherwise arise, it should lie enacted that only such schools as were structurally suitable were to be put on the local authorities. In the interests of the smooth working of the scheme the Committee would do well to accept the Amendment of which he had given notice.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 6, after the word "necessary," to insert the words "and for which the buildings are structurally suitable."—(Mr. Helme.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,) Oxford University
said that everyone would cordially sympathise with the desire of the hon. Member to improve the structural and sanitary conditions and the general convenience and comfort of the schools, but it took time and persistence to effect those improvements. The attention of successive Presidents of the Board of Education had been directed to that end, but the result was not yet wholly satisfactory. The new local authorities, however, would almost inevitably strengthen the hands of the Board of Education in this matter. Would the Amendment really promote the object the hon. Member had in view? Its effect might be to postpone the whole operation of the Bill while a general inquiry was being made, and the buildings from end to end of the United Kingdom surveyed—until the local authorities and the Board of Education between them came to the conclusion that the buildings were structurally suitable and such as they would wish to see provided for the education of the children. That would not only cause considerable delay and inconvenience, but would for some time postpone the stimulating and strengthening influence of the local authority. The object of the hon. Member would be better attained by letting the Bill come into immediate operation, because as soon 278 279 as the local authority acquired its powers, so far as the schools provided by itself were concerned, the matter would be in its own hands, while, as regarded the schools not provided, one of the conditions under which assistance from the rates would be secured was that the managers made such alterations and improvements in the buildings as might reasonably be required, and if any question arose between the local authority and the managers as to that "reasonable requirement" it would be settled by the Board of Education. The Board would welcome the strengthening and stimulating influence of the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire had recently declared that under the present sinister influences which prevailed, the best energies of the President and Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education would be devoted to thwarting the praiseworthy efforts of local authorities to put the education of the country on a proper footing. He assured the Committee, however, that so long as he had anything to do with the Board of Education the suggestions of the local authorities would not be regarded by him—and he was sure he could say the same of his noble friend the President—as primâ face unreasonable, but would receive the most careful attention. For the reasons he had given he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said the hon. Member was entirely mistaken in supposing he attributed any sinister motives to him; on the contrary, he said he would act under the most conscientious convictions. The objection raised by his hon. friend, and one which the ratepayers would feel very strongly, was to the local authority being called upon to take over at once a quantity of dilapidated property which was unfit for the purpose to which it was devoted. If the Amendment were carried and the voluntary managers were told that they would not have the benefit of the Bill until the buildings were put in a decent state of repair, the alterations would be done at once; but if they were enabled to get the aid of the rates in respect of schools which were unsuitable, there would be a great deal of delay before the improvements and repairs were carried out. The machinery under the Bill was that they were to be called upon by the 280 Board of Education to put the buildings in repair. That would take some time, and consequently the proprietors of these entirely unsuitable buildings would get—
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the buildings, so far from being entirely unsuitable, had to be found structurally suitable before they could get the Parliamentary grant.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said his complaint was that the Board did not enforce that requirement, otherwise schools would not be structurally unsuitable. They did not wish an intolerable strain to be put upon the only people who were to make contributions to voluntary schools. They ought to have the security that before these schools derived the advantage of the rates they ought not to compel the local authority to take over unsuitable; buildings. If that principle were: established they would get the buildings made suitable at once, but if not, heaven knew how long they would have to wait. Suppose that such a demand were made upon the foundation managers, correspondence would take place with. Whitehall upon the subject of some particular improvement, and anyone who knew anything about controversies of that kind knew that it might be a very long time before they got anything done under those circumstances. His hon. friend wished that before these schools were taken over this question should be settled.
§ (5. 50) DR. MACNAMARA
said he was-very glad to hear the speech of the Secretary to the Board of Education, because he recognised that they were-now raising a question which was really vital to the health as well as to the education of the children. If they compelled people to send their children, to school they must see that the schools were suitable. Many of the voluntary schools were in a dilapidated condition, and it was a fact that some of His Majesty's Inspectors of schools were guilty of a conspiracy of silence in respect of a great many of these buildings, which they "wink" at because they know the managers could not put them into a proper condition. There must not be any more winking at these schools, 281 and they must see that a really reasonable standard of efficiency was maintained. The first grant for the building of these schools was made in 1839. He had consulted a Blue-book on this subject issued in February, 1840, in which it was stated that a good barn might easily be converted into a schoolroom. If they acted on the advice of the Government at that time, and utilised the barns, what must be the condition of those schools sixty years after? They must now take up a more rigid attitude altogether as regarded the suitability of those buildings. Three years ago, Mr. Fisher, the Inspector for the Plymouth District, said that two schools in his area were at present under sentence of condemnation. In one case part of the ground floor was used as a stable, which was underneath the main room in which the scholars were taught. The other school was built in a churchyard where burials took place, and where a grave was made within a few feet of the schoolroom window. Those were extreme cases, but there were many unsuitable schools, and they ought to alter all that state of things now. In one instance there was a school in as bad a condition as it could possibly be, and yet it might go on for years as a voluntary school. At last the managers gave up the struggle and transferred it. It was at once condemned, and the School Board had to build a new school. They wanted to see that there could not be any more of those unsuitable premises. He deplored very much indeed the recent speech made by the Marquess of Londonderry, for it seemed to him to be an intimation to the inspectors of schools to go on passing badly-lighted and badly equipped schools. Lord Londonderry spoke of the luxurious accommodation provided by the School Board for London. London board schools were clean, well lighted, and well ventilated, but they were not luxurious, and were only equipped with the ordinary necessities of school life. Lord Londonderry said that although some of the country schools were deficient they gave the very best education. He denied that. He granted that they met the requirements of the Board of Education, and he wondered that they were able to produce the results they did from an intellectual point 282 of view under such difficulties. There was another side to the question. He; could introduce the Lord President to many country teachers and children who I have suffered because of the undesirable character of the premises in which they spent their days. He should like to know how many teachers were on the Invalid Fund under the Teachers Superannuation Bill on account of the bad condition of the village schools. Some years ago he tabulated 421 returns of most of the village schools and the older voluntary schools of the towns, and he found that more than 25 per cent, of them were schools which ought to have been condemned long ago, because of their unsuitability. The hon. Member for North West Ham, in a presidential address to the National Union of Teachers, said he had no hesitation in saying that many of the buildings used as schools were in such a disgraceful condition that it was impossible for children to spend five hours per day in them without suffering physical and moral injury. The schools were reported to be damp, not in good repair, the ventilation was not good, and they were not well lighted. The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education showed that ho desired that this thing should be improved, and as a practical man he must proceed step by step and do the best he could in the circumstances. He hoped that the Board of Education would be more strenuous in future, and that the inspectors would not pass so many of these buildings. He had never spoken strongly on the matter in the past because he felt that if they had not the money they could do nothing. Probably the inspectors took the view that if they condemned these buildings the result would be to set up a village School Board. He admitted at once that a village School Board as an alternative to the voluntary school managers was not always to be chosen as the best educational expedient. If time permitted he could give startling instances of the incapacity of the village School Board. Speaking generally, a country village was too small as a unit of administration. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to. Clause 8 of the Bill, and it was no doubt set forth there that—The managers of the school shall, out of funds provided by them, keep the school house 283 in good repair, and make such alterations and improvements in the buildings sis may be reasonably required by the local education authority.He had a rather serious question to bring before the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to this. Many of the buildings ought not to be used as schools, being entirely unfit for the purpose. The local education authority ought to say, and must say, to the voluntary school managers that they must build a new school, or they would build one themselves out of the public funds. What was the standard the local authority was to go on? Up to last year there was an admirable schedule in the Education Code dealing with the planning of elementary schools.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
The building rules will very shortly be in the hands of hon. Members. There is no need for any anxiety on the matter.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said he had a little anxiety on the matter. He thought he was entitled to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the schedule dealing with the planning of school buildings had suddenly and mysteriously disappeared from the Code on the eve of Parliament imposing a new obligation on the local authorities. The circumstance was suspicious, to say the least of it, for it seemed as if the Government were afraid to put in the hands of the new local authorities a standard which would make it difficult for the managers to carry out their work in existing buildings, many of which were unsuitable for the purposes of educational work.
§ (6.8.) SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)
thought the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to this Amendment was based on an incorrect foundation. The hon. Baronet stated that an immense time would have to elapse between the passing of the Bill and its coming into operation. He could not appreciate the force of that objection at all. The Act would come into operation at once. The question was whether the buildings now in use were or were not fit for use as schools. He thought the Committee had a right to say that before these schools and other buildings were taken over and provided for in 284 future out of public funds they should be structurally suitable, at least, for carrying on the work of a school. If the buildings were structurally unsuitable for the work of a school to be carried on, if the denominational authority practically provided nothing for the school, where was the force of the Prime Minister's argument that this authority should have a preponderating voice in the management of the school? The supporters of the Amendment had a right to ask the Government to insert it, or equivalent words, in the Clause to say that the denominational managers should provide structurally suitable buildings, and that this need should be complied with at once on the requisition of the education authority before money was found for the carrying on of these schools. But how were they to compel the voluntary managers, and where were the funds to come from? Were they to compel the managers to raise a subscription? They could do nothing in this respect, and the money would have to be found out of the rates. As the public authority, therefore, would insist upon having buildings structurally suitable and properly equipped, the argument of those who supported the Amendment was strengthened if the public money was to be spent, not only in carrying on the school, but really in building a new school. The grant of that public money should be accompanied by popular control.
said that on every ground some such words as these ought to be accepted by the Government. He regarded the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary as a mere temporising speech to stave over a difficulty. The new authorities were to be overlookers of the education of the country and Parliament ought not to saddle them with schools which were totally unfit for the work to be carried on. The Parliamentary Secretary said the matter would be looked into by the Board of Education in London, but everybody knew that the Board winked at these defects. When the country was making a new start in educational policy liberty ought to be conceded to the new authorities to say whether or not in their opinion the work of education should be continued in these buildings. He declined 285 to entrust Lord Londonderry with a decision of this kind. He was not sure that according to the Bill even the Marquess of Londonderry would have any power. At any rate he would have very little power, because the subsection of the Bill to which reference had been made by the hon. Member for North Camberwell referred merely to alterations and improvements of existing buildings, and he made bold to say that, in a dispute between the managers of a denominational school and the new education authority, the latter could not for a moment with success contend that they could order the building to be pulled down. How could they make a cow house, or a stable, or a barn into a good school? It could not be done, and yet that was all the power that was given to the new education authority. The first essential for elementary education was to have a proper building, not one adapted from an erection which was structurally unfit. He maintained that the House had an absolute right to declare first, that the new education authorities should not be burdened with improper structures, and, secondly, that, having the duty cast upon them to provide proper education, they must provide it in proper places under proper conditions, and that they themselves should decide, without appeal, whether a school was suitable or not. If there was to be any delay at all, it would arise from this appeal to the Board of Education. Did the friends of the Bill really mean to say that the education authority should do everything else in education, but should not be empowered to say whether a room was fit for educational purposes? A good solid test of the bonâ fides of the intentions of the Government on the question of efficiency in education could be had in their attitude to this question. If the Government intended that education ought to be properly given in properly-constructed buildings they would at once accept the Amendment.
§ MR. TREVELYAN
said that the question was what authority was to be trusted to improve the structural condition of the voluntary schools. There was no difference of opinion that they wanted improvement. There were three authorities—the Board of Education, the local authority, and the managers. The Parliamentary Secretary had said that the education authority was capable of applying 286 pressure to those school managers, and was to be trusted to do it, but the most emphatic sentence in Lord Londonderry's speech on Friday, in addressing the school inspectors, was—what no doubt was a truism—that education was not confined to seats and desks and good buildings. It was a very good thing that Lord Londonderry should address himself to the kind of education given by the teachers, but he went on to say that he deprecated the too rigid application of building rules. So much for the Department; but what about the managers? Unfortunately they found in many parts of England the managers of the voluntary schools were declaring that it was very likely that they would not, be able to find the money for the structural necessities of the school buildings. The Leamington and Warwick Clerical Society had said it had yet to be shown that the rank and file of the Church school managers had the funds, or where these were to be found. Of course, the subscriptions would cease, for they would not pay as subscribers and be taxed at the same time. If the Church school managers were not going to find the money for structural repairs, one of two things must happen—either the structural repairs would not be made, or the Government would have to drop out the Clause at a later stage. The Amendment proposed to call in the assistance of the only remaining authority to insist on the alterations being made—that authority which the Government said they trusted so implicitly.
§ MR. M'KENNA
asked how the Government proposed to compel the managers to make the school buildings structurally suitable. The Secretary to the Board of Education had said that sub-Clause (d) provided for keeping the school house in proper repair; but, supposing the managers did not obey, what was to happen? It was conceivable that, for want of funds, the managers could not make such reasonable alterations as might be required. Would the First Lord accept one or other of the Amendments standing later on the Paper which provided that, "If the managers are unable or unwilling to carry out these requirements, or fail to carry 287 them out with due despatch, the local education authority shall have the right themselves to make such repairs, alterations, and improvements as are sanctioned by the Board of Education, and any school thereafter maintained in such buildings shall be held to be a school provided by that authority." If the First Lord would accept that Amendment he would advise his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said that if the hon. Member would read Clause 8, he would see that one condition under ‡ which a school was maintained was that the managers did what was provided in sub-Section (d). That being so, what would happen in case of non-compliance would be that the school would cease to be maintained.
§ MR. M'KENNA
said that time would be lost if the local authority had to go to the Board of Education to get their sanction to build another school. The managers would have the local education authority in the hollow of their hand, and he submitted that the remedy apparently was to stop education in the school and district.
§ (6.25) MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)
said that he hoped that some answer would be given to the arguments urged in favour of the Amendment.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he had listened with great patience to the debate. Some hon. Gentlemen surely wished to defeat the Bill, and if the Bill was defeated those schools would go on exactly as they were at present. The second alternative was that if the Bill passed, the local authority would in any case in which the structure of a school required alteration and improvement, inform the managers. The managers would either be able to carry out the instructions given to them or not. If they could not carry them out, the school would cease to be a voluntary school, the education authority would have to provide its school, and that school would be a publicly provided school. There would be no further denominational education, and he would have thought that hon. Gentleman opposite would 288 have much preferred that, so that he could not really see what it was that those gentlemen had to complain of.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE
said he would not have risen after the speech of the right hon. Member for West Monmouth, if they had had a more satisfactory answer to the arguments put before the Committee from that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that there were a large number of schools which were structurally unfit, and surely it was not desirable that the new local authority should take over bad schools. The point made was simply this—a large number of the voluntary schools were in an undesirable condition, and the local authorities, if they were to fall back on the school managers of these schools, would find that they were really bankrupt. For that there was no provision in this Bill, except with that undue delay which the Secretary to the Board of Education deprecated. It seemed to him that these words were the necessary complement of sub-Section (d) and were by no means, unnecessary. The whole trouble was that there were a large number of schools in which education was not carried on properly at the present time, and which, in the future, if their education was to become efficient, would have to fall back on the voluntary subscribers. It was because the voluntary schools were behind that this Bill was brought in, yet, the schools were told that they were to trust in the future to the efforts which had not been successful in the past.
§ MR. FLETCHER MOULTON (Cornwall, Launceston)
said the remedy, if there was no obedience to this condition, was not that the school ceased to be a school earning the support of the local education authority, but the only punishment was that it lost the Parliamentary grant. The obligation, however, to keep the school going and to maintain it was found in the first words of Clause 8, and was not removed by this disobedience. The disobedience of the managers would therefore punish the local education authority, who would be obliged to maintain the school without the aid of the Parliamentary Grant. What they wanted to do by this Amendment 289 was simply to make the structural suitability of the school a condition precedent, if he might use a legal term, to the taking of it over. As the matter stood, it was not a condition precedent, and the sole remedy was for the educational authority to proceed against the managers, and possibly get a mandamus against them, but the duty to maintain the school without the Parliamentary grant remained just as before. If the Premier would accept an Amendment to sub-Section 2, and make it stand thus: "in order that it may rank as a public elementary school" they would be quite satisfied, but all it said at present was "in order to maintain the Parliamentary grant,' and so long as it stood in that form it was quite possible for a school to continue under inferior conditions in defiance of the local authority.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the hon. and learned Gentleman might be right or he might be wrong as to the legal interpretation of the Clause as it stool, that he (Mr. Balfour) had stated the policy of the Government in this matter very frequently If the Clause did not carry that out, let them get on to that part of it where this Amendment was thought to be necessary, and if it was necessary it would be accepted. This was not the point at which it was required.
§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)
said he differed entirely from the right hon. Gentleman. He thought the right hon. Gentleman did not appreciate the point of the Amendment, which was that no school should be taken over at all if its building was not in a condition structurally suitable. That was, by the Amendment, to be a condition precedent to any operation of the Bill. Surely that was a most reasonable view to take of this matter. It had already been admitted by the Secretary to the Board of Education that there were in the country now a great number of schools structurally unsuitable, and owing to the construction of the Bill all these schools would be taken over, however bad they might be, and the first thing the County Councils would have to do would be to press the managers to put them into a suitable condition structurally. But there was 290 no means in the Bill as it stood of coercing the managers. If this change was not made in the Clause, the managers would hold the key of the position, for they would only have to say, "Here are the schools you are required to take over" He submitted that time would be saved in the long run if they had made it a condition precedent rather than that the matter should be made the means of a controversy between the educational authorities and the managers.
§ * MR. DUKE (Plymouth)
said the right hon. Gentlemen's proposal amounted to this, that although the managers of the schools continued to carry on their schools in buildings which for twenty or thirty years had been approved for the purpose, a hostile local authority might at the end of this year refuse to provide anything for the expenditure which had been incurred. The proposal was a monstrous one, and was intended to destroy the voluntary schools.
§ MR. WALLACE (Perth)
was amazed at the application of the word "monstrous" to an Amendment which merely sought to provide that the schools were structurally suitable. He had understood from the Prime Minister that the whole basis of the Bill was trust in the local authorities, and he could not imagine for a moment that there was a single Member in the House who thought that a building which was structurally unsuitable for a school should be forced upon the local authority, yet that was the proposition which was made by the Bill as it stood.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
asked what was to be done if the local authorities said to the managers "You must repair your buildings" and the latter declined or neglected to comply with the demand? The school might be closed for eighteen months while the matter was being fought out. How would they bridge over that interval, during which time there might be no school at all in the parish? All that was asked by the Amendment was that there should be the same remedy as that which they had in the matter of roads at the present moment. When it was a question of taking over a road, the highway 291 authority said "We will take over your road provided that in the first place you put it into proper repair" They desired that that principle should be incorporated in this Bill.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he failed to see that this Amendment saved any time, except that it might save the time required for asking the Education
§ Department to investigate the justice of the claims put forward by the local authority. If that was the only difference between them, it ought to be decided not on this Clause, but on the subsequent one.
§ (6.48.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 111; Noes, 249. (Division List No. 396.)293
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Rigg, Richard|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Harwood, George||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Helme, Norval Watson||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)||Runciman, Walter|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Holland, Sir William Henry||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Horniman, Frederick John||Scott, Charles Prestwich (Leigh|
|Bell, Richard||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Shackleton, David James|
|Black, Alexander William||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Jacoby, James Alfred||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Joicey, Sir James||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Jones, William (Carn'rvonshire||Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants|
|Burns, John||Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Burt, Thomas||Kitson, Sir James||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Caine, William Sproston||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Caldwell, James||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Lewis, John Herbert||Thomas, JA (Gl'morgan, Gower|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Lloyd-George, David||Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Logan, John William||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Crombie, John William||Lough, Thomas||Wallace, Robert|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||M'Kenna, Reginald||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Wason, Eugene|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Markham, Arthur Basil||Weir, James Galloway|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Dunn, Sir William||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)|
|Edwards, Frank||Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Emmott, Alfred||Moss, Samuel||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Moulton, John Fletcher||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Newnes, Sir George||Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Norman, Henry||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Partington, Oswald||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Grant, Corrie||Perks, Robert William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||Pirie, Duncan V.||Mr. Herbert Gladstone and|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Priestley, Arthur||Mr. William M'Arthur.|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Carlile, William Walter|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.|
|Aird, Sir John||Bignold, Arthur||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Bigwood, James||Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bill, Charles||Cayzer, Sir Charles William|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)|
|Arrol, Sir William||Bond, Edward||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Chamberlain, Rt Hon. J. (Birm.|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex||Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A. (Worc|
|Balcarres, Lord||Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Chapman, Edward|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Charrington, Spencer|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Clive, Captain Percy A.|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Brown, Alexander H.||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Butcher, John George||Cohen, Benjamin Louis|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Carew, James Laurence||Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Healy, Timothy Michael||Percy, Earl|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.)||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Heaton, John Henniker||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Henderson, Sir Alexander||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)||Purvis, Robert|
|Cust, Henry John C.||Hogg, Lindsay||Randles, John S.|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Rankin, Sir James|
|Davenport, William Bromley-||Hornby, Sir William Henry||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Denny, Colonel||Hoult, Joseph||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Houston, Robert Paterson||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Howard, John (Kent, Fav'sh'm||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield||Haward, J. (Midd., Tottenham)||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hutton, John (York. N. R)||Rutherford, John|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Johnstone, Heywood||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Kemp George||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Kenyon, Hon Geo. T. (Denbigh||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Kenvon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Keswick, William||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)|
|Fellowes, Hon Aylwyn Edward||Kimber, Henry||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Finch, George H.||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Spear, John Ward|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Lawson, John Grant||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Fison, Frederick William||Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Flower, Ernest||Lock wood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Stroyan, John|
|Forster, Henry William||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Gardner, Ernest||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd uni.|
|Garfit, William||Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'ml'ts||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Gore, Hn G R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Macartney. Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison||Valentia, Viscount|
|Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby- (Linc.)||Macdona, John Cumming||Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Manners, Lord Cecil||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Milvain, Thomas||Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne|
|Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Grenfell, William Henry||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||More, Robet Jasper (Shropshire)||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Gunter, Sir Robert||Morrell, George Herbert||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Hain, Edward||Morrison, James Archibald||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Hall, Edward Marshall||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Mount, William Arthur||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Hambro, Charles Eric||Mowbary, Sir Robert Gray C.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute||Younger, William|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Myers, William Henry|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Harries, Federick Leverton||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Pemberton, John S. G.|
(7.0.) Amendment proposed—
In page 3, line 6, after the word 'necessary,' to insert the words ' and have the control of all
expenditure required for that purpose other than expenditure for which under this Act provision is to be made by the managers.'"—(Mr. Alexander Brown)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."—(Mr. Alexander Brown)
§ DR. MACNAMARA,
pointing out that the Amendment proposed to give the control of expenditure to the local authority, asked how far the unrepealed portion of the Act of 1870 would permit the local authority absolutely and entirely to delegate all that financial control to the managers. The First Lord of the Treasury, at Manchester, was under a serious misapprehension when he said—We have borrowed the term manager from the Act of 1870, and in that Act the terms 'managers' and 'management' do not carry with them the idea of control.
§ DR. MACNAMARA (continuing)
quoted Section 15 of the Act of 1870.The School Board may, if they think fit, from time to time delegate any of their powers under this Act, except the power of raising money, and in particular, may delegate the control… and management of the schools'.He thought it very desirable that the Government should look over that section and see whether it would not be necessary to repeal some part of it if that financial control was not to be directly delegated. There might be no objection to a directly elected body delegating this control, but there was a serious objection to a nominated body delegating the control to another body of persons, only two out of six of whom represented the public.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,) Inverness Burghs
said his impression was that it would not be necessary to repeal any portion of the section referred to. The responsibility for the control of this expenditure would rest with the local education authority, who would be subject to audit in the manner provided. He would, however, look into the matter before the repealing clauses were reached.
§ MR. M'KENNA moved to insert after "have" in the Amendment, the word "sole," in order that it might be perfectly clear that the local authority should have sole control. Under the Bill the control 296 of expenditure was in the hands of the managers, and but for this Amendment would remain exclusively in their hands. There was such a thing as joint control, and his contention was that the managers should have no control whatever over a single penny of public money. As the Bill stood the managers had sole control over the expenditure. The relations—whether of dependence or semi-dependence—between the managers and the local authority were nowhere defined. By sub-Clause (c) of Clause 8, the consent of the local education authority was required to the appointment of teachers. That meant, if anything, that the managers had the appointment of teachers.
* THE CHAIRMAN
The remarks of the hon. Member do not seem to be relevant to the Amendment. The Amendment is simply the difference between "control" and "sole control."
§ MR. M'KENNA
said the relevancy was that if the managers had the sole control over the appointment and payment of teachers they had the sole control over the expenditure. The Amendment was to give the control to the local authority. But that would not take away the control of the managers. His point was that managers should have no control at all. From beginning to end there was no power given in the Bill to the managers to appoint the teachers, but it was obviously assumed by the words of sub-Clause (c) of Section 8. That was the only possible construction of the Section. Consequently, the control of the expenditure was in the hands of the managers, and it was not altered by giving a concurrent control to the local authority. The insertion of the word "sole" was therefore necessary.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
After the first word 'the,' to insert the word 'sole.'"—
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'sole' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."—
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said there was not a single syllable in the whole Bill giving the managers any control whatever over 297 expenditure. The hon. Member had read a sub-Section dealing with the functions of the managers, but the question with which the Amendment dealt was that of expenditure.
§ MR. M'KENNA
pointed out that he was really continuing an argument which he began on the previous Friday. The existing voluntary school managers had control over expenditure, and he had argued all along that it was assumed that the raw voluntary school managers would have the same control as the old managers had had, subject to such reductions as were contained in Clause 8.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said that that was what he denied. The use of the word "sole" would lead to the supposition that its insertion was for the purpose of freeing the local education authority from any conditions or restrictions as to expenditure imposed by the Board of Education, whereas it was intended, of course, that the authority should be subject to the general law.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said the argument seemed to be that the whole of the expenditure was not to be at the disposal of the education authority ("No.") The Attorney General had said they were to be subject to restrictions.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
What I said was that they would be subject to such general restrictions as by statute are imposed with reference to expenditure.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
asked what then was the general law? The Councils would be very anxious to know the law that was to restrain them from dealing with their own money. The Attorney General had opened a very large question, and before they proceeded further the Committee were entitled to know what these restrictions were. They ought to know what the general law was by which the Government, through the Education Department, would govern the local authority in the expenditure of money from the rate. They could 298 not pass that over as an insignificant thing. He did not know, and, with great respect, he did not think the Attorney General knew, what those powers were. Perhaps the Attorney General would be good enough to say what they were and lay them on the Table.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said that the point made by his hon. friend in favour of the Amendment had not been met. The Government contended that the whole of the control of the expenditure, or the sole control, should be vested in the education authority, but his hon. friend said that that was not so under the Bill. The position of the managers was not made clear by the Bill. They could test this in a very simple way. A very important part of the expenditure would be that in regard to the appointment of teacher's. Ho wished to know who would fix the salary of those teachers.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
asked, if any claim was made by a schoolmaster, would it be decided by the managers or by the education authority.
§ SIR W. HART DYKE (Kent, Dartford)
It would be the local education authority. That was a most explicit statement made by the Prime Minister.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)
said he should like the Attorney General to explain this matter a little further, for he could not follow the right hon. Gentleman's objection to the insertion of the word "sole" He instanced the legal control with regard to the Government grants, but the introduction of the word "sole" could not affect Government grants. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to have any real objection to the word "sole"
§ SIR CHARLES DILKE
pointed out that the words with regard to audit were contained in the Bill itself, and the insertion of the word "sole" could not override them.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said the Attorney General had made an important statement. He stated that the managers had no powers vested in them except those accorded by this Act.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
did not see why the Attorney General should discriminate between expenditure and anything else. His hon. friend said the managers had powers invested in them as voluntary managers. He wished to know, were those powers taken away by this Act? If so, then they had no power to appoint teachers.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he was simply taking that as an illustration. The Attorney General said there were no powers vested in these managers except the powers accorded by this Act. He was simply pointing out that under this Act there were no powers to appoint teachers. Therefore, the Government must have it in their minds that the managers refer to something else not in the Act, and he thought they were entitled to know where those powers came from—whether they proposed to put them into a schedule. And how were they to get a definition of the controlling power's of the managers unless they had some words inserted in the Act? Apparently there was something contemplated by the Government which was not in the Act. Where was the law that created the powers of the managers apart from the Bill?
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said this had nothing to do with the Amendment, for they were now dealing with the expenditure only.
§ MR. M'KENNA
contended that they had the same powers over expenditure as over anything else, and the Bill implied that they had powers over the teachers' salaries.
§ MR. WALLACE
asked whether the control could be delegated by the education authority to the managers or not.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said the whole responsibility must remain with the local education authority. He did not say that, as a matter of convenience, the petty expenditure might not by be left in the managers' hands.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
asked if it would be possible for the local authority to draw up their own Budget of expenditure and hand it over to the managers, saying, "Here it is; expend it." Would that be possible under this scheme for a year?
SIR ROBERT FTNLAY
I think the local education authority would need to approve or condemn that expenditure.
§ (7.23.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 105; Noes, 241. (Division List No. 397.)303
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Causton, Richard Knight||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Cawley, Frederick||Fuller, J. M. F.|
|Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry||Craig, Robert Hunter||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Crombie, John William||Grant, Corrie|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Dalziel, James Henry||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)|
|Bell, Richard||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Griffith, Ellis J.|
|Black, Alexander William||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Harmsworth, R. Leicester|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Duncan, J. Hastings||Harwood, George|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Dunn, Sir William||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Burns, John||Edwards, Frank||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)|
|Burt, Thomas||Emmott, Alfred||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Horniman, Frederick John|
|Caine, William Sproston||Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.|
|Caldwell, James||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Jacoby, James Alfred|
|Joicey, Sir James||Newnes, Sir George||Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower|
|Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire||Partington, Oswald||Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.|
|Kitson, Sir James||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Pirie, Duncan V.||Wallace, Robert|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Priestley, Arthur||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.|
|Leigh, Sir Joseph||Reckitt, Harold James||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Rigg, Richard||Wason, Eugene|
|Lloyd-George, David||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Logan, John William||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Lough, Thomas||Runciman, Walter||Whiteley, George (York., W. R.|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Schwann, Charles E.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|M'Arthnr, William (Cornwall)||Shackleton, David James||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth|
|Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.|
|Markham, Arthur Basil.||Soares, Ernest J.||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen||Spencer, Rt Hn. CR. (Northants||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose||Taylor, Theodore Cooke||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Moss, Samuel||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||Mr. Herbert Gladstone and|
|Moulton, John Fletcher||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Mr. William M'Arthur.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Davenport, William Bromley-||Hanbury Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.|
|Aird, Sir John||Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Denny, Colonel||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Harris, Frederick Leverton|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.|
|Arrol, Sir William||Digby, John K. D Wingfield-||Hatch, Ernest Frederick George|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley|
|Balcarres, Lord||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon||Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Doughty, George||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Henderson, Sir Alexander|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Hickman, Sir Alfred|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Duke, Henry Edward||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Hogg, Lindsay|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Hornby, Sir William Henry|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc r)||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry|
|Bignold, Arthur||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Hoult, Joseph|
|Bigwood, James||Finch, George H.||Howard, John (K'nt, Faversh'm|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham|
|Bond, Edward||Fisher, William Hayes||Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Fison, Frederick William||Hudson, George Bickersteth|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)||Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse|
|Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Johnstone, Heywood|
|Butcher, John George||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh|
|Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A (Glasgow||Flower, Ernest||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)|
|Carlile, William Walter||Forster, Henry William||Keswick, William|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W||Kimber, Henry|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.||Galloway, William Johnson||King, Sir Henry Seymour|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Gardner, Ernest||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Garfit, William||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'iH'ml'ts||Lawson, John Grant|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. Birm.||Gore, Hn GR. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon JA (Worc.||Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc.)||Lees, Sir Elliott Birkenhead)|
|Chapman, Edward||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Charrington, Spencer||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Llewellyn, Evan Henry|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Graham, Henry Robert||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.)||Long, Col. Charles W (Evesbam|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Greenfell, William Henry||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth|
|Cox, Irwin, Edward Bainbridge||Gunter, Sir Robert||Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Hain, Edward||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Hall, Edward Marshall||MacIver, David (Liverpool)|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas H.||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Cust, Henry John C.||Hambro, Charles Eric||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh, W|
|Manners, Lord Cecil||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Rattigan, Sir William Henry||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Milvain, Thomas||Remnant, James Farquharson||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Richards, Henry Charles||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Morgan, David J. (Walth'mst'w||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter||Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.|
|Morrison, James Archibald||Round, Rt. Hon. James||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Mount, William Arthur||Rutherford, John||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford-||Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton|
|Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Myers, William Henry||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)||Whiteley, H. (Asht'nund. Lyne|
|Nicholson, William Graham||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Pease, Herbret Pike (Darlington||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Pemberton, John S. G.||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Percy, Earl||Spear, John Ward||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Pierpoint, Robert||Stanley, Hon, Arthur (Ormsk'rk||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Plummer, Walter R.||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)||Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.|
|Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart||Younger, William|
|Pretyman, Ernest George||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Stroyan, John|
|Purvis, Robert||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Randles, John S.||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier||Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Rankin, Sir James||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
§ Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."—Debate arising.304
§ (7.38.) Question put, "That the Question-be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 240 Noes, 88. (Division List No. 398.)307
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Doxford, Sir William Theodore|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Duke, Henry Edward|
|Aird, Sir John||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. Birm.||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon JA (Worc'r||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Chapman, Edward||Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir. J. (Manc'r)|
|Arrol, Sir William||Charrington, Spencer||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Clive, Captain Percy||Finch, George H|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyney|
|Balcarres, Lord||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Colomb, Sir John Charles Reade||Fison, Frederick William|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athol||Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)||Compton, Lord Alwyne||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Flannery, Sir Fortescue|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Cox, Irwin, Edward Bainbridge||Flower Ernest|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Forster, Henry William|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W|
|Bignold, Arthur||Crossley, Sir Savile||Galloway, William Johnson|
|Bigwood, James||Cust, Henry John C.||Gardner, Ernest|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Garfit, William|
|Bond, Edward||Davenport, William Bromley-||Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham||Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'mlets|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex||Denny, Colonel||Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)|
|Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P||Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon|
|Butcher, John George||Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim|
|Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A (Glasgow||Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Carlile, William Walter||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Graham, Henry Robert|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Greene, Sir E. W (B'ryS. Edm'nds|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.||Doughty, George||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A Akers-||Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)|
|Grenfell, William Henry||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Rutherford, John|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Gunter, sir Robert||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse|
|Hain, Edward||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Hall, Edward Marshall||Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison||Shaw-Stewart, H. M. (Renfrew)|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Macdona, John Cumming||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Hambro, Charles Eric||Maclver, David (Liverpool)||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Manners, Lord Cecil||Spear, John Ward|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Stanley, Hn. Arthur Ormskirk|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Milvain, Thomas||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Montagu, G. (Huntington)||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Morgan, David J. (Walth'mst'w||Stroyan, John|
|Heath, James (Staffords. N. W)||Morrell, George Herbert||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Morrison, James Archibald||Strutt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Henderson, Sir Alexander||Mount, William Arthur||Talbot, Lord E. (Chicester)|
|Hickman, Sir Alfred||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Talbot, Rt Hn J. G (Oxford Univ.|
|Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Myers, William Henry||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Hornby, Sir William Henry||Nicholson, William Graham||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Valentia, Viscount|
|Hoult, Joseph||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)||Pemberton, John S. G.||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil||Percy, Earl||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Pierpoint, Robert||Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton|
|Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)|
|Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Plummer, Walter E.||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Johnston, Heywood||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne|
|Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Pretyman, Ernest George||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Keswick, William||Purvis, Robert||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Kimber, Henry||Randles, John S.||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour||Rankin, Sir James||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glascow)||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)||Rattigan, Sir William Henry||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Remnant, James Farquharson||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Lawson, John Grant||Richards, Henry Charles||Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.|
|Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Younger, William|
|Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Robertson, Herbert Hackney)|
|Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter||Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Kitson, Sir James|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Duncan, J. Hastings||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Edwards, Frank||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Emmott, Alfred||Leigh, Sir Joseph|
|Bell, Richard||Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Black, Alexander William||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Lloyd-George, David|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Logan, John William|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Fuller, J. M. F.||Lough, Thomas|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Goddard, Daniel Ford||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|Burns, John||Grant, Corrie||Mansfield, Horace Rendall|
|Burt, Thomas||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Griffith, Ellis J.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Caine, William Sproston||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)|
|Caldwell, James||Helme, Norval Watson||Moss, Samuel|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)||Newnes, Sir George|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Holland, Sir William Henry||Partington, Oswald|
|Cawley, Frederick||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Jacoby, James Alfred||Priestley, Arthur|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Joicey, Sir James||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.||Rigg, Richard|
|Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)||Strachey, Sir Edward||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Williams, Osmono (Merioneth)|
|Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)||Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk. Mid)|
|Runciman, Walter||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Schwann, Charles E.||Wallace, Robert||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Shackleton, David James||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Shipman, Dr. John G.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Soares, Ernest J||Whiteley, George (York., W. R)||Mr. Herbet Gladstone and|
|Spencer, Rt Hn C.R. (Northants||Whitley, J. H. (Halfax)||Mr. Wm. M'Arthur.|
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put accordingly, and agreed to.
§ It being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.