§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 8:—
§ (3.30.) MR. ALFRED HUTTON
said he would not move the last two lines of the Amendment of which he had given notice. The effect of his proposal was that in case the local education authority could not find any means to carry out the directions they desired in connection with the school in regard to secular education, they should have power to declare the managers at fault, and appoint other managers. The question which arose was, where did the ultimate power lie. The First Lord of the Treasury had put down an Amendment which he supposed was intended to cover this matter, but it seemed very much like the declaration of a pious opinion, and in a great many important matters this Bill contained a recital of a great many pious opinions. This proposal was no novel proceeding. This power was taken out of the Elementary Education Act of 1870, and was now in the hands of the Education Department, and might be used by them in regard to any School Boards in the country refusing to perform their duty. This power had not often been enforced, but the power to put this into force against School Boards, whether large or small, had enabled them to deal satisfactorily with the schools. If the education authority was to have power over these managers, they must have the same power which the Education Department had had in the past. This power was withdrawn from the Education Department by this Bill, and therefore it was doubly important that if the managers failed to carry out the directions of the local education authority, they should be able to replace or suspend the managers 640 of the school. It might be said that, if the local authority proceeded to any such measures, such a proceeding would undenominationalise the school, and interfere with the rights of the managers to control religious instruction in that school. The effect of such a sub-Section would not undenominationalise the school. The First Lord of the Treasury had divided the subject into religious and secular education, but he ventured to assert that there was no sub-Section or words in the Bill which placed any such power in the hands of the managers. Take the trust deed drawn up by the National Society. This deed reserves to the clergyman or his substitute, all the rights to control the religious education, and there was nothing in the Bill to interfere with that under the trust deeds of the National Society. His proposal would not interfere with any rights preserved by trust deeds to control and manage their religious training and denominational teaching. It would not even subject those schools to the Cowper-Temple Clause. He did not see that the First Lord of the Treasury could have any objection to this clear and definite way of allowing the local authority to have this power, and of being able to use it in case of urgent necessity, thereby keeping the managers up to their duties. He moved this Amendment in order to abolish the possibility of friction between the two bodies, for in case there was a struggle between the managers and the local authorities, the body which had the appointment of the teachers was bound to win unless some concession was made of the kind he suggested. His Amendment would once for all give power to enable the education authority to see that the managers who did not carry out their instructions should cease to have the power.
In page 3, line 10, at end, insert 'and if the managers fail to carry out such directions the local education authority shall have power to declare such managers in default and to appoint new managers.'"—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
ventured to think that the Amendment standing in his name was far better suited for the purpose. He would not discuss it now, but when it was reached on the Paper it would be quite possible to show that his Amendment was not open to the 641 same objection as that proposed by the hon. Member, and it would give the local authority absolute control over all matters of secular education. The proposal of the hon. Member did interfere with the managers who were entrusted with the religious education of the school. The hon. Gentleman's argument was that in the case of some trust deeds the control of religious education was in the hands of the clergyman of the parish. In his opinion one of the great merits of this Bill was that it introduced a large lay element into every question connected with the management of the schools. The managers, as a whole, should be responsible for all that came within tire purview of their duties. The Amendment divides them into two sections, to one of which was entrusted a certain class of duties, and to the other a different class. That was not the view of the Government.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
said he thought the proposal of his hon. friend was in substance very much better than that proposed by the Government. The Government proposed that the local authority should step in and see that this particular matter was carried out. This would be somewhat difficult. In the first place, the local authority might be a long way from the school, and unless they had managers they had no machinery by which this particular matter could be carried out. The simple and only way which he could see in case of dispute, was to give temporary power to put other managers in their place. It would interest him a good deal to see what was the actual practical way in which the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the local education authority should have power to carry out their directions. The Attorney General said the other night that it was easy to find ingenious arguments, but practical difficulties would arise in a considerable number of cases. There would be cases in which the managers and the local authority would come into conflict, and they would have to consider the easiest way of getting over that difficulty. Therefore, he should support the Amendment of his hon. friend as the most practical measure.
§ DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)
said that if the managers refused to carry 642 out the orders of the local education authority, he understood the Prime Minister's intention was the local authority would take over the management of the school.
§ MR. A.J. BALFOUR
That is going too far. There would have to be a new school built, and the local authority would take over the management soon enough to see their orders carried out.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
took it that the local authority would have power to carry out the direction as if they were the managers. In that event, would this particular school in which the managers refused to carry out the order then become a provided school? If so, under Clause 7 they had power to appoint whatever managers they thought fit. If that was the case, then some Amendment of this kind was necessary He gathered from what the First Lord had said, that his interpretation was not correct.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the true interpretation was this. If the power given by his Amendment, or by the hon. Gentlemen's Amendment, were exercised, the school would be made what it was now—a voluntary school—but if the managers refused to carry out the directions of the education authority within the sphere of secular education, the local authority would, of course, have the power of refusing to pay for that school, and another school would have to be provided.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said he under stood it would then be within the right of the local authority to strike out the school from any share of the Treasury grant, and to refuse to aid it from the local rate. It seemed to him that that was a considerable power, and that it would meet the whole situation This was not in the Bill, but they hoped to get it definitely laid down by the Prime Minister's Amendment when they came to it. If hon. Members would look at the Bill they would see that all financial aid was to be received upon the carrying out of the orders of the local authority. If the managers refused to carry out these orders the school would be absolutely without any money whatever. The old Treasury grants were 643 gone, but there was to be a general grant paid to the local authority to be handed over to a particular school on the understanding that the managers carried out the instructions of the local authority with regard to secular instruction. The school, if the managers refused to carry out the instruction, could go on as a private adventure school, but the local authority would have to consider the need of providing proper school accommodation for the district. In that case the school would be a provided school. He thought this Amendment should not be pressed, because it would exclude the discussion of this question when they came to the Prime Minister's Amendment.
§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)
said they had great difficulty in discussing this Amendment without knowing what was meant by the Prime Minister's Amendment which would be moved later on. He thought the Rules might be so far suspended as to allow the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee some indication of what his Amendment meant. The difficulty he felt on reading the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was as to how it was to be carried out. The Committee did not understand what machinery was to be given to the local authority to enable them to step in and supersede the school managers. If there should be a body of managers so obstinate, dogged, and recalcitrant as to refuse to obey the injunctions of the local authority, surely the remedy of coming in and carrying out these particular directions ought to be an adequate remedy. Owing to the changes made in Clause 7 the Committee unfortunately did not at present know how the foundation managers were to be appointed. He understood his hon. Friend's Amendment to provide that if the local authority found the managers obstinately refusing to carry out their directions there would be a new set of managers appointed who would be in accord with the local authority and willing to carry out their directions. If that was his hon. Friend's intention, he thought it was a reasonable way of carrying out the object in view. Unless the right hon. Gentleman gave some clearer indication than he had yet given of the way his Amendment was to be worked in order to enable the Committee 644 to judge whether it would be an effective remedy, he would support his hon. Friend's Amendment.
§ MR. M'KENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)
said that according to the Bill money was to be granted to a school by the local authority on condition that the managers complied with certain conditions. Under sub-Section 2 there would be a specific remedy in the case of the conditions not being complied with. The managers would have the power to appeal, and the appeal would have to be decided. That meant that the power of imposing the financial condition was not in the hands of the local education authority, but in the hands of the Education Department. It would be found impossible to proceed by mandamus against a local authority that refused to carry out the provisions of the Bill, because the procedure was slow and tedious. A mandamus could only be got to carry out a particular provision of the Bill. No mandamus could be got from the court to carry out the general objects of the Bill. That was the power this Amendment proposed to give. When managers refused to carry out the instructions of the local authority, the only way of dealing with them was to declare them in default. Otherwise there must be delay, and possibly the closing of the school and the leaving of hundreds of children without education at all.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the Government could not accept the Amendment, because it would cut out other Amendments which possibly the Committee would like to see put in the Bill. He suggested with the view of shortening the debate that the present Amendment should be withdrawn, and that the hon. Member for the Morley Division should move it as an Amendment to the plan which he himself would propose later on. That or some equivalent scheme could be adopted, so that the Committee could discuss both plans at the same time.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.645
§ *(4.0.) MR. HELME (Lancashire, Lancaster)
said that after the expression of the willingness on the part of the Prime Minister to consider the possibility of really amending some of these regulations, he appealed to the Government, with some little confidence, to assist them in improving the working of the Act by accepting the Amendment standing in his name, which he thought was calculated to secure the better working of the elementary school system. It was generally understood that public elementary schools were conducted week by week throughout the year, except for ordinary holidays, for the purpose of giving a system of ordinary education to the children of all sorts who were compelled to attend. Now, in discussing the relations of the local education authority with the managers, they were face to face with a totally new situation compared with that held in the past. Hence it was that he thought the House ought to consider very carefully how best to strengthen their arrangements, so as to secure entire control on the part of the local authority in the matter of secular instruction. A case arose which illustrated the necessity of, and need for, defining the powers of the local authority and the managers, in regard to the important matter of interfering with the regular course of instruction by closing the school. For instance, in St. Luke's School, in Lancaster, the ordinary work of the school was given up for a week, notice being forwarded in the usual way to His Majesty's Inspector, but the school met. and the efforts of the teaching staff were centred upon the Diocesan syllabus of religious education. It might be asked how that could be done, as it was well known that all religious instruction must be given at the time specified in the time-table. He would remind the Committee that there were regulations that affected the opening and the closing of voluntary schools, and that Article 83 of the Code stated that the school must be opened not less than 400 times in the year, power being left to managers to give holidays—for the purpose of meeting local conditions such as the harvest in agricultural districts. Now, in the official returns of the 646 school to which he referred, the entry was made that the school was closed, and the register was not marked during that week. The children whose parents objected to this religious teaching were not obliged to go; but at the same time, in a voluntary school, attended by children of all denominations, under cover of the provision he had mentioned, the school was so far disbanded in order that the whole attention of the teachers should be given to the teaching of the children in the syllabus adopted by the Diocesan Board, including the Church Catechism. It was to prevent such miscarriages of justice that he contended that the local authority should be supreme in all matters of secular instruction. It was not within the spirit of the elementary system of education that the time of the schools should be broken into for the purpose of centreing on religious and sectarian instruction. He was glad to believe that this was an odd case, but the exceptions proved the rule. If that was done in a populous town, what might be done in a rural parish? In an administrative county like Lancashire, where there were a thousand schools, it was literally impossible for the education authority to deal with each case and itself do all the work thrown upon it by this Clause, but whilst devolving on others the oversight it could control their action. The local authority should be possessed of all power, and only those things left to the managers which were specified in the Bill. He urged the Government in the interests of the good working of a good system of secular instruction throughout the country to accept his Amendment which he now moved.
In page 3, line 10, after the word 'school' to insert the words 'including the number of days the school must be open during the year"—(Mr. Helme.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ * THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University)
said he could assure the hon. Member for Lancaster that he should not oppose his Amendment if he did not feel that it was unnecessary. 647 It must be borne in mind that the Code required the school to be opened for a certain number of days in the year, but it would be seen from the words of the Section already passed that the managers of the school were bound to carry out the directions of the education authority as to secular instruction. If the local authority chose to require that the school should be open more than 400 times in the year the managers must obey. With the powers conferred by the Bill on the local authority such a thing as had been mentioned by the hon. Member could never happen if the local authority chose to prevent it. The powers which the hon. Gentleman wished to confer on the local authority were contained in the Bill. Moreover, the Amendment would have a bad effect, for it would limit the general powers the Government wished to confer.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Burghs)
said he quite saw the force of the argument of the hon. Gentleman that if they specified certain duties in the Bill they would rather limit the power of the local education authority. But was there not the further danger of limiting the powers of the local authority too much? He was not so sure but that the powers were too generally expressed, and that some of them would be challenged by the managers, if attempted to be enforced; and with some show of reason. He suggested that some of these powers should be set forth, in the present Clause or later on in the Schedule. If they were left entirely to general words it would lead to litigation. In other Bills certain specific powers were imposed on the local authority, and then there was a general power vested in them; but here there was not a specific instance of powers which would be a guide to the courts or the Education Department with which it was intended to vest the managers and over which the county authority would have control. The danger was this: that the Prime Minister had had simply the Parliamentary situation in his mind, and he had given instructions to the draftsman of the Bill to compress it as much as possible. Twenty clauses were better than fifty clauses from the point of view of the Leader of the House, who was responsible for getting the Bill through. There was a good deal too much legislation by reference to previous Acts, and to orders and rules of Departments; and 648 was not the Prime Minister carrying that principle too far in this Bill? The Bill had been compressed to such an extent that the moment it was put into water it swelled. All these matters referred to were practical difficulties which each and all of them had encountered in their experience in managing local affairs in County Councils; and he asked the Prime Minister and the Government whether they could not see their way to specify in the schedule a little more the kind of things that would fall upon the county authorities and on the managers? He was sure that if they did so, discussion would be curtailed in the long run. They were having a sort of Bill constructed by cross-examination. It would be better if the Government could see their way to put into a schedule the class of things over which they were to exercise control. Then the right hon. Gentleman could add general words. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that they fixed the salaries of the teachers. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had got this in his mind but it was not clear in the Act, and if the matter went before a legal tribunal, difficulties would arise in interpreting the Bill. There never had been an Act so productive of litigation as the Employers Liability Bill, He had been told by a judge, that with regard to this Act it was purely a toss up whether he gave a verdict for the plaintiff or the defendant. It seemed to him that the Government were sacrificing the efficient working of their Bill in order to save a few days of Parliamentary time. In the interests of the smooth working of the Bill was it not better that the Prime Minister should take into consideration the desirability of giving some indication of the kind of thing which he thought ought to be left to the county authority.
§ SIR. JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)
said he entirely agreed with the concluding observations of his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education, and he trusted that the Committee would follow his advice and not the advice given them by the hon. and learned. Member opposite. Powers were conferred upon local authorities in this Bill by general words, and in conferring them by general words they could only be cut down by Amendments like this which the Committee were 649 discussing, and if the Committee would refrain from adopting the schedule which the hon. Member opposite had placed before them; and if the Prime Minister would not propose such a schedule or state any specific powers, then the local authority would possess all those general powers which were conferred upon it. But if the Committee embarked upon a schedule of this kind, then the local authority would only have those which were stated in the schedule, or those powers which lawyers called ejusdemgeneris, and they would not have those wide and general powers which he hoped the Committee would agree to.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)
said he agreed with the hon. Member for Carnarvon that they might carry those general rules a great deal too far. It would be very hard upon the country that this Bill should become—as it would inevitably become—a measure in which a number of these questions would be litigated throughout. His hon. friend had referred to a very typical example in the Compensation to Workmen Bill. The way that Bill was drawn, and the expense everybody had been put to to bring it into operation, had been a great hardship upon the workpeople. In this Bill they had a very complicated machinery, there were many complicated relations interse, and unless they denned what were their powers to a certain degree—they did not need to go into great detail—to see what were the respective functions of the numerous bodies who would have to administer almost every part of this Bill, they would be sure to raise a number of very difficult questions. He know that the Attorney-General thought they were not as intelligent as they ought to be in understanding this Bill, and therefore when they raised objections which might arise, he said those were purely the sort of things which never would arise. He did not think that was the case. He understood the Prime Minister to say that he would consider the point which was raised at the end of the discussion yesterday.
* THE CHAIRMAN
The discussion has been taking rather a wide tarn, and I would recall it to the exact wording of the Amendment.
§ (4.25.) MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N.W.)
said these Amendments 650 would be quite unnecessary if they could get some promise from the Prime Minister that he would deal with these details in some general form. If they could have some assurance that some such words as "it shall be the duty of the local authority to issue general instructions to the managers that all matters affecting the secular duties of the managers" would be added, that would cover a great many of the Amendments which were now being introduced. This sub-Section having been defined to a certain extent, there was great danger that many other important matters would not be considered to be in the hands of the local authority in their relation to the managers. He hoped some such general instruction as that which he had suggested would be passed.
§ MR. M'KENNA
contended that it would be better if such words were inserted in the schedule. With reference to the remarks, of the late Vice-President of the Council, to whose opinion he always gave the greatest deference, he regretted that upon this occasion he could not agree with him. He said that if they introduced any words of that sort they would cut down the general powers of the Bill. The words were so general as to be almost useless. The words were general as to the control of secular education, and yet they did not exclude the appointment of teachers for secular instruction. What was a court of law to do in that case? The judges were bound to say that those words had not got the general meaning, otherwise they must have included the appointment of teachers. He hoped that before the Committee stage was over they would insert item after item in the schedule, giving the local education authority control over the education which he submitted they had not got under the Bill as it stood.
§ * SIR JOSEPH LEESE (Lancashire, Accrington)
pointed out that at an earlier stage of the Bill he ventured to move that such a schedule should be inserted, but the Committee refused his proposal. He thought the Secretary to the Board of Education had made a very important statement. He had stated that the words in sub-Section (a) carried 651 with them great authority, and were practically supreme. In regard to the extension of hours would the same supreme authority extend to the curriculum?
§ * MR. HELME
said that relying on the assurances which the Secretary to the Board of Education had been kind enough to give, for he had taken down his words "that fixing the number of days for the school to be open is in the power of the local authority, and that managers cannot close the school without consent of the local authority," would be secured by the Government. He now begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR (Liverpool, Exchange)
said in order that public control might be made fully effective in respect of secular instruction in denominational schools, it would be necessary that certain words should be inserted. In the discussion on the last Amendment, reference was made to the danger of inserting specific words, but he thought there was an equal danger of omitting to insert words where they referred to important matters of principle. He had no doubt it was the intention of the framers of the Bill that the words in sub-Section (a) applied not only to the course of instruction, but to the persons by whom the instruction was to be given. But he thought the words were capable of a much narrower interpretation than that. They might be confined to the subject matter of the teaching and the manner in which it was given, and might not extend to the organisation of the teaching staff. One of the objects of this Bill was to place all schools on the same educational level. If that was to be done it was clear that the local authority would have to be armed with full powers to deal with the composition of the teaching staff; they would have to prescribe what number of teachers should be appointed in relation to the number of scholars; whether all the teachers were to be certificated or only some, and what was to be the proportion between the certificated and un certificated teachers; whether pupil teachers were to be reckoned part of the staff, and the scale of remuneration. As his Amendment was originally drafted, the word "remuneration" 652 was inserted, but he had been assured on high authority that, having regard to the insertion in the Bill of words which gave the local authority complete control over public funds, it would be superfluous for that word to be inserted. At the same time it would have to be understood that the local authority had the power to fix the general scale of teachers' salaries, otherwise it would be open to the managers of one school to be more generous at the public expense than the managers of another school. As to the dismissal of teachers, he thought it was evident that if there was to be public control, the local authority must have the same voice as regarded dismissal as it had regarding the appointment of teachers. If that was not done, the teacher, after having been appointed, would stand in an independent position with reference to the local authority, and would even be able to set the directions of the local authority at defiance. Therefore he submitted that the right of dismissal must be given to the local authority, and indeed the local authority ought to have the power, in case of need, to step over the heads of the managers and dismiss teachers who were proved by the inspector, or on examination, to be entirely inefficient. They had to remember that teachers under this Bill would not be entirely the servants of the local authority. As regarded religious teaching, the local authority would have no control, and, therefore, they ought to define very exactly what extent the control of the local authority was to be. It would not do that because a man was a capable religious teacher, because he might play the organ well, because he sang in the choir, or was an admirable superintendent of the Sunday school, it was to make up for any deficiency in his capacity in secular education. Therefore, he thought it was clear that this power, although it might not be readily exercised, was to be given to the local authority. It was not necessary to go into details. A great deal had to be left to the discretion of the managers. If gentlemen of position were to undertake these duties they could not be mere puppets. At the same time they knew the local authority would have the power to supervise, and, if necessary, correct any 653 action of the managers; and, over and above that, he submitted that it would he necessary to regard this all-important matter, and that distinct intimation should be given to the local authorities that they had a positive duty to deal with these matters, and to lay down lines necessary for the guidance of the managers. Only in this way would they obtain the unity of system they so desired.
In page 3, line 10, at end, to insert the words 'including any directions with respect to the, number and educational qualifications of the teachers to be employed for such instruction, and with respect to the dismissal of any teacher on educational grounds.'"—(Mr. Charles M'Arthur.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R, Elland)
asked whether the last words of the Amendment would put out of order subsequent Amendments to place the appointment or dismissal of teachers in the hands of the local authorities.
* THE CHAIRMAN
I should think it would affect the question of dismissal. It probably would not affect the question of appointment.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he confessed he had some hesitation with respect to the Amendment of his hon. friend; but only on the ground that they ought to be cautious in putting into the sub-Section any words which, while aiming at extending its character, might have precisely the opposite effect of limiting it. However, he was well aware that the Amendment, even if it were not absolutely necessary to make the Bill clear, touched a point of controversy in the country as to the intention of the Government or the effect of the Bill. He would not argue whether the Bill, as originally drawn, carried out the intention of the Government with respect to the teachers. Personally, he thought it did. But there was no doubt that that intention was entirely in conformity with his hon. friend's Amendment. It might be held that the dismissal of teachers was not included in the general phrase about 654 the control of secular education being vested in the local authority; and, therefore, in order to remove that misconception and place the matter beyond doubt, he would accept the Amendment.
§ MR. M'KENNA
said that he wished to move an Amendment to the Amendment. The hon. Member for the Exchange Division had already referred to the desirability of the teachers not being chosen on the ground of their efficiency in playing the organ at church, or leading the choir, or superintending the Sunday School. What he desired to secure was that when the teachers were appointed they should not have these duties put upon them. He thought the local education authority should regulate the duties of the teachers, and that the teachers should, have an appeal to the local education authority as against the managers. Unless some words were introduced to govern that there would be no such power in the Bill. He therefore begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
After the first word 'the,' to insert the words "regulation of the duties and the'"—(Mr. M'Kenna)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
§ (4.45.) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)
said the object of the hon. Member was clearly covered by the Bill as it stood, and therefore the Amendment could not be accepted. There was no use in piling up words. The words "with regard to secular instruction" simply meant power to give instructions to the teacher as such.
§ MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH (Anglesey)
thought the Amendment hardly raised the question his hon. friend had in mind. It would be better to raise it at a later stage in a more specific form.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
appealed to his hon. friend not to press the Amendment in its present general form. 655 The specific questions referred to constituted a serious public scandal, with which both sides would be ready to deal in the proper way at the proper time. A school teacher, when appointed, ought to be at absolute liberty in his own time to do as he pleased, always provided that what he did was not inconsistent with his duty as a public school teacher. He hoped that matter would be raised in a specific form later on, but in the meantime he suggested the Amendment should be withdrawn.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. CORRIE GRANT (Warwickshire, Rugby)
thought there ought to be in the hands of the local authority power to dismiss a teacher on many other than educational grounds. He suggested the Committee were somewhat out of order in discussing the question on the present Amendment, because if the Amendment were accepted as it stood the teacher would be dismiss-able only on educational grounds.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said the hon. Member was mistaken. It was not the intention that a teacher should be dismissible only on educational grounds, but the proposal was to give the local authority power to require on educational grounds the dismissal of a teacher. He certainly might be dismissed on other grounds.
§ MR. BRYCE
thought the point of his hon. friend was that it might be inferred from the Amendment when they came to sub-Section (c) that the local authority would not have power to direct a teacher's dismissal on other than educational grounds. The reference was probably to questions of character, which wore questions neither of religious nor of secular instructions.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
instanced the extreme case of a teacher who attended school drunk. That would be misconduct which, on educational grounds, warranted dismissal. Any misconduct which affected his position as a teacher would, he thought, be "educational grounds."
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said questions of character might arise which would make it undesirable that a particular man should remain a teacher. But would such a dismissal be on educational grounds? He thought the Amendment might very well stand in the present sub-Section, but it was important to know whether they would be able to move an Amendment of an enlarged character on sub-Section (c). Surely they might say there that the appointment and dismissal should rest, not upon religious grounds, but upon any other grounds which the local authority thought sufficient.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)
contended that if the Committee accepted the Amendment their liberty of action would be largely curtailed when they came to sub-Section (c). The unfortunate teacher would be in the position of having to serve two masters—the local authority and the managers, the former having the right to dismiss him on educational grounds, and the latter on general grounds. It would be much better to leave the question alone until they could deal with it thoroughly. The logical position seemed to be that both appointment and dismissal should be in the hands of the local authority, with a veto, to be exercised only on religious grounds, in the hands of the managers. Probably 95 per cent, of the teaching would concern secular instruction, and yet it was proposed to give the power of dismissing the teacher into the hands of the managers who had the right to deal only with the remaining 5 per cent. of school instruction, while the power of the local authority would be reduced to dismissing the teacher on educational grounds. He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted, so that the judgment of the Committee might be left unfettered.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
asked in what position they would stand on sub-Section (c). Would it be open to them then to deal with the larger question?
§ MR. M'KENNA
challenged the Attorney General to say where the managers were given the power to dismiss a teacher at all.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
reminded the hon. Member that on the previous day he had quoted a speech of his as having cleared up that point.
§ MR. M'KENNA
asked where the managers would get power to dismiss a teacher except by inference from this sub-Clause, which they were now asked to accept as a concession. Would the Attorney General point to a Clause which gave the managers power to dismiss a teacher?
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would require the consent of the local authority to the appointment and dismissal.
* THE CHAIRMAN
I think these two are different points. In this case the dismissal would be by the local education authority who give instructions to the managers; in the other case the dismissal would originate with the managers and would require the consent of the local education authority.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
My belief is in accordance with your ruling Personally I should be disposed to think that the two questions were different.
§ MR. MOSS (Denbighshire, E.) moved to leave out the last three words of the Amendment "on educational grounds."
§ * MR. CORRIE GRANT
I have an Amendment, Mr. Chairman, which comes before that. It is after "number" to insert "salaries."
§ (5.6.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 125. (Division List No. 412).661
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Brotherton, Edward Allen||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Aird, Sir John||Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.||Denny, Colonel|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Brymer, William Ernest||Dickinson, Robert Edmond|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bullard, Sir Harry||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Burdett-Coutts, W.||Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Glasg'w||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy||Carew, James Laurence||Dorington Rt. Hon. Sir John E.|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Doughty, George|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Doxford, Sir William Theodore|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derbyshire||Duke, Henry Edward|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r.||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Elliot, Hon. A Ralph Douglas|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Fardell, Sir T. George|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J.A.(Worc.||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward|
|Barry Sir Francis T. (Windsor||Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton||Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Manc'r|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Finch, George H.|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Chapman, Edward||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne|
|Beckett, Ernest William||Clare, Octavius Leigh||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Fison, Frederick William|
|Bignold, Arthur||Coddington, Sir William||Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-|
|Bill, Charles||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Flannery, Sir Fortescue|
|Bond, Edward||Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Flower, Ernest|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Forster, Henry William|
|Bowles, T. Gibson,(King's Lynn||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Gardner, Ernest|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Garfit, William|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'r H'mlts||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse|
|Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.||Lowe, Francis William||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Grenfell, William Henry||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Macartney, Rt Hn. W.G Ellison||Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight|
|Groves, James Grimble||Macdona, John Cumming||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Gunter, Sir Robert||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Hain, Edward||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Shaw Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew|
|Hall, Edward Marshall||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Middlemore Jhn. Throgmorton||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Smith, HC (North'mb, Tyneside|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G||Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Milvain, Thomas||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Spear, John Ward|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire||Stanley, Ed. Jas. (Somerset)|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Morgan, David J (W'lthamstow||Stanley, Lord (Lancs).|
|Healy, Timothy Michael||Morrell, George Herbert||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M. 'Taggart|
|Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Morrison, James Archibald||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.||Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford||Stroyan, John|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Mount, William Arthur||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Hickman, Sir Alfred||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute||Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Higginbottom, S. W.||Myers, William Henry||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E)||Nicholson, William Graham||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Parker, Sir Gilbert||Tritton, Charles Earnest|
|Hornby, Sir William Henry||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Horner, Frederick William||Pemberton, John S. G.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Hoult, Joseph||Percy, Earl||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Pierpoint, Robert||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Howard, Jno.(Kent, Faversh'm||Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Plummer, Walter R.||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (T'unton|
|Hutton, John (Yorks N.R.)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Pretyman, Ernest George||Williams, Rt. Hn. J Powell-(Birm|
|Johnstone, Heywood||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Kemp, George||Purvis, Robert||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Pym, C. Guy||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Kennedy, Patrick James||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)|
|Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh||Randles, John S.||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col, W. (Salop||Rankin, Sir James||Wylie, Alexander|
|Kimber, Henry||Ratcliff, R. F,||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour||Rattigan, Sir William Henry||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Knowles, Lees||Reid, James (Greenock)||Younger, William|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Renwick, George||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Lawson, John Grant||Richards, Henry Charles||Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Anstruther|
|Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Edw. H||Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Caine, William Sproston||Emmott, Alfred|
|Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud||Caldwell, James||Earquharson, Dr. Robert|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Fenwick, Charles|
|Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry||Causton, Richard Knight||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co)|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Cawley, Frederick||Fuller, J. M. F.|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Craig, Robert Hunter||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Crombie, John William||Grant, Corrie|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Dalziel, James Henry||Griffith, Ellis J.|
|Bell, Richard||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton|
|Black, Alexander William||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William|
|Brigg, John||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Harwood, George|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh||Duncan, J. Hastings||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Dunn, Sir William||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Burt, Thomas||Edwards, Frank||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Ellis John Edward||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Newnes, Sir George||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Norman, Henry||Strachey, Sir Edward.|
|Horniman, Frederick John||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Jacoby James Alfred||Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a||Partington, Oswald||Tomkinson, James|
|Jones, William (Carn'rvonshire||Paulton, James Mellor||Toulmin, George|
|Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Labouchere, Henry||Perks, Robert William||Wallace, Robert|
|Langley, Batty||Philipps, John Wynford||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds S.)|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Pickard, Benjamin||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Lees, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)||Pirie, Duncan V||Wason, Eugene|
|Leng, Sir John||Price, Robert John||Weir, James Galloway|
|Levy, Maurice||Priestley, Arthur||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Rea, Russell||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Lloyd-George, David||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries||Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)|
|Lough, Thomas||Rickett, J. Compton||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|M'Crae, George||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Runciman, Walter||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin||Schwann, Charles E.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Shackleton David James||Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Mather, Sir William||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Soares, Ernest J.||Mr. Herbert Gladstone and|
|Moss, Samuel||Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR. (Northants||Mr. William M'Arthur|
Question, "That those words lie there inserted," put accordingly and agreed to.
§ *(5.22.) SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan) moved the insertion of words at the end of line 10, Clause 8, providing that the directions given by the local authority to the managers should be such as not to interfere with reasonable facilities for instruction in religious subjects, He did not anticipate that there would be frequent interference by the local authority with the managers in regard to these facilities, but cases might occur, and probably would occur, especially where passions ran fiercely and where the personal element prevailed. Such interference would not necessarily be designed, it might arise from inadvertence. The National Society had, with great care, framed an agreement for transfer of schools during the hours for secular instruction; but that agreement had caused so much difficulty and friction that the use of it had been abandoned. He thought he was making a just and fair claim on behalf of the trustees and managers of voluntary schools when he asked that there should be some definite declaration on the face of the Act that no direction given by the local authority should interfere with reasonable facilities for instruction in religious subjects.
In Page3, line 10, at end, to insert the words But no such directions shall be such as to interfere with reasonable facilities for instruction in religious subjects.;"—(Sir Francis Powell.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ * SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said the Amendment appeared to be a reasonable one, and it did not in any way conflict with the powers to be given to the local authority to issue directions in respect of secular instruction. The Amendment would do no more than remind the local authority that the religious instruction given in the denominational schools was an important part of the instruction, and was in fact the raison d'être for such schools. On behalf of the Government he was prepared to accept the Amendment.
§ MR. BRYCE
said he was surprised that the hon. Gentleman should think the Amendment necessary to remind local authorities that there were such things as denominational schools. He should have thought that there was no line in the Bill which did not remind them in the most painful way that they were to be "cribbed, cabined, and confined" by denominational managers. He could see no object for the Amendment but one, namely, to suggest a new ground of dispute between the managers and the local authorities. What possible need could there be for declaring that religious instruction was to be safeguarded when the whole function of the managers was to safeguard it? He thought the Amendment ought to be 663 resisted on the ground that it was provocative and likely to cause friction and trouble.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said he did not know whether sub section 2 existed or not. It had not been passed. If it existed this Amendment was unnecessary. If sub Section 2 was operative, and if there was a dispute on the question whether there was sufficient time given for religious instruction, it would be referred to the Board of Education. If that was not so, was the question to be determined by a court of law? The Committee should know how the word "reasonable" was to be interpreted and by whom.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)
said it was a little startling to find the Government accepting this Amendment when during the past three or four days they had been rejecting as mere surplusage Amendments which were proposed for the purpose of making the Bill practical and easy to work. They were asked practically to define what were religious subjects. Surely that was to introduce discord into the practical working of the Act. The managers would be anxious to forward religious instruction, the education authority would be anxious to keep the children up to the mark in their secular education in order to obtain the grants, and there would be endless squabbles about what were "reasonable facilities" for religious education. The members of the education authority were to be generally elected to the County Council for a far different purpose than discussing religious dogmas—practical business-men who would not want to be bothered with these debatable questions. He would gladly have adopted quite a different method of the treatment of this subject, and would have allowed representatives of every denomination to come into the schools and teach their own children their own doctrine.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said that no one objected to reasonable facilities for religious instruction, but the Amendment did not touch the provided schools. It simply permitted reasonable facilities in the denominational schools, and their case surely was met by Article 4, sub-Section 2, of the Whitehall Code, which provided that religious instruction must be given either at the beginning or at the end of the time-table, or at both, in accordance with the regulations of the Board of Education. What more did they want than that? The Government would be well advised, he thought, to let the matter remain where it was.
§ * SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said that the Act of 1870 provided for religious instruction or religious observances at the beginning or end of the school hours subject to certain provisions. All the Amendment provided was that, inasmuch as the local authority had unlimited power of issuing directions, they should not issue directions to such an extent as to occupy the whole of the school hours and so prevent the giving of religious instruction.
§ * SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said that that was so. But they wished to avoid any difficulty by putting it down in express terms that these directions were limited to this extent that time must be allowed for religious instruction.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
asked whether it was not the fact that the Code provided full facilities for religious instruction.
§ LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)
thought there was a good deal to be said for not accepting this Amendment, at any rate at the present moment. The Government had laid down, in connection with secular education, that limiting words did not add clearness to what was done, but did add an element of confusion. It was difficult not to apply that argument to this case. He did not feel quite certain that the words suggested by his hon. friend the Member for 665 Wigan were the best, even if any words were necessary, and he thought this was an opportunity when the Government might have considered the feeling of the Opposition and have postponed the matter, at any rate until the Report stage, for further consideration.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that if everybody in every quarter of the House was opposed to the Amendment it was not worth while fighting about it. The Government had not for a moment suggested that it was of very great importance. It was, he thought, just within the bounds of possibility that they might have an education authority so misguided, or so enthusiastic, about the preponderating demands of secular as compared with religious education, that they might use the great powers given them under this Bill as regarded secular education to squeeze out, at both ends of the school time-table, the element of religious instruction. If that were done, of course gross injustice would be inflicted on the members of the denomination in whose interest the school was established. He thought, however, the possibility of an education authority so abusing its power was extremely remote.
§ Question put and negatived.
*(5.45.) THE CHAIRMAN
The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member is in the wrong place. We are here laying down conditions of maintenance, and this Amendment advocates clothing the education authority with powers which could not come into the question of maintenance. The next Amendment is possibly surplusage, but at all events should not come into this sub-Section but in a subsequent sub-Section. The next Amendment on the Paper is, I think, already covered.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said the Amendment which he proposed dealt with a comparatively small matter of school management, and he hoped the Government would accept it. If he could get the assurance of the Prime Minister that this matter would be attended to be would not trouble the Committee 666 further. It was his desire that the control of the school buildings should be left for all purposes with the local authority. At present the school buildings were in the hands of the managers for all purposes, and it was to their interest to see that the schools were kept in a proper condition, but now there was going to be a divided authority, the local authority using the schools for certain hours of the day, and the managers using them at other hours, for other purposes. It was quite likely that the managers might use the schools for parochial teas and parochial and general meetings, and it was quite right that they should; but they might not feel now as they did in the past, and there was an obligation to put the building into a proper state for the local authority next morning. All he asked was that the denominational managers, who might use the school as they pleased in their own time, should leave it in such a state of order that the education authority, when they came in the morning, could get at once to work.
In page 3, line 10, after the word 'school,' to insert the words 'and shall, on all occasions when the school premises have been used for purposes over which the local education authority has no control, see that the school premises are immediately re-adapted to the educational purpose for which the local education authority requires them.'"—[Dr. Macnamara.]
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
was not certain whether the Amendment was not out of order, but it was inconveniently drafted. If however the hon. Member would consult with him upon the words to be used and move the Amendment as a subhead, he did not think there would be any difficulty in the matter.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
* THE CHAIRMAN
I am doubtful about the next Amendment, but I think 667 it ought to come as a schedule to sub-Clause (b); sub-Clause (a) deals with secular instruction, and this Amendment deals rather more with management than with education.
§ MR. BLACK (Banffshire)
submitted, with respect, that the question had been raised on the previous day, and the first Lord of the Treasury had promised to deal with the matter on the schedule of the Bill relevant to this section. That being so, his Amendment was purely a drafting Amendment, and he submitted that this was the only place in which it could go in.
* THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member has rather stated himself out of court. He has referred to a schedule which does not exist. He might move his Amendment later as a sub Clause. The next Amendment ought to come into the interpretation Clause, and then we go back to the first Amendment on the Paper.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON
said in moving this Amendment he only wished to say he did not think the Amendment of the Prime Minister was one which it was possible for the education authority to carry out; because although it gave the power to the county authorities, it gave no machinery to enforce the will of the county authority, therefore it had no value. He urged that some concession must be made to enable the county authority to have some machinery to carry out the object under this sub-Section. He admitted that if the managers of a denominational school refused to carry out the instructions of the local authority, that authority could withhold the grant, and if the school was closed they most build another school to supply the want. This, however, was not a course which the local authority was likely to pursue, though probably they would prefer to provide a public school instead of a denominational school. If that was the alternative which the right hon. Gentleman would prefer he would have no objection to it, but this Bill said something quite different. It said the county authority should continue to provide the denominational school, and it would be remembered that if they built a provided school they would have to do so out of the local parish rates. His Amendment, therefore, suggested the less 668 drastic method of providing for the denominational school instead of having recourse to the building of a provided school. He submitted that his proposal was moderate, and far more practical than this suggested alternative, because the power of suspending the denominational managers would not interfere with the denominational teaching in the schools. The power of being able to use a threat would probably be sufficient to secure the carying out of the will of the authority.
After the last Amendment, to insert the words 'and if the managers fail to carry out such directions, the local education authority shall have power to declare such managers in default and to appoint new managers.'"—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
agreed that it was desirable the local education authority should have some power, in case the managers failed to carry out any direction which the local authority had power to give, which was less drastic than that of withdrawing the support of the schools. It was desirable that there should be some power less heroic than that, because a power so severe was not one that might be applied, but he did not think that the proposal of the hon. Member was in its precise form that which the Committee ought to accept. It would be much better to confer on the local education authority power themselves to do the act. He submitted that an Amendment which stood in the name of the Prime Minister on a later page of the Amendments proceeded on the lines which he had indicated. [This Amendment provided that where the managers of a school fail to carry out any direction of the local education authority, that authority shall have the power themselves to carry out the direction in question as if they were the managers,] The Government would be prepared to move that Amendment, and he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept it.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said he thought it would be desirable if the First Lord of the Treasury could give 669 some idea as to the method and the meaning of the local authority carrying out the directions. The phrase surely meant that the existing Members were to be removed or disabled from acting in some way. Who was to step in and do this? How was the power to be exercised? He thought that the Amendment of his hon. friend suggesting the appointment of new managers was a better solution.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
thought that, if for one reason or another the managers had not complied with the direction of the local education authority, it would occasion great difficulty if the only remedy short of totally stopping the maintenance of the school was that of removing the managers altogether. If they removed the foundation managers and appointed other managers, the foundation managers would disappear altogether; and the effect of the Amendment would be to appoint permanently new managers by the local education authority. This was providing a remedy which was so heroic that it would be open to the objection advanced against the only other remedy suggested of withdrawing the maintenance from the school. The proper line of action with regard to the particular thing which ought to be done was that the local education authority should have the power to step in and do that thing. The work should be done by a person appropriately chosen, for the purpose.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)
pointed that under the Act of 1870. at any rate in certain cases, the education authority had particular authority for particular actions. The County Council issued an order to the local authority to do a particular thing; if the order was not obeyed within a specified time the Council stepped in, and, through their surveyor, completed the matter at the cost of the rural authority, whom they then reinstated in full possession. As the Attorney General had pointed out, they had to appoint an agent in all such cases. He therefore suggested that at the end of the Amendment or elsewhere there should be added some such words as, "and to appoint an officer or agent for 670 that purpose." That would remove all doubt and indicate a way by which this valuable addition could easily be carried into effect.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said that what his noble friend had stated was perfectly feasible when dealing with brick or mortar or roads, but in the presen matter they were dealing with instructions, and the same procedure was no applicable. If a recalcitrant body of managers would not carry out the directions as to secular instruction, there was no course open except to appoint other managers who would carry out those directions. The stronger the remedy, the more likely were they to get obedience. If voluntary managers knew that in the event of their being recalcitrant they would be displaced altogether, they were not likely to be recalcitrant.
§ *(6.18.) MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)
was sorry the Prime Minister had accepted the Amendment at this particular stage. He understood that the Amendment the right hen. Gentleman himself placed on the Paper would be applicable to sub-Sections (a), (b), (c), and (d), and, in his judgment, it would be far more desirable in connection with (b), (c), and (d) than(a). It was almost impossible to conjure up any direction with regard to secular instruction which the local managers would be disposed to resist, but there might easily arise considerable dispute on the other sub-Sections. The intention of the Prime Minister obviously was that the Amendment should be applicable to the whole of the Clause, and he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman had departed from that intention. Were they to have a repetition of this Amendment on sub-Section (b) and another on (c)? It was surely not possible that the words now being inserted would refer to that which had already been adopted, and to the sub-Sections that followed. The Amendment ought to remain as the Prime Minister himself had placed it on the Paper, and be applicable to the whole Clause. He agreed there ought to be some remedy less drastic than the entire withdrawal of funds from the school. Such a withdrawal would mean the destruction 671 of the denominational school, and the substitution of another at the expense of the ratepayers. He, and apparently both sides, desired to avoid that, and to find some means by which managers who would not carry out the instructions could be brought to book, and the school continued without incurring the expense of providing another. He was driven irresistibly to the conclusion that the recalcitrant managers must be replaced by others, and of the two Amendments he certainly preferred the one which enabled the authority to bring into existence another body of managers. If there arose a difficulty so serious as to justify the local authority in stepping in and doing the work itself, what chance was there of amicable relations being established between the two bodies? There would, no doubt, be a long series of irritations, until finally the obdurate managers revolted and refused to carry out the directions. There was the right to go to the Board of Education, but that meant the withdrawal of the grant, and something less than that was wanted. If the managers revolted, how could the school be carried on by sending down an officer, or by giving an order from a central department? His impression was that disputes were more likely to arise in connection with the appointment or dismissal of the teacher or some structural alteration of the building than in regard to anything else under the Bill. What board of managers would care sufficiently whether history or grammar was taken in the school to deny the right of the local authority to intervene? The control of secular instruction was regulated already by the Board of Education. The local authority would not depart to any considerable extent from the Day School Code, and what departure was made would be immediately accepted by the managers. But suppose friction arose in regard to some other sub-Section. The local authority, by the exercise of the power which it possessed, might secure the admission to the school of a person the managers were indisposed to retain. If they dismissed him there might be another appointment and another dismissal, or the person dismissed might be re-appointed, or a person of the same character appointed. There would be a long series of disputes until the local authority declined to stand it any longer 672 and said, "We must take over the control ourselves." It was not difficult to imagine such conflicts. The Board of Education had already had them with School Boards; there had been correspondence extending over years, threatening letters, inducements, visits of inspectors, and ultimately a resort to the law. The Board of Education in such a case did not send down an official to administer education in the district; it called upon the locality to form another School Board. One five-member board would be replaced by another five-member board, and in the event of another default, the existing law empowered the Board of Education to send down five clerks from Whitehall to entrust them with the duty of administering education in the area, and charge their expenses on the rates of the district. That was a very effective way of carrying out the decisions of the Board. He failed to see how, if the recalcitrant managers were to be retained, there was any chance of a satisfactory working. The managers might possibly be acting altogether contrary to the opinion of the great majority of the people in the district. Why should not the old subscribers or members of the Church with which the school was associated have the chance of substituting four other managers for those who would not carry out the instructions given them? Why should not the local authority have the chance of re-electing its own particular two if they were not among the offenders? The refusal to carry out the instruction would be a refusal of the majority; there might be a minority ready, willing, and anxious to comply. That minority might be retained in office, as was done under the existing law, but the majority who refused to carry out the instructions of the local authority should be cast aside and others put in their place. The present Amendment did not set up any machinery to enable that work to be carried out. It would leave the school suspended somehow, but he did not quite see under whose control. Personally, he would rather make it a provided school at once and for ever than allow the friction to go on, because if a school was to succeed it must have the sympathy and support of the surrounding people. Continued friction alienated that sympathy and support, disturbed the progress of education in 673 the school, and was a source of unalloyed evil. Let it be a provided school or a denominational school—one or the other—but let it be in a state of efficiency and not in a state of divided control, constant dispute, irritation and annoyance, in which, according to his judgment, this Amendment would leave it.
§ (6.30.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said there was only one sentence in the remarks of his hon. friend with which he cordially agreed, and that was the sentence in which he said that in all probability there would be no disputes on this subject between the local authorities and the managers, and that the powers given by the Amendment, or by the Amendment of the Government, would hardly ever require to be exercised. But he did not agree with the hon. Member in most of the observations he had made. In the first place, he thought he was wrong in saying that the Amendment ought to apply to (a), (b), (c), and (d). He could not understand how his hon. friend could think that it was m consonance with the framework of the Bill that they should give the education authority the entire management of the schools, for that would absolutely destroy the Bill. They I could never assent to the appointment by the education authority of the great body of the managers of denominational schools. That was a proposal which was totally unnecessary. His hon. friend asked—How on earth could they continue to work a school in which the general body of the managers were constantly setting themselves up against the control of the education authorities, and in which the education authority had to send someone down to see that their orders were carried out over the heads of the managers? He entirely agreed that if there was to be perpetual quarrelling between the Board of Education and the managers, there was one course which could be taken, and that was to refuse to maintain the provided schools and substitute others. That was the proper thing, and that was the remedy under the Bill. In accordance with the pledge he had given, the Amendment which he proposed to move upon this point was a less drastic measure, and it would provide machinery by which an officer—it might be a member of the managing body or somebody else—should be sent 674 down who would, in the case of a particular decision, override the managers and deal with the situation without destroying the denominational character of the school, or upsetting it as a permanent element in the education of the district. If that was not enough, and if the managers were going to set themselves up to perpetually thwart the education authority, he quite agreed that the proper course for the education authority to pursue was to abolish that voluntary school altogether and substitute for it a provided school. That was the plan of the Government, and he thought it was a proper plan. He accordingly begged to move to amend the Amendment after the word "shall" by inserting the words "in addition to their other powers have power themselves to carry out the direction in question as if they were the managers."
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
To leave out all the words after the word 'shall' and insert the words 'in addition to their other powers have the power themselves to carry out the direction in question as if they were the managers.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that probably there would be very few disputes with regard to secular instruction, but he thought it would be an advantage to get some definite machinery in the Bill which could be put into operation in order to prevent disputes. He was glad that his hon. friend had moved the Amendment, because it raised distinctly the issue between him and the proposal of the Government. He agreed with the Prime Minister that there would be few disputes with regard to secular instruction, but he thought there would be all the fewer if the managers understood what would happen, He wished to point out the danger of the course which the right hon. Gentleman was taking. The Prime Minister said that if the Managers declined to carry out the provisions of the Bill they could then convert the school into a provided school. That would be very unfair to the locality and to the denomination itself. What would happen if his hon. friend's Amendment were carried? The ultimate result would 675 be the provided school, because if managers were appointed by the county authority they could say: "We will withdraw our school." The managers would take away their school, and then the locality would have to face the contingency of providing another school. Suppose the county authority appointed managers in sympathy with the denomination, as they probably would do? They would not appoint managers who were opposed to the teaching of the denomination, because they knew that the only result of that course would be that the denominational managers would take the school away and cast upon the parish the burden of building another school. Therefore they would endeavour to preserve the denominational character of the school by appointing men of that denomination as managers. All they asked from the Prime Minister was that he should not insist upon the extreme penalty of the law, as there would be no danger to the denominational character of the school because the managers had got the whip hand. Once they made it a provided school, it could never become a denominational school afterwards, and the denomination would suffer to that extent. The parish would suffer because it would impose an additional burden upon it. This was not an Amendment unfair to the denomination, but it was an intermediate course between the extreme sanction and the one which was provided in the Bill. He was very glad to hear the case of the defaulting School Board referred to. The provision proposed now was contained in the Act of 1870, and all they suggested now was that the power which the Education Department had of dealing with defaulting School Boards by superseding them should be given to the local authority with regard to dealing with recalcitrant managers. Why should any privilege be extended to these managers if they declined to do their duties? All they asked for was that the law provided for defaulting School Boards should be equally applied to defaulting managers. The Prime Minister said that the denominational character of the schools was not preserved by this Amendment. The National Society trust deed provided that the religious instruction to be given in the schools, and the entire control and management of that instruction, should be vested in the minister for the time 676 being, or in his absence in the officiating minister. There was nothing in the Act which divested the officiating minister of the control of religious instruction. He wished to know whether the Prime Minister proposed to amend the Bill, so as to give the control of religious instruction to the whole of the managers, and not merely to the officiating minister in the parish.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he believed that was in the Bill now. In his view, the managers were to deal with all subjects, and it was for that reason that the Government had felt it necessary to have the denominational managers.
§ MR. LLOYD GEORGE
said that while reserving his individual opinion as to the interpretation of the Act, he would accept the Prime Minister's statement that he intended religious instruction to be in the hands of the whole of the managers of the denominational schools, anything in the trust deed to the contrary notwithstanding. He was very glad of that statement. If the Prime Minister insisted that the only method of dealing with defaulting managers was to set up a provided school, what would happen in the interim? The provision of a school took eighteen months or two years. The sanction of the Education Department had to be obtained, plans had to be prepared and approved, and the building had to be erected. He would ask the Attorney General, or the Prime Minister, to say what would happen in the interval.
§ MR. LLOYD GEORGE
said several applications were made to the right hon. Gentleman when he was at the Education Board but it was not easy to obtain sanction to use temporary buildings. His hon. friend's Amendment met the difficulty, because new managers would be put in and the school would be under 677 managers provided by the county authority, and, if necessary, at the end of eighteen months a new school could be set up.
§ MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)
said there was no doubt that a non-provided school had great advantages over a provided school, but a remedy had to be found if the managers obstinately declined to carry out the directions of the local authority. Hon. Members opposite evidently considered that to turn a non-provided school into a provided school was an evil to be avoided if possible. [Cries of "No."] He did not consider that then was much need for any other remedy than the power of the purse, which would bring the most obstinate managers to their senses. He saw no objection to the remedy proposed by his right hon. friend, because if the managers declined to establish the curriculum desired by the education authority they could send down an inspector, who would tell the teachers that the curriculum was to be carried out whatever the view of the managers might be. He saw no difficulty in that, and no objection as regarded principle. He thought the Committee should accept the proposal of the First Lord, because it might be desirable to have a weapon to hold in terrorem over the managers which would not produce the evil that Members on both sides wished to avoid—namely, of turning a denominational school into a provided school.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said he understood that if the managers failed to carry out the directions of the local authority, that authority would then have the right to come in and carry our the directions themselves. The hon. Member for East Somerset said that was a Perfectly workable plan, He thought it was hopelessly impossible. The might be bitterly opposed to something the local authority desired to do. If the local authority came in from the county centre and executed the order over their heads they would still be bitterly opposed to it, but they would still go on in the capacity of managers, He could not imagine anything that would lead to more Squabbling and quarrelling in the conduct to the schools. His hon. friend's Amendment was far more practicable, because it swept the managers right away. If the managers did not obey the reasonable 678 direction of the education authority, with a reasonable right of appeal, he would give the education authority power to sweep the school away and to establish a provided school. He thought that was what it would have to come to, and he was not afraid of the cost.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said that if a new and distinct school were provided where the managers of an existing school refused to obey the directions of the local authority, it must be a school provided at the cost of the ratepayers. It seemed to him that under this new scheme the trustees of the school came under a statutory obligation to obey the instructions of the education authority, and if they persisted in refusing to conform to that obligation why should they not declare that the existing school was a provided school? That could be done without any cost at all. In former days they were dealing with a private school, and the trustees were told that if they made default a public school would be established. Now these people, would be under public obligations, and therefore the education authority were entitled to say that if the managers of the school committed a breach of those obligations they would forfeit their rights, and the school would be treated as a provided school. If they did that they would have a remedy which would be certain to work.
§ (7.0) MR. SPEAR (Devonshire, Tavistock)
heartily supported the Amendment of the Prime Minister, because while he yielded to no one in desiring to be just to the voluntary schools he declined altogether to protect them in the case of their being recalcitrant. He believed that the Bill provided for a reasonable arrangement, and for conciliatory action between the local authority and the voluntary school managers. He was unable to support the suggestion about withdrawing from the local authority the power of declaring the school that of the local authority in the event of the managers proving recalcitrant. He was surprised at the argument used by the hon. Member for Carnarvon, who seemed to regard with great apprehension the Onus that would be thrown upon a locality by the suspension of recalcitrant managers of the voluntary schools. That surprised him, because he understood the hon. 679 Gentleman was the supporter of a system which would have cost the ratepayers of England fifty millions to suppress the voluntary schools. He trusted the Prime Minister would stick to his Amendment. He had every confidence that the local education authority and the managers would work amicably together, but it was due to the local authority that where the managers were not amenable to reasonable orders, the latter should be superseded.
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)
said that the proposed Amendment seemed to cover the case of a single act of default on the part of the managers. It appeared to him to be unreasonable to remove managers for a single default. The Amendment, however, did not deal with continuous default on the part of the managers, and he wished to make a suggestion to the Prime Minister which would enable them to come to an agreement. It was to add after the word "school," "and if these continue in such default, the education authority should have the power to appoint new managers." These words would apply to continuous defiance and default, but they also meant that the whole of the managers need not necessarily be removed; only those who continuously refused to carry out the directions of the local authority.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he again repeated that he did not think the appointment of other managers was a remedy consistent with the particular character of the denominational schools. It might be a very appropriate system when they were dealing with board schools, but it was not really appropriate to voluntary schools. He could see that the suggestion was made in the interests of harmony, but he could not quite agree with it. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the Government plan would not deal with some continuous desire on the part of the managers to thwart the education authority. He did not think that that was so. Supposing that the managers refused to teach anatomy, that the education authority sent down a man, and that the order was given to a particular schoolmaster that anatomy should be taught in such and such hours on such and such days of the week. Of course, that order stood, 680 and if the teacher refused to carry it out, he would at once be suspended by the education authority. He ventured to make an appeal to the Committee to bring to a conclusion the discussion of this Amendment, which had been thoroughly thrashed out. There was no fundamental division between the two sides of the House as to the object, although he regretted that there was a difference as to the means.
§ MR. M'KENNA
said that the object of the First Lord of the Treasury appeared to be confined to the point that the local managers to be appointed might alter the character of the schools. But the trust deeds under which these managers were appointed were not altered by this Bill. Any managers to be appointed by the local authority would only be appointed under the provisions of the trust deed. There could not be a doubt on that point. Bearing that in mind, he thought that the Amendment of his hon. friend was superior to that of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. CORRIE GRANT
said that they were all agreed with what had been said by the First Lord up to a certain point. The hon. Member for Somerset said that the power of the purse was sufficient; but the exercise of the power of the purse meant the closing of the schools, and that was what they were trying to prevent. He suggested to the First Lord that his Amendment only covered one set of circumstances, while they wanted to cover two. The local authority should have the option to call on the electors of the foundation managers to elect new managers, and if they refused, then to go on to elect some other managers themselves. The other power of which the hon. Member for Somerset spoke might afterwards be brought into action.
§ * MR. ERNEST GRAY
said that he wanted to repudiate the interpretation which the Prime Minister had put on his former remarks. He did not suggest that the Committee for the voluntary schools should be appointed outside the terms of the trust-deed, but that the Committee should be replaced by four others representing the denominational element.
§ (7.12.) Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."682
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 126; Noes, 249. (Division List No. 413.)683
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead||Griffith, Ellis J.||Price, Robert John|
|Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Rea, Russell|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Rigg, Richard|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Black, Alexander William||Helme, Norval Watson||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Runciman, Walter|
|Brigg, John||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Holland, Sir William Henry||Shackleton, David James|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Horniman, Frederick John||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Burns, John||Jacoby, James Alfred||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Burt, Thomas||Jones, William (C'rnarvonshire||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants|
|Caine, William Sproston||Langley, Batty||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Caldwell, James||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Leng, Sir John||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Cawley, Frederick||Levy, Maurice||Toulmin, George|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Lewis, John Herbert||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Cremer, William Randal||Lloyd-George, David||Wallace, Robert|
|Crombie, John William||Lough, Thomas||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Warner, Tlhomas Courtenay, T.|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||M'Crae, George||Wason, Eugene|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin||Weir, James Galloway|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Dunn, Sir William||Markham, Arthur Basil||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Edwards, Frank||Mather, Sir William||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Ellis, John Edward||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Emmott, Alfred||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan||Moss, Samuel||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Moulton, John Fletcher||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Newnes, Sir George||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Woodhouse, Sir J T.(Huddersf'd|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Partington, Oswald|
|Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. M'Kenna and Mr. Alfred Hutton.|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Perks, Robert William|
|Grant, Corrie||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Pickard, Benjamin|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire|
|Aird, Sir John||Bignold Arthur||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Bigwood, James||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bill, Charles||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bond, Edward||Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Chapman, Edward|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Boulnois, Edmund||Clare, Octavius Leigh|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Bowles, T. Gibson, King's Lynn||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Coddington, Sir William|
|Balcarres, Lord||Brotherton, Edward Allen||Cohen, Benjamin Louis|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Brymer, William Ernest||Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Bullard, Sir Harry||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Butcher, John George||Compton, Lord Alwyne|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Campbell, Rt.Hn.J.A (Glasgow||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor||Carew, James Laurence||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Cripps, Charles Alfred|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)|
|Beckett, Ernest William||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Cubitt, Hon. Henry|
|Cust, Henry John C.||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham||Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Denny, Colonel||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.||Renwick, George|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Johnstone, Heywood||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Kemp, George||Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Douglas Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Kennedy, Patrick James||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh||Robinson, Brooke|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Keswick, William||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Kimber, Henry||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Sackyille, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Manc'r||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Finch, George H.||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Finlay Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lawson, John Grant||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Fison, Frederick William||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Shaw Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew|
|Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Smith, HC (North'mb, Tyneside|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.|
|Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Loder, Gerald Waller Erskine||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Flower, Ernest||Long Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Spear, John Ward|
|Forster, Henry William||Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S.W||Lowe, Francis William||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Lowther, C. (Comb., Eskdale||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Gardner, Ernest||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Garfit, William||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Macartney, Rt Hn. W G. Ellison||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts||Macdona, John (Cumming||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Gore, Hn. G R C Ormsby-(Salop||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Talbot, Rt Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm'nds||Malcolm, Ian||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.||Milner, Rt Hon. Sir Frederick G.||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Grenfell, William Henry||Milvain, Thomas||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Tufnell, Lieut-Col. Edward|
|Groves, James Grimble||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire||Valentia, Viscount|
|Gunter, Sir Robert||Morrell, George Herbert||Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield|
|Hain, Edward||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Hall, Edward Marshall||Mount, William Arthur||Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Murray, Rt Hn. A. Grah'm (Bute||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd||Newdegate, Francis A. N.||Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E (Taunt'n|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Nicholson, William Graham||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Parker, Sir Gilberrt||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.||Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Pemberton, John S. G.||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Henderson, Sir Alexander||Precy, Earl||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Pierponit, Robert||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Hickman, Sir Alfred||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Wylie, Alexander|
|Higginbottom, S. W.||Plummer, Walter R.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Pretyman, Ernest George||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Younger, William|
|Hope, J.F.Sheffield, Brightside||Purvis, Robert|
|Hornby, Sir William Henry||Pym, C Guy||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Hoult, Joseph||Randles, John S.||Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Rankin, Sir James|
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 251;
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Anson, Sir William Reynell||Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.|
|Aird, Sir John||Arkwright, John Stanhope||Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John|
§ Question put, "That the Question "That those words be there inserted' be now put."
§ Noes, 110. (Division List No. 414.)687
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Fison, Frederick William||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||MacIver, David (Liverpool)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Flower, Ernest||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r||Forster, Henry William||Malcolm, Ian|
|Balfour, Capt,. C. B. (Hornsey)||Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds||Galloway, William Johnson||Milvain, Thomas|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Gardner, Ernest||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Garfit, William||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.)|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Gore, Hn G R.C. Ormsby-(Salop||Morton Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Beckett, Ernest William||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Mount, William Arthur|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Mowbray, Sir Robert Grav C.|
|Bignold, Arthur||Gray, Ernest, (West Ham)||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute|
|Bigwood, James||Greene, Sir EW.(B'rySEdm'nds||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Bill, Charles||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Newdegate, Francis A. N.|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Bond, Edward||Grenfell, William Henry||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Greville, Hon Ronald||Parker, Sir Gilbert|
|Boulnois Edmund||Groves, James Grimble||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Gunter, Sir Robert||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Hain, Edward||Percy, Earl|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Hall, Edward Marshall||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Butcher, John George||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Purvis, Robert|
|Carew, James Laurence||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Pym, C Guy|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Randles, John S.|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Rankin, Sir James|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Heaton, John Henniker||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor||Henderson, Sir Alexander||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Renwick, George|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A. (Worc.||Higginbottom, S. W.||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Staly bridge)|
|Chapman, Edward||Hogg, Lindsay||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Hornby, Sir William Henry||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Coddington, Sir William||Hoult, Joseph||Robinson, Brooke|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Houston, Robert Paterson||Bollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)||Sackville, Col. G. S. Stopford-|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Johnstone, Heywood||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Kemp, George||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir. John H.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Kennedy, Patrick James||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbugh||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew|
|Cust, Henry John C.||Keswick, William||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Kimber, Henry||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Smith, HC (North'mb, Tyneside|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Smith, James Parker(Lanarks)|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Lawreuce, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Spear, John Ward|
|Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Lawson, John Grant||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)||Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lowe, Francis William||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Finch, George H.||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Tritton, Charles Ernest||Webb, Colonel William George||Wylie, Alexander|
|Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Valentia, Viscount||Whitmore, Charles Algernon||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield||Willox, Sir John Archibald||Younger, William|
|Vincent, Sir Edgar (Essex)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Walrond, Rt. Hon Sir William H||Wilson-Todd, Wm H. (Yorks.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Wanklyn, James Leslie||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-||Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Warde, Col. C. E.||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud||Helme, Norval Watson||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Rigg, Richard|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Holland, William Henry||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Horniman, Frederick John||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Black, Alexander William||Hutton, Alfred E. (Motley)||Runciman, Walter|
|Brigg, John||Jacoby, James Alfred||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Shackleton, David James|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Burns, John||Langley, Batty||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Burt, Thomas||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Soares, Ernest|
|Caine, Sydney Sproston||Leng, Sir John||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants|
|Caldwell, James||Levy, Maurice||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Lewis, John Herbert||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lloyd George, David||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Lough, Thomas||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Cremer, William Randal||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Toulmin, George|
|Crombie, John William||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||M'Crae, George||Wallace, Robert|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||M'Kenna, Reginald||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||M'Laren, Charles Benjamin||Wason, Eugene|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Weir, James Galloway|
|Dunn, Sir William||Markham, Arthur Basil||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Edwards, Frank||Mather, William||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Emmott, Alfred||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Newnes, Sir George||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Fenwick Charles||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Partington Oswald||Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersfi'd|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Perks, Robert William|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Harmsworth, R. (Leicester)||Pickard, Benjamin||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Price, Robert John||Mr. Corrie Grant and Mr. Moss.|
|Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Rea, Russell|
§ Words, as amended, inserted.
§ It being after half-past Seven of clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.