§ Considered in the Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 8:—
§ (2.30.) MR. ALFRED HUTTON (Yorkshire, W. R., Morley)
said there was nothing in the Bill which transferred the right (enjoyed under trust deeds in some cases by the incumbent) to appoint the teacher to the managers. Ought not some such provision to be included in the Bill?
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON
said he would move to insert the words "by the managers" after "teachers." It was assumed by the Bill that the appointment was to be in the hands of the managers, 952 but, as he had pointed out, there were cases in which the trust deeds gave the clergymen the power of appointment, and there was nothing in the Bill which would deprive him of it. The object of the Amendment was to make absolutely clear that the appointment of the teacher was in the hands of the managers.
In page 3, line 15, after the word 'teachers' insert the words 'by the managers.'
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)
hoped the First Lord would see the necessity for this Amendment. At present the appointment of the teachers was given inferentially and not definitely to the managers set up by the Bill. The First Lord had said that the managers created by the Bill would have all the powers that belonged to existing managers, but under some existing trust deeds the parson alone might have the appointment of the teachers. This was the most material point in the whole Bill; they ought to have some explanation from the Government as to how the appointment of the teacher was to be made, and what bodies were to be consulted in regard to it. Was the education authority, in point of fact, to have any real voice in the appointment of teachers?
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)
said the right hon. Gentleman had asked several questions of which he was perfectly convinced he knew the answers. There had never been any doubt or secrecy on the part of the Government, as to what their policy was on this matter. The appointment of the teachers would lie with the managers, and with the managers as a whole, acting in their corporate capacity, and, therefore, there could be no difference of opinion between the Government and the mover of the Amendment on that point. But whether it was necessary to make the Clause clearer he was extremely doubtful, and he was of opinion that it would not be improved if the Government accepted the Amendment.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
replied that general declarations of policy were 953 not set out in the Bill. Where were the words in the Bill which declared that the appointment would lie with the managers? He ventured to assert that too much was left to assumption.
§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)
said that personally he did not much care whether the words of the Amendment were put in or not, but the matter was dark, and all the darker because there were now two sets of existing managers—managers under the School Boards, who had no right of appointment, and managers of denominational schools, who had that right. He would have thought that if ever there was a point on which a Bill should be explicit it was this.
§ MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)
said the effect of the Amendment would be absolutely fatal in a large number of cases to the object which his hon. friend had in view. There were many parishes in which the sole manager of the school was the incumbent of the parish, and the addition of the words proposed would involve a serious limitation. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)
said he was not clear that the words carried out the intentions of his hon. friend, but at the same time it was very desirable that it should be made clear that the appointment was made by the whole body of managers and not by one man alone. There were certain trust deeds where the incumbent or the proprietor of the school had the sole power of appointing the teachers.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
If there are trust deeds such as the hon. Member speaks of—and it is possible that there may be—then I think there is a case for inserting words to make the point clear.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said it was evidently the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that the whole body of managers should have a voice in all cases. As he was willing to introduce words to make it perfectly clear, he would suggest to his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENS (Montgomeryshire)
thought it would be well to 954 lay down the principle that powers which were not to be exercised by the managers should be exercised by the local education authority. Would it not be better to say that the authority should have whole control of the school except so far as concerned certain definite matters which were reserved to the managers?
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON
said that after the assurance of the Leader of the House that this point would be made perfectly clear ho would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. LEVY (Leicestershire, Loughborough) moved an Amendment cancelling that part of the sub-Section which provides that consent shall not be withheld except on educational grounds. His object, he said, was to remove what he regarded as an undue limitation of the power of the education authority.
In page 3, line 15, to leave out from the word 'teachers,' to the end of line 16."—(Mr Levy.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'but that consent shall not be' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
opposed the Amendment. The Committee had, by implication, if not directly, decided that the education authority should neither have the duty nor the right to mix itself up in denominational matters. He thought the sub-Section as it stood accurately expressed the intention of the Government.
§ MR. LEVY
said it was possible to conceive grounds other than denominational grounds on which it might be desirable to withhold consent to an appointment. A teacher might go to school intoxicated. In so flagrant a case he did not suppose any difficulty would arise; but there might be other features of a man s conduct which made his appointment undesirable.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he was of opinion that a case such as the hon. Member had referred to would come within the phrase "educational grounds." He 955 could not conceive anything more detrimental to education than that a teacher should go to school intoxicated.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said this point raised the question as to whether secular instruction included everything which was not religion. Ho suggested that the authority should he empowered to object to an appointment on all grounds which were not of a religious character. It would be much better to put it in that form.
§ SIR JOSEPH LEESE (Lancashire, Accrington)
inquired if the term "educational grounds" was not interpreted by sub-Section 2 of Clause 8, which gave power to the Board of Education to decide on disputes arising between the local education authority and the managers as to what was secular and what religious education. Would not "education grounds" mean secular instruction?
§ MR. BRYCE
said the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the division between religious and educational grounds was clear and exhausted. They could not agree with him, as there were many matters which might lie between. It would be a simple and logical proceeding to make one definite and make the other cover everything else. The adoption of words providing that everything which was not religious was a matter for the consent of the local authority would put an end to all doubt.
§ SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)
asked why the Committee should not exclude from the consideration of the local education authority all grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the schools.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)
said the words "educational grounds" had already been introduced into Clause (a), and contended that it would be inconvenient to vary them in the present place. As to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen that they should map cut the whole field of what was religious 956 and what was not, there might be questions which affected both the religious and the secular side. He took it that habitual drunkenness would affect a man's qualification to impart either secular or religious knowledge. The same might be said with regard to the case of a violent-tempered man.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid)
Are the Government satisfied that the words carry out their intention? Would "educational grounds" cover moral instruction?
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)
said it seemed to him it would be necessary by-and-bye to have a very considerable extension of the definition Clause in order to provide the definitions of the many phrases which were used in the Bill as if they were precise technical terms, whereas they had no technical meaning at all.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said there was a good deal in the argument of the Attorney General, but still he considered the phrase "educational grounds" a very bad one indeed, and ho feared it would land them into all kinds of difficulties. Suppose a master was appointed by the managers, and the education authority were asked for their consent. Would the latter body be able to do anything more than ask the man for his qualifications? He might have a first-class certificate, but on many other grounds be entirely unfitted, for that special locality, to be entrusted with the educational instruction. But if these words were put in he was not at all sure that the education authority would be able to go outside the teacher's efficiency, from the point of view of scholarship alone. He very much doubted whether, for example, in the words "educational grounds" they could put any meaning relating to moral grounds. He did not think they should adhere to this form of words, and in the case in which they were already appointed in the Bill they could be changed on the Report stage. They provided here that the authority was not to interfere if the grounds were connected with religious instruction in the school. Those were the words of the Government themselves, and he 957 thought the proper course would be to put in the same sort of qualification with reference to the dismissal of teachers, and confine the rights and jurisdiction of the managers to matters pertaining directly to the religious instruction of the school. He thought the Committee would do well to apply these words to this part of the Bill as well.
§ (3.0) SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said the suggestion of his hon. friend would have careful consideration when another stage of the Bill was reached. He suggested that doubts should not now be raised as to sub-Section (a.) He agreed that the points which had been raised deserved careful consideration.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
pointed out that sub-Section (a) applied to a totally different state of affairs. It seemed to him to be important that they should have the same words in regard to the appointment as they had with reference to the dismissal of the teachers.
§ MR. JOHN ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe)
said he was not quite sure whether the Prime Minister and the Attorney General were present upstairs when the Clergy Discipline Bill was considered, but in that ease they found it difficult to apply the same words to morals and misconduct. In the light of that Bill it would require the utmost care under this Bill, to bring within the purview of the local authority persons whose morals might not be all that could be desired. He hoped they would have some words introduced specifically pointing out what the grounds were upon which the local authority might withhold their consent.
§ MR. BRYCE
said that he should support the Amendment of his hon. friend, on the ground that there ought to be an absolute right of appeal to the local authority. He did not think that that interfered with the power of the managers to deal with the religious instruction. The managers might make that a pretext for dismissal, but it would give security to a teacher to know that he had got a right of appeal, and that any action on the part of the local managers would have to go before another tribunal. It was right 958 that such an appeal should exist. They must take it that the managers would be the judges of what was religious instruction, but even in those cases there ought to be an appeal to the local education authority, who ought to decide whether the teacher should to be dismissed. If his hon. friend divided the Committee he should support him.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he understood the Committee were quite content with the assurance the Government had given. They agreed that this paragraph should be brought into harmony with the earlier paragraph, and the Government were ready to consider whether the earlier words ought not to be amended somewhat in the direction suggested, though perhaps not exactly in that direction. This was, after all, a question of drafting. After the long discussions which had taken place previously upon this point, the right hon. Gentleman opposite now suggested that this question should be dragged in again. Suppose a teacher were dismissed from a Roman Catholic school?
§ MR. BRYCE
said he was really arguing from the analogy of dismissal. They were rather dealing with the question of consent to an appointment. In all cases the managers ought to lay before the local education authority the grounds upon which they proposed to appoint the teachers. Although the teacher's fitness to give religious instruction was within their cognisance, never theless the whole matter ought to be submitted to the local education authority.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that object was not carried out by the words of the Amendment. The suggestion was that these words should be omitted. He thought the Committee understood that the local education authority was not to be mixed up with a question of this kind. How could they ask a Protestant authority to decide whether a person was qualified to teach Roman Catholic doctrine? The thing was preposterous. He could not think that that was what the right hon. Gentleman meant.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that a local authority of common sense would accept the opinion of the denominational managers, and in that case this Amendment was unnecessary. There might be one authority that had not got common-sense, and in that case there might be a Protestant authority discussing whether a Roman Catholic teacher was qualified to teach Roman Catholic doctrine. Surely they would be stultifying themselves by such a proposal.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said the Prime Minister very astutely fastened his examples on to the Roman Catholics, but this Bill was more for schools nominally Anglican, but really Nonconformist as far as the children were concerned. Supposing there were three candidates, each of them communicants in the Anglican Church, and suppose one was better than the others as a lay reader, choirmaster, or organist. Suppose the man best qualified for secular instruction had neither of these extraneous qualifications, he would be put on one side and the other candidate would be selected because he was a better organist. Would the county authority be entitled to say the managers had not selected the best man, and could they withhold their consent to such an appointment on that account? If not, he did not see where "educational grounds" came in. The managers would say that those were religious grounds, but they were not if they were purely educational grounds. Would the case he had mentioned be regarded as religious or upon educational grounds?
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)
asked would the educational authority be entitled to call for the testimonials showing fitness of applicants upon educational grounds.
§ (3.15.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said it seemed to him that there were two authorities, one to look after nothing but religion and the other after nothing but secular instruction. The Committee 960 must see that in the definition inserted there must be something that would make the proposal work. The proposal was to have two parties to the carrying out of the appointment of a teacher. One was the appointing body and the other the consenting body. Would one consenting manager representing the local authority have the right to propose the appointment of a teacher, or would the Government confine the proposal to the appointment solely to those dogmatic four who were the guardians of the dogmatic teaching?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said he knew they were all sitting together, but they were people with totally different functions. He wanted to know what part the body whose consent was to be necessary were to take in the matter. Were they to have the right of proposing candidates before the appointment was made or not?
§ SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)
said he was sure the right hon. Gentleman was capable of understanding the point if he gave his mind to it. The thing appeared to be perfectly workable. The six managers would meet and appoint the teacher. Any one of their number could make a suggestion to his colleagues. When they came to the conclusion to appoint Mr. A, that name would be sent to the clerk of the County Council on approbation, and in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the County Council would probably confirm the appointment of Mr. A, and there would be no further trouble. When Mr. A's name was submitted to the County Council as the local education authority by the managers in their corporate capacity, the County Council would take such steps as they thought proper to satisfy themselves as to his fitness for appointment as teacher. They could send for the testimonials if they liked before giving their consent, but they would probably only do so if they thought there was ground for supposing that there was some unfair conduct on the part of the managers. If they thought proper they could even see Mr. A before confirming the appointment. An hon. Gentleman had asked whether they 961 would see the other candidates. No, that was not their business. [OPPOSITION cheers.] That cheer was really a very foolish one. They would not see the candidates, because the Committee decided yesterday, that the managers were to be the appointing body. Therefore, there was no use cheering. The local education authority was not to make the appointment, but to confirm it. The County Council being business men, and not anxious to misunderstand the Act, would take businesslike and sensible steps to ensure that the person appointed was a proper person to execute the function thrown upon him by the Bill. The whole proceeding was as simple, businesslike, and straightforward as it was possible to make it.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
said the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had made a perfectly conclusive speech. The state of things which he had indicated was precisely that which his hon. friend sought to bring about by the Amendment, namely, that the local authority should have the power of absolute veto of the appointment. It was said that the local authority was not to be hampered in any way whatever, but it was hampered by the words of the Bill as it now stood. What they had to do was to consent; consent implied choice; and choice ought to be accompanied by the means of judging of the candidates
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said they would not divide until they got this thing cleared up. The right hon. Gentleman called this a businesslike arrangement. It was a businesslike arrangement in which the one body paid and had all the responsibility of the business, and another body selected the staff. He would hardly call that a business-like arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman, with great ingenuity, had evaded the whole point. It was not a question j of candidate A. Supposing that A, B, and C were candidates, that A was suitable, that B was better than A, and that C was better than either, and that the managers, for reasons connected with the Church, selected candidate A, had the County Council the right to go behind that and say "You have not 962 selected the best man and therefore we withhold our consent to the appointment of A"?
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
asked whether the local education authority was to have the power of testing the educational merits of more than one candidate in order that the best man belonging to the denomination should be headmaster of the school, from the educational point of view.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said he should have thought this question an extremely simple one. The local education authority would deal with this state of facts. There were two candidates, one of whom was distinctly superior in regard to secular education, and the inferior one was selected for some extraneous reason—because he could play the organ, or for some of the other reasons referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs. He did not, of course, for a moment mean to say that the man who was best merely as a secular teacher was always to be selected, because in choosing a man they must have some regard to his qualification to teach in a denominational school. They must have regard to the two elements. [OPPOSITION cheers.] He really did not know what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen meant. What the Government proposed was this. Suppose there were two candidates for a Roman Catholic school. [An Hon. MEMBER: Why a Roman Catholic school? They should endeavour to realise the fact that there were Roman Catholics. Suppose they were dealing with a Roman Catholic school, and that there were two candidates for a teachership, one a Roman Catholic and a fairly good teacher, and the other a pronounced Agnostic.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said the hon. and learned Gentleman had not stated the point he put. If one of the candidates was an Agnostic that, of course, was a religious ground, and ho took it that the local authority would have no right to deal with the matter. Suppose that in the case of a Roman Catholic school there were two candidates—both Catholics—and one was more helpful for the Sunday school or the organ than the other, who was the better man from the secular instruction point of view, and the man who was suitable for the organ was selected, would the county authority have power to refuse consent to the appointment of that man?
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said he should say that it was on educational grounds, the denominational qualifications being equal, if they selected the inferior man for some extraneous reason.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON
said the Attorney-General had not yet answered the question put to him. They wanted to know what power the local education authority would have in the way of withholding consent to an appointment made by the managers.
§ MR. M'KENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)
said that the Attorney General was entirely mistaken. He gladly admitted
§ that if the Bill meant what the right hon and learned Gentleman said it meant, the Committee had obtained a most valuable improvement But the Bill did not contain what the Attorney-General said it meant. He put it to the Attorney-General whether the right hon. Gentleman would insert in the Bill a specific Clause which would give the local authority power to send for the names of the other candidates than that selected by the managers? Unless the right hon. Gentleman did that, the local authority would not be able to judge as to which was the best candidate. The Attorney-General said that if the candidate selected was "distinctly better" the election would fall on educational grounds, but if the selection was only "better" (not "distinctly better") the selection would not fall on educational grounds. He, and those on that side of the Committee, insisted on a clearer explanation. [Cries of "Divide" from the Ministerial Benches.] This was a Committee of the House of Commons in which they were discussing a Bill which not only affected hon. Members opposite, but the whole people of the country.
§ (3.33) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 193;Noes, 102. (Division List No. 427.)967
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Bullard, Sir Harry||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas|
|Aird, Sir John||Carew, James Laurence||Faber, Edmund B.(Hants, W.)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Carlile, William Walter||Faber, George Denison (York)|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Fardell, Sir T. George|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.||Finch, George H.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. JA (Worc.||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Chapman, Edward||Fison, Frederick William|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Churchill, Winston Spencer||Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds||Clive, Capt Percy A.||Flannery, Sir Fortescue|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Flower, Ernest|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Forster, Henry William|
|Bignold, Arthur||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Foster. Philip S (Warwiek, S. W|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Cranborne, Viscount||Galloway, William Johnson|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Gardner, Ernest|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Denny, Colonel||Garfit, William|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex||Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Godson, Sir August Frederick|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)||Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim|
|Brookfield, Col. Montagu||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Brymer, William Ernest||During-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Graham, Henry Robert|
|Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds||Lockie, John||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Gretton, John||Lone, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.||Rothschild Hon Lionel Walter|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Gunter, Sir Robert||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Hain, Edward||Lucas Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Macartney, Rt. Hn. W.G. Ellison||Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight|
|Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Midd'x||Macdona, John Cumming||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Malcolm, Ian||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Manners, Lord Cecil||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir HE (Wigt'n||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Milvain, Thomas||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Helder, Augustus||Montagu, G (Huntingdon)||Stewart, Sir Mark J.M'Taggart|
|Higginbottom, S. W||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire||Strut, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Morrell, George Herbert||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Thomson, Dr. E, C (Monagh'n, N|
|Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Mount, William Arthur||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Horner, Frederick William||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Howard, John (Kent. Fav'rsh'm||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Myers, William Henry||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Newdegate, Francis A. N.||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H|
|Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Nicholson, William Graham||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton|
|Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Nolan, Col. John P (Galway, N,)||Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts.|
|Johnstone, Heywood||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Kemp, George||Parker, Sir Gilbert||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir. John H.||Pemberton, John S.G.||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Kennedy, Patrick James||Platt-Higgins. Frederick||Wortley, Rt. Hn., C.B. Stuart-|
|Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh||Plummer, Walter R.||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Wylie, Alexander|
|Kimber, Henry||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Knowles, Lees||Purvis, Robert|
|Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Pym, C. Guy|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow||Rankin, Sir James||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Rattigan, Sir William Henry||Sir Alexander Acland- Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Lawson, John Grant||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham||Ridley, Hn. M.W. (Stalybridge|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)|
|Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Newfnes, Sir George|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Harwood, George||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Palmer Sir Charles M. (Durham|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Partington, Oswald|
|Bell, Richard||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Brand, Hon. Arthur G.||Hobhouse, C.E. H. (Bristol, E.)||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Brigg, John||Horniman, Frederick John||Rea, Russell|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Rigg, Richard|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Jacoby, James Alfred||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Burt, Thomas||Joicey, Sir James||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Jones, William Carnarv'nshire||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Caldwell, James||Kearley, Hudson E.||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Cameron, Robert||Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Runciman, Walter|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Kitson, Sir James||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Cawley, Frederick||Labouchere, Henry||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Crombie, John William||Langley, Batty||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan||Leese, Sir. Joseph F. (Accrington||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R. (Northants|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Leng, Sir John||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Lewis, John Herbert||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Edwards, Frank||Lloyd-George, David||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Ellis, John Edward||Logan, John William||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Lough, Thomas||Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||M'Kenna, Reginald||Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Tomkinson, James|
|Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John||Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Willam||Toulmin, George|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Trevelyan, Charles Philip|
|Wallace, Robert||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Levy and Mr. Alfred Hutton|
|Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid|
|Weir, James Galloway||Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd|
|White, Luke (York, E. R.)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
* THE CHAIRMAN
called upon Mr. A. J. Balfour to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name.
§ (3.45) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that in moving his Amendment it would be quite unnecessary for him to add anything to what he had said yesterday. He had explained to the Committee the proposal of the Government, which he had every reason to hope was approved on both sides of the House; and he almost ventured to indulge in the expectation that without very lengthened debate it might be added to the Bill.
In page 3, line 16, at the end, to insert the words 'and the consent of the authority shall also be required to the dismissal of a teacher unless the dismissal be on grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the school.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said he wished to move an Amendment to the Amendment, the effect of which would be readily understood. He gathered from the Attorney-General that the words of his Amendment expressed the idea of the Government; and he ventured to think that they were much better than the words proposed by the Prime Minister. He made bold to say that because they were the right hon. Gentleman's own words. They had discussed the question of the appointment of teachers; and now they were considering the question of dismissal. They had provided that the appointment would not be complete until the consent of the local authority was given: and he maintained that the dismissal should not be complete until 968 the consent of the local authority was also obtained. The Amendment of the Prime Minister would not make that consent necessary in every case, as it proposed that consent should not be withheld if the dismissal were on grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the school. In practice the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would work as follows. For some reason or other a teacher incurred the disapproval of the managers, and was dismissed by them. No other condition was necessary up to that point. Then the teacher might go to the education authority and say he was dismissed on grounds other than grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the school, and ask that he should be reinstated. He thought that the Committee would agree that the right way to proceed was to require the consent of the local authority before the act of dismissal became a complete act. That was done with reference to the question of appointment, and it ought to be done also with regard to dismissal.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
To leave out all the words after the word 'teacher,' and insert the words 'but such consent shall not be withheld if the dismissal be on grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the school.'"—(Mr. Samuel Evans,)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'unless the dismissal be on grounds' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said that, to a certain extent, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he preferred the Amendment of his right hon. friend. According to the plan proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, if the managers proposed to dismiss a teacher on grounds connected with religious teaching they would have to lay the matter before the local education authority and say, "You are bound to give your consent because the dismissal 969 is based on grounds relating to religious teaching." That would involve considerable delay, and he thought it was a very reasonable proposal that if the managers believed that the retention of a particular teacher was incompatible with the religious character of the school, they should be at liberty to dismiss him. Of course, if the teacher showed that he was dismissed on grounds other than grounds connected with religious teaching, then the dismissal would be invalid without the consent of the local authority, and the post could not be filled up in the meantime, as the consent of the local authority would be required to the new appointment. The form of words proposed by the First Lord of the Treasury was convenient in itself and just to the interests of all concerned.
§ MR. BRYCE
said he was very much surprised at the remarks which had just fallen from the Attorney-General, because they were absolutely inconsistent with the argument he addressed to the Committee on the last Amendment. Then he resisted a proposal to substitute words because he said that they would not be quite consistent with words in sub-Section (a) Now his hon, and learned friend proposed words which exactly followed words in the earlier part of the Clause and were parallel to them, and yet the Attorney-General refused to accept them.
SIR ROBERT FIXLAY
said that the two cases were different. One dealt with the appointment where the consent of the local authority was necessary, the other with the dismissal where that consent was not necessary.
§ MR. BRYCE
said that in both cases the words proposed by his hon. and learned friend would avoid a great deal of trouble and reference to the Education Department. Surely, it would work a great deal better in practice if the dismissal were not to take effect until the consent of the local authority had been obtained, rather than that it should take effect and be liable to be over-ruled afterwards by the local authority. In the latter case the teacher would be for a certain period under 970 sentence of dismissal, although not actually dismissed. Surely, it would be more businesslike and more compatible with similar cases that the managers should send their statement at once to the local education authority, and have the matter decided once and for all. He greatly preferred the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend, and was very much surprised that the Government had not accepted it.
§ MR. YOXALL
said that no doubt many hon. Members were in favour of some form of appeal by teachers against capricious or unjustifiable dismissal, but he supposed that in the last resort they felt that an appeal to the Board of Education did exist under sub-Section 2. As to the particular question before the Committee, he would point out that the local authority would be a court of appeal in every case of dismissal, except cases where the dismissal was on grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the schools. These cases would be of three kinds, and three kinds only—firstly, a change of faith on the part of the teacher, making it impossible for him to continue to give the denominational instruction required in a particular school; secondly, a failure, not by reason of a change of faith, to give in the school religious instruction in a proper way; and, thirdly, a course of life inconsistent with the giving of denominational instruction or any other form of instruction. In each of these cases he did not think that the teacher would wish to appear before the local education authority, as each would constitute an obvious justification for his leaving the school. He should regard with some apprehension, therefore, the reporting of every case beforehand to the local authority, which his hon. And learned friend's Amendment would require. He would much rather leave it to the local authority to decide any case where an appeal was lodged by the teacher or by a minority of the managers. He submitted that every practical purpose would be served by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, because it had been held that the legal notice to which a head teacher was entitled was three months, unless he had contracted himself out of that right by a 971 special agreement. That would give a full opportunity for appealing before the dismissal was finally given effect to. For that and other reasons, or the full knowledge of the details of that special question, he trusted the Amendment of the First Lord of the Treasury would be accepted.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
said he was very sorry to hear the statement of his hon. friend who had just spoken. Only that morning he had received letters from teachers complaining of the insecurity of the tenure of their office. The point under discussion was that the matter should be decided before the teacher was dismissed. It was true that notice would have to be given, but he was not quite sure that it would be long enough to cover the period that might elapse before the meeting of the local authority. It would be better if the case of dismissal were decided by the local authority without putting the teacher or anyone else to the trouble and inconvenience of making a formal appeal. He did not see why the teacher should be dismissed before the matter was finally decided.
§ Minister as to certain denominational schools which had been leased to a School Board at a nominal rate, and the right hon. Gentleman had told him that those leases under Clauses 9 and 10 could be determined, and the schools turned hack again into denominational schools. He wanted to know whether, if the leases were determined, the benefits of this Clause would apply to the teachers now employed in those schools, and whether, when the schools were turned into voluntary schools, the teachers would remain on, and only be dismissed on educational grounds.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said a voluntary school under this Bill would be the same as a voluntary school under the present Act, and the teachers in the voluntary schools would be in the same position when this Bill passed as they were under the present Act.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
agreed with his hon. friend near him that the teachers throughout the country would be generally in favour of this Amendment. He, however, desired to extend to the widest the powers of the local authority, and to limit, as far as possible, the exclusive functions of the managers. He still hold the opinion that the dismissal ought to be subject to the consent of the local authority, limited as it was by the words of the Prime Minister, and, holding that opinion, he would be forced to go into the Division Lobby against the Amendment.
§ (4.3.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 200: Noes, 102. (Division List, No. 428.)975
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Chaniberlain, Rt Hn JA (Worc'r|
|Aird, Sir John||Bignold, Arthur||Chapman, Edward|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Churchill, Winston Spencer|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Clive, Captain Percy A.|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Boulnois, Edmund||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex||Coddington, Sir William|
|Bagot Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Cohen, Benjamin Louis|
|Bain Colonel James Robert||Brymer, William Ernest||Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready|
|Balcarres, Lord||Bullard, Sir Harry||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Butcher, John George||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolten)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A (Glasgow||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornseys||Carew, James Laurence||Denny, Colonel|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leed.||Carlile, William Walter||Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Doxford, Sir William Theodore|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Cavendish V.C.W.(Derbyshire||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin|
|Beekett Ernest William||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart|
|Ellior, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Johnstone, Heywood||Purvis, Robert|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Kemp, George||Pym, C. Guy|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Rankin, Sir James|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Kennedy, Patrick James||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r||Kenyon, Hon, Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.||Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge|
|Finch, George H.||Kimber, Henry||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Knowles, Lees||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Lawson, John Grant||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Flower, Ernest||Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Forster, Henry William||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Seely, Maj. J.E.B (Isle of Wight|
|Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)|
|Gardner, Ernest||Lowe, Francis William||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Garfit, William||Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Gore. Hn. G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)|
|Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Macartney, Rt. Hn. W.G. Ellison||Stewart, Sir Mark J.M. 'Taggart|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Macdona, John Cumming||Stroyan, John|
|Graham, Henry Robert||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm'nds||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Gretton, John||M'Iver Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Thompson, Dr. E C (Monagh'n, N|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Malcolm, Ian||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Manners, Lord Cecil||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Gunter, Sir Robert||Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir. H.E (Wigt'n||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Hain, Edward||Middlemore John Throgmorton||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Milvain, Thomas||Valentia, Viscount|
|Hamilton Rt. Hn. Lord G(Midd'x||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Morrell, George Herbert||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Mount, William Arthur||Welby, Lt.-Col A. C. E (Taunton|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Helder, Augustus||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Williams, Rt. Hn. J Powell-(Birm|
|Higginbottom, S, W.||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel||Myers, William Henry||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Newdegate, Francis A. N.||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Nicholson, William Graham||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Horner, Frederick William||Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Howard, John (Kent Faversh'm||Parker, Sir Gilbert||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Howard J. (Midd., Tottenham)||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Percy, Earl||TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Alexander Acland- Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Edwards, Frank||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Ellis, John Edward||Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth|
|Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Kitson, Sir James|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Labouchere, Henry|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Lambert, George|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Fuller, J. M. F.||Langley, Batty|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Bell, Richard||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington|
|Brigg, John||Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)||Leng, Sir John|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Levy, Maurice|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Burt, Thomas||Harwood, George||Logan, John William|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Lough, Thomas|
|Caldwell, James||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||M'Arthur William (Cornwall)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|Cawley, Frederick||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.||Mansfield, Horace Rendall|
|Crombie, John William||Horniman, Frederick John||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)||Jacoby, James Alfred||Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Joicey, Sir James||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Jones William (Carnarvonshire||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)|
|Newnes, Sir George||Schwann, Charles E.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Wallace, Robert|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Partington, Oswald||Soares, Ernest J.||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Paulton, James Mellor||Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Philipps, Joha Wynford||Stevenson, Francis S.||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Pickard, Benjamin||Strachey, Sir Edward||Wilson, Fred, W (Norfolk, Mid.)|
|Pirie, Duncan V.||Taylor, Theodore Cooke||Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd|
|Rea, Russell||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr|
|Rigg, Richard||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Thomas, JA(Glamorgan Grower||Mr. Samuel Evans and Mr. Warner.|
|Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)||Thomson, F. W. (York, W R.)|
|Roe, Sir Thomas||Toulmin, George|
Question put and agreed to.
§ (4.18.) MR. HERBERT LEWIS
thought the Amendment as it stood was extremely vague, and moved to substitute the words "directly related to" for the words "connected with." He desired to protect teachers from all kinds of pressure to perform extraneous duties for which, they were not paid by the ratepayers. The words, "connected with the giving of religious instruction in the school," were capable of very elastic interpretation. In moving the Amendment of which he had given notice, he would ask the Attorney General whether the grounds of dismissal would have to be specified in writing. If that were done, the local authority would have an opportunity of inquiring into those grounds, and of ascertaining whether or not they were sufficient. He thought the Committee would agree that the words he proposed were fairer to the teacher and more conducive to the interests of education than those proposed by the First Lord of the Treasury.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
To leave out 'connected with,' in order to insert directly elated to."—(Mr. Herbert Lewis.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'connected with' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said he could really see very little difference between the two forms of words. That proposed by the Government had given general satisfaction to the people most interested, and therefore it would be well to adhere to it. As to the Question put by the hon. Member, he took it that if any dispute arose the managers would in some form state what their grounds were.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
asked whether, in the event of this Amendment being debated, the Committee would be able to discuss the proposal of the hon. Member for North Camberwell with regard to extraneous duties?
§ MR. BRYCE
agreed that the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman were extremely vague. Would they include, for instance, attendance at early celebrations, or anything of that kind? The point, however, was not of first-rate importance, and he would not advise his hon. friend to press his Amendment to a division.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
, in view of the fact that the consideration of the larger question afterwards might be prejudiced by his proposal being now discussed, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
asked whether the words "connected with religious instruction in the school" were meant to apply to the school only while it was an elementary school under the local education authority.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
asked whether the new Clause promised by the Government would extend to vesting in the managers, subject to the veto of the educational authority, the power of dismissal.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said he had nothing to add to the promise of the First Lord of the Treasury. As to the 977 other point, the words applied to the giving of religious instruction in the school during school hours, including the hour of religious instruction.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
, in view of the reply of the hon. and learned Member, said he would address his question directly to the First Lord of the Treasury.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
My view, which I have over and over again stated, is that, in so far as functions are left to the managers of a school, they are left to be exercised by the managers as a body.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said it had not yet been stated how far the trust deeds were to be modified. This particular matter was part of a larger question which, sooner or later, would have to be dealt with in a definite manner, so that the Committee might know what the position of the new managers was to be.
§ MR. ALFRED DAVIES (Carmarthen Boroughs)
asked how the matter would stand if three of the managers desired the dismissal of a teacher and three did not.
§ Words inserted.
§ (4.27.) MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)
said the Amendment he now desired to move touched the important question of Nonconformist 978 teachers in schools. He fully recognised that there was some substantial basis for the complaint made by Nonconformists that they had not sufficient openings for their young teachers. The question arose as to how far, consistently with the principle of the Bill, that grievance could be removed. He was anxious to go as far as possible with justice to the denominational schools, and subject to preserving the principle of the Bill—the maintenance of the existence of denominational schools. His researches had led him to believe that the grievance arose in most cases from the fact, not that the schools were Church or denominational, but that they were under certain provisions of trust deeds which tied the hands of the managers, and compelled them, whether they liked it or not, to require all the teachers to be of one denomination. He knew of one or two cases in which teachers who had actually been appointed had had to be dismissed by the managers, to the great annoyance and, to some extent, the scandal of the neighbourhood, because they turned out to be Nonconformists. He had done his best to get the grievance redressed, but had been met by the fact—which there was no gainsaying—that the action was taken in obedience to the provisions of the trust deeds under which the managers were working, although the managers personally would have been glad to retain the teacher. It was upon the head teacher that the denominational character of the schools must depend. He did not think that they could put anything into the Bill that would force managers to appoint teachers of any particular denomination, but he thought they ought to free the hands of the managers as regarded those teachers who were not likely to give satisfactory religious instruction. On the whole, he thought his Amendment drew the best line that could be drawn. If it were adopted the managers of all denominational schools would be perfectly free to admit teachers of any denomination, and he had no doubt that, under the new system, if this freedom were given it would be freely exercised, and largely taken advantage of. He was well aware that his Amendment would not go the length which many hon. Members opposite desired. [OPPOSITION cries of "Hear, hear."] Unlike hon. Members on 979 this side, hon. Members opposite were anxious to destroy the denominational character of the schools, but that principle in the Bill must be protected, and his Amendment did this while, at the same time, it gave the greatest freedom in the appointment of teachers.
Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment—
To insert the words, 'provided that, notwithstanding anything in the trust deed of a school not provided by the local education authority, assistant teachers and pupil teachers may be appointed, if it is thought fit, without reference to religious creed or denomination.'"—(Mr. Henry Hobhouse.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University)
said that after long discussion on small matters he was glad that they had now come to an Amendment which would have a great effect upon the religious beliefs of teachers and upon the admitted grievance of Nonconformists as regarded their admission to the teaching staffs of denominational schools. They desired on this particular matter to secure that religious and secular teaching should not be divorced, that time and money should be given to maintain the denominational character of the school, and at the same time throw the teachers' appointments open as widely as possible. This Amendment would go a long way to satisfy those requirements. It was an enabling Amendment, and put no compulsion upon the managers of the schools to choose from one or any denomination or from no denomination at all, but it did untie their hands where the trustees had tied them hitherto except in respect of the appointment of the head teacher. He wished to ask had any denomination any cause for anxiety in the admission of assistant teachers and pupil teachers of other denominations? He could not think there was any such cause of anxiety. It ought to lie near the conscience of every teacher that, as a matter of honour they should impress or impart no religious or political propositions, and take no advantage in influencing the religious or political beliefs of the children. He had not much, fear of any 980 proselytising tendency in any part of our system of elementary education. Then there was the power of dismissal on grounds connected with religious instruction. If a Nonconformist teacher was imported into a denominational school, and taught religious subjects with levity, or showed any desire to affect the religious beliefs of the children, the managers would have the power of dismissal, against which decision the local authority would have nothing to say. That being so, they could not help feeling that in the interests of the denominational schools it was important that the head teacher, who gave the character to the teaching of the school, should be a member of the denomination of which the school belonged, if the trust deed required it. If the trust deed required that the teachers should be members of any particular denomination, then the managers could appoint, under this Amendment, teachers from any denomination they liked. The Government did not think that any harm would come from such a relaxation as his hon. friend proposed by his Amendment, and therefore, on behalf of the Government, he was prepared to accept, it.
By leaving out the words 'notwithstanding anything in the trust deed of a school not provided by the local education authority.'"—(Sir William Anson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words as amended, be there inserted."
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said he did not think the Government would expect the Members of the Opposition to fall upon their knees for such a concession as this. Anything more faint than the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment he had never heard. They had now secured the headmaster, and that was all they ought to expect. They had a right to demand that all teachers should be under no disability at all. By this Amendment they simply enabled the managers to appoint assistant teachers and pupil teachers if they thought fit, without reference to religious creed or denomination. They were still perpetuating that disability in regard to Nonconformist teachers.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
Because they knew that these managers would still restrict the appointments to their own denomination. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, No!"] In the past these denominational schools had exhibited no desire when not fettered by trust deeds at all to extend the benefits of entering the teaching profession to any teachers unless they belonged to the particular denomination to which the school belonged. If his hon. friend went to a division he should support his Amendment, but so strongly did he feel that they were setting about this question in the wrong way, and only asking for an infinitesimal portion of what they had a right to claim, that he insisted upon moving an Amendment to the Amendment which would make it a perfectly sensible one.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, as amended—
To leave out the word 'may,' and insert the word 'shall.'"—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)
§ Question proposed "That the word 'may' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ (4.45.) MR. A J. BALFOUR
said the hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that if his Amendment were carried it would be absolutely destructive of the denominational character of the schools. To appoint a Roman Catholic teacher in an Anglican school, or an Anglican teacher in a Roman Catholic school, or a teacher of no religion in a Jewish school, would be to destroy the denominational character of such schools. The contention of the hon. Gentleman was that the managers of a voluntary foundation school should take no account of the religion of the teacher they appointed.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the Amendment appeared to be absolutely inconsistent with the whole scheme of the Bill, and he was surprised that it should have been proposed. He hoped the hon. Member would not press it.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the meaning of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment. It did not refer to the head teacher. It applied only to assistants. The First Lord had said that it would destroy the denominational character of the schools, but the author of the Amendment to the Amendment said he was not going to destroy their denominational character. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment expressed the pious opinion that the managers would frequently appoint pupil teachers without a religious test. He did not know that the managers to be constituted by the Bill would allow Nonconformist gentlemen to be nominated to their schools, but even if they did, he did not think this would afford any satisfaction to Nonconformists when they knew that tests were to be applied to teachers and assistant teachers.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that was not the question now before the Committee. The pupil teacher question would come up later, under an Amendment down in the name of the Government, which excluded all religious tests in the case of pupil teachers. The proposal of his hon. friend the Member for East Somerset, which was accepted by the Government, was that there should be liberty of action given to the managers of the school to select all the teachers except the head teacher, irrespective of creed. Therefore let the Committee concentrate their attention upon that proposal. There were cases, he did not know how many, in which it would be perfectly easy for the managers of denominational schools to, have among the subordinate teachers members of some other denomination who could carry on the general secular teaching of the school or take part in some of the undenominational teaching. But they could not lay it down that that was to be an invariable fact. They could not require of the managers, whatever the condition of the schools, that they should ignore the religious beliefs of the teachers. The whole of the religious teaching did not fall on the head teacher. It would be preposterous to require the managers of a Roman Catholic school—he mentioned 983 them as representing the extreme and most easily understood case—to be indifferent to the religious beliefs of the teachers in the school. As his right hon, friend very truly affirmed yesterday, pupil teachers were learners, but with regard to teachers it was obviously vital that, Parliament should not require managers to do anything so suicidal as to absolutely ignore the religious opinions, not of one or two, but of all the teachers in that school except the head teacher. He hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment.
§ MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland)
said the hon. Member who moved the Amendment did it on the ground that in a large number of these schools managers would of their own motion choose Nonconformists. He said that the Church people were so broad-minded that if they got this opportunity they would in a large number of cases appoint assistant teachers who were Nonconformists. Hon. Members on this side of the House did not think they would, nor did the right hon. Gentleman. They thought it would be regarded by the majority of Church managers, who would have the whole thing in their hands, as destructive of the denominational character of the school. They did not think that Churchmen were not broad-minded because they were going to insist on their privileges. They had got those privileges, and they were going to keep them. That was the point of those who supported the Amendment to the Amendment. As long as the majority accorded to them in the management was maintained he believed, looking to the experience in nine out of ten of the voluntary schools in the past, that in the majority of the schools, whatever permission was given to choose from other creeds, the managers would insist on selecting Churchmen. But even supposing they were broad-minded enough to say, "We will not insist on any test at all," were they to be so grateful for this concession? Would men go into a profession in which the higher branches were restricted? They were going to tempt Nonconformists into these schools as assistant teachers, said the Member for East Somerset. How many Nonconformists were going in as pupil teachers when they knew that they were excluded from all the highest places in these schools? It 984 was perfectly obvious that so far as Nonconformists were concerned they would still be practically excluded from the teaching profession. Therefore it was absurd to say that this was a considerable concession to the Nonconformists. It could not be anything of the kind so long as they closed all the higher branches of the profession to those who did not belong to the Church of England.
§ MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE
said he for one did not expect gratitude for any concession made to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who claimed specially to represent the grievances of Nonconformists. He said perfectly clearly that his Amendment only went a certain length. He believed there were many Nonconformists who would be very glad to enter the teaching profession, as assistants in the denominational schools, with the confidence of obtaining head teacherships in the undenominational schools, which would be open, to them in the future quite as much as in the past, and which were by no means an insignificant number. He could not help believing that, after the sweeping changes which this Bill would make in the conditions under which the schools were administered, there would be a very large number of Nonconformists engaged as teachers. It was one of the first principles of the Bill to preserve the denominational character of the schools consistently with fairness and justice to the Nonconformists and all other classes of the community.
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)
said he intended to support his hon. friends on the other side of the House. He was himself a Nonconformist, and he regarded it as an insult that the profession should be open in its lower ranks to Nonconformists who were to be branded as persons who could rise "thus far and no farther." He was delighted that the Government had. accepted the Amendment, and that they were going to put in the Bill in black and white a definite disability of Nonconformists. It was a step in the direction of freeing the Church from some of its bonds. They had reason to be grateful for the Amendment, for it absolutely proved the point for which they had been contending on this side of the House that there was no halting-place between the entire exclusion of Nonconformist teachers from voluntary schools and the freeing of the teaching 985 profession altogether. If a Nonconformist suited their convenience they might appoint the candidate, but if he did not he was excluded. This Clause had all the intolerance of the rest of the Bill. He would vote for the Amendment to show the real meaning of the Bill.
§ (5.2.) LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)
said that if the Amendment were carried it would make it impossible to carry out an Amendment lower down on the Paper, which was to be proposed from the Ministerial side, the idea of which was that the assistant teacher should be a Nonconformist and the head teacher a Churchman. That idea was what they conceived to be the best solution of the religious difficulty, as all the pupils would be taught in the religious beliefs of their parents. He really thought that the hon. Member opposite and his friends had been very ungracious in the manner in which they had received the concessions which had been made from the Government side of the House. Since the House resumed the Bill had been very sensibly modified. The Government had pursued with relentless logic the course of handing over secular instruction to the education authority, and the Amendment completed their scheme, because it provided that, wherever possible, the assistant teacher was to be appointed without regard to religious belief.
§ MR. LLOYD - GEORGE
said he thought the latter part of the speech of the noble Lord was directed more against the Government than the Amendment. His idea was that the head teacher should teach the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church or the Anglican Church, and that the other teachers should teach the opposite doctrines. That was, that the local authority should run two rival theological shows under the same roof. If that were so, he did not think that it would be conducive to the efficiency of either the secular or religious instruction in the schools. The answer of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the contention of the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan was that it would preclude the managers from appointing a Nonconformist teacher: but if his hon. friend's Amendment were accepted, the managers would be bound 986 to take into account the secular and not the religious qualifications of the teacher. That was what they wanted. If out of half a dozen candidates there were two or three Nonconformists and two or three Churchmen, why should the Nonconformist be appointed if he was inferior? His position, and that of those who agreed with him, was that when they appointed teachers for the purpose of teaching children in State schools, in principle they ought to take into account the qualification of the teacher for imparting secular instruction, and no other. They were quite prepared to take a good Churchman rather than an inferior Nonconformist. Two-thirds of the schools in this country were denominational, and under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment men were to be encouraged to go into a profession in which two-thirds of the prizes were to be closed to them He thought that, on the whole, every concession made by the Government had been treated fairly by the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the position of the Opposition was different in regard to this Bill from his own or that of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. The serious contention was in regard to the appointment of the managers and of the teachers. Everything else was minor. Whenever a concession was made by the Government the Opposition was bound to take it at its own value. They could not accept with gratitude a concession which did not alter the character of the Bill. Apart from the Roman Catholic denominational schools, and taking the Anglican schools, four-fifths of the teaching was undenominational in its character. All that was wanted was that there should be one man to give the remaining fifth denominationally, which the other teachers would not be able to give. Was not that a perfectly fair proposition? The head teacher would be perfectly able to give that instruction or to call in a clergyman or his curates to give it. All that the Opposition insisted upon was that in the selection of the teachers account should be taken of one thing only—his qualifications in regard to imparting secular instruction. He did not think the Government should demand more 987 than that. The bulk of the money for the payment of the teachers came from public funds, and so far as the assistant teachers were concerned the Government should make this concession. The Prime Minister seemed to have overlooked the fact that the majority of the managers would be denominational, and practically selected because they were denominational. The whole scheme was drafted to secure a majority of denominational managers. What more did the Government desire? When they came to test this Bill as a real education measure it broke down.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said that the Amendment would absolutely exclude from the consideration of the managers, in selecting teachers, any regard to their religious or irreligious belief.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said that the Amendment was perfectly clear that it would be open to the managers to appoint teachers of all religions or denominations, precisely in the same way as all civil servants were appointed.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said that suppose in the case of a Church, a Roman Catholic, or a Wesleyan school, there was a candidate for the post of assistant teacher, and that that candidate was an avowed atheist. According to the Amendment the managers would not be able to take that into consideration. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend that?
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said that then the hon. Gentleman had not considered the effect of his own Amendment. His right hon. friend had suggested that in proposing his Amendment he did not expect any gratitude from the other side; but certainly they did not expect that they should be exposed to such elaborate and studied misapprehension as had been exercised on the present occasion. They had been actually told that the managers in appointing some man in whose general religious principles they had confidence would be putting a stigma on Nonconformists. All he could say was that hon. Gentlemen opposite had exceeded themselves in misapprehension.
§ SIR EDWARD GREY (Northumberland, Berwick)
did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman, or anybody coming from the country he did, really understood what the English system of education was. If he did he would realise what a small thing this present Amendment was. Because so long as the system in this country was what it was, the fact could not be got rid of by any words whatever. The system in England at the present time was that there were buildings under trustees, and the first object was to secure the religious teaching of a particular denomination. But with the ownership of buildings the managers or trustees had the duty and privilege not merely of seeing that the religious instruction was given to the people belonging to a particular denomination; they were responsible for the whole of the education of the people in the district. That was a great public service because, and especially in the rural districts, there was not always a choice of schools for the parents, but in this great public service it was found that the teaching profession in more than half of the schools was to be closed to members of other denominations. The Amendment of his hon. friend said that the teaching profession need not necessarily be closed as far as the assistant teachers were concerned. On whom did the decision depend? It depended on the will of the body of managers, four of whom were appointed to see that the religious instruction of a particular denomination was given. That was their duty. They had no escape from that decision under the terms of their appointment, and what the Committee had to remember was that it was not every body of managers that was likely to be tolerant, and that they might have to deal with an intolerant body of managers. The best way to get over the objections of the Prime Minister would be for the Government to say that they would leave this appointment permissive, making a dispensary power of over-riding the trustees to rest, not with the managers, but with the local education authority. As the Amendment stood he had no hesitation in voting for it,
§ *(5.20.) SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)
said he desired in the first place to thank the Government for accepting 989 the Amendment of his hon. friend, which, there could be no doubt, would bring about a great change in the staff of the voluntary schools, in most cases under the trust the teachers were not only obliged to be members of the Church, but communicant members. He felt himself that the time had come in the history of education when the teaching profession, excepting the place of head teachers, with whose case the House was not at present concerned, should be thrown more widely open. How far did hon. Members opposite desire to go into this investigation into religious creeds or denomination? Did they contemplate opening the door of the voluntary schools to those who had entirely cast away all belief in the Christian religion, and had not only done so in their actions, but had made a public profession of having done so. Reference had been made to the fact that it was exceedingly important that the person elected should belong to the denomination of that particular school, because ho would have had instruction in religious subjects. He was acquainted with a case which he thought might be of some interest to the House, where there were teachers belonging to different denominations, where a vacancy had occurred, and it became necessary to select a person to fill it. One of the masters who was engaged in teaching secular subjects was selected, and to his honour be it said, he refused the position and said that though he had taught in the school for many years, as the new duties involved the teaching of religious belief, he felt himself bound to state that he had years before given up all belief in Christianity. He appealed to the Committee not to impose upon the managers or trustees of the voluntary schools the duty of appointing to the post a teacher who was not only an infidel, but a man who boasted of his infidelity.
§ MR. BRYCE
said that hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed in their arguments to ignore two large classes of schools. One class was the School Board schools which gave religious instruction. Why was it that they found no difficulty in getting competent men to give religious instruction? They were free to choose any one they liked, and the difficulties conjured up by the Attorney General were unreal. 990 Education ought not to be hampered by all these regulations. The same thing happened in Scotland. There was no general exclusion of any person on the ground of denomination or creed there, yet they did not find atheists coming forward and securing the best appointments. He believed that there were not a few cases in which managers would be glad of the privilege to appoint some person who did not belong to the denomination. He congratulated the Government on at last seeing how illogical their position was. They were now standing on an inclined plane, and it would be impossible to stop in the present position of religious exclusion. They would have to go further. There was no question of gratitude one way or the other. That word ought not to be used in these discussions. The Opposition did not ask for any concession, because they stood on the ground of civic rights. Their view was that if the State paid for schools those schools ought to be open in every place, from the top to the bottom, to every member of the State. The Opposition asked for nothing less than their civic rights, and until they received them they would continue to press for the abolition of the restrictions that were perpetuated by this Bill.
§ SIR JOHN GORST
said that he had often told the House that the religious difficulty existed only in the House of Commons and not in the schools. He reiterated that opinion now when he was in the position of an independent member, because he did not think that hon. Gentlemen believed him when he gave expression to the belief as an official of the Government. His notion of civic right was rather different from that of the right hon. Gentleman, who was a Scotchman, whereas he was an Englishman. But, rightly or wrongly, stupidly or wisely, the English people, as a people, had got a prejudice in favour of having religious instruction given to their children, and they did not consider their civic rights in education were adequately acknowledged by the State, unless the public instruction which the State provided was an instruction based upon religion. What was done in nearly all the schools under the present system was that the managers or teachers who 991 ran the school contrived to give such religious instruction as was generally acceptable to the parents of the children in the school. For instance, in a Roman Catholic school there was little but Roman Catholic teaching. In most of these schools that they heard so much about, even the bigoted clergyman, who was continually denounced in that House endeavoured to give instruction which was neither unacceptable to the parents of the children—the parents generally cared very little about it—nor to the members of the religious body to which the parents were supposed to belong. He supposed that if they went into an ordinary school in a country district they would not hear a single word said which would offend the conscience or susceptibilities of Churchmen or Dissenters, and if the Government could prevail on the managers under this Bill to do that which the managers under the present system did of their own accord the religious difficulty would disappear. Where the civic authority came in was in the secondary schools where this was done. There the religious teaching was such as was acceptable to the parents, and there were many cases in which the boys of Nonconformist parents had gone to Church schools, with the express understanding that on Sunday they were at liberty to attend the chapel of their persuasion, and that they were not to receive any instruction that was not in accordance with the doctrines which their parents held. The Amendment before the Committee was a move in that direction, and, therefore, ought not only to be accepted, but heartily supported, by the Committee. It gave the managers powers which they did not now possess. Notwithstanding what had been said earlier in the debate, the clergy of the Church of England did admit Nonconformists constantly to their schools, and there were hundreds of schools in which there were Nonconformist teachers, even head teachers, he believed, but certainly Nonconformist assistant teachers. In such schools, what was more reasonable than that they should appoint a Nonconformist assistant teacher, and have such teaching as was acceptable to the parents of Nonconformist children, along with the Church of England teaching to the other children? As long ago as 1896 he remembered having a letter from a gentleman who was 992 actually a Bishop, who said that he had been a vicar in Wiltshire, where he found that the greater part of the children in his Church school were Baptists, and that he found that the proper solution of the religious difficulty was to have ordinary Scripture teaching on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, and on Fridays to draft the children into two classrooms, in one of which the Catechism was taught, and in the other the ordinary Scripture teaching. He was told that precisely the same thing held in Scotland. In the Island of Barra, where the population was half Roman Catholic and half Protestant the same thing was done, and no difficulty was experienced in giving both kinds of religious instruction in the same school. Catholic teaching was given to the Roman Catholics at one end of the room, and Protestant teaching to the Protestants at the other. It did not give rise to all these dreadful consequences. If the House of Commons would lay down the broad principle that the new education authority should make provision by which every child should receive such religious instruction as was acceptable to its parents, he believed the whole religious difficulty would be solved. Hon. Members opposite would, perhaps, lose their vocation, but in such a cause they would, no doubt, be willing to surrender it.
§ MR. M'KENNA
said the right hon. Gentleman had made a most admirable speech in defence of a system of education which was not the system of this Bill. During July and August they had fought over and over again for the popular control of these schools and the government of the schools by the parents. That was voted against by the right hon. Gentleman among others, and now the right hon. Gentleman discovered that it was the real system. It was with some suspicion that he looked upon the acceptance of this Amendment by the Government. Not long ago the First Lord of the Treasury gave a pledge that the denominational control of the schools should not be left under the terms of the trust deed, but should be handed over to the whole of the managers. Did the right hon. Gentleman adhere to that pledge? If so, the Amendment was mere flummery.
§ MR. ABEL THOMAS (Carmarthenshire, E.)
said he should vote in favour of the Amendment because, as far as it went, it improved what was a very bad Bill, but he was surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite expected the Committee to be grateful for the concessions made. After what had been taken away, these miserable little concessions were not worthy of consideration. He was also prepared to vote for the Amendment to the Amendment. Ho would like to know whether the assistant teacher was supposed to teach religion. If so, the four Church managers would not appoint a Nonconformist, they would not "see fit" to do so. But if the assistant teacher was not to teach religion, what difference could his religion, or want of religion, possibly make? An atheist could teach mathematics quite as well as the most religious Churchman in the world. He should support not only the Amendment, but the Amendment to the Amendment.
§ MR. BRIGG (Yorkshire, W.R., Keighley)
said a very important consideration was involved in the Amendment. There would be appointed a large number of teachers whose whole time would not be occupied by one particular school, but who would be teaching in different schools on different days of the week. There were several kinds of teaching, such as that of drawing or wood-carving, which would have to be supplied by the educational authority by means of these itinerant teachers. Surely in such cases it was not necessary to know the religious belief of the teachers. The educational authority ought not to be so handicapped. The Amendment as amended in the manner proposed would constitute a valuable addition to the Bill.
§ (5.51.) Question proposed.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes. 246 Noes, 125. (Division List, No. 429.)997
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Butcher, John George||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas|
|Aird, Sir John||Carew, James Laurence||Faber, George Denison (York)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Carlile, William Walter||Fardell, Sir T. George|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r|
|Arrol, Sir William||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Finch, George H.|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc.||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Chapman, Edward||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon|
|Balcarres, Lord||Charrington, Spencer||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Churchill, Winston Spencer||Flower, Ernest|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Clive, Captain Percy A.||Forster, Henry William|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Forster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds||Coddington, Sir William||Galloway, William Johnson|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)||Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Gardner, Ernest|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Compton, Lord Alwyne||Garfit, William|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Cranborne, Viscount||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick|
|Beckett, Ernest William||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Crossley, Sir Savile||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsy-(Linc.)|
|Bignold, Arthur||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon|
|Bigwood, James||Cust, Henry John C.||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Bond, Edward||Davenport, William Bromley-||Greene, Sir E.W (B'rySEdm'nds|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Denny, Colonel||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Grenfell, William Henry|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Gretton, John|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex||Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Greville, Hon. Ronald|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Groves, James Grimble|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Gunter, Sir Robert,|
|Bull, William James||Duke, Henry Edward||Hain, Edward|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.|
|Hambro, Charles Eric||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G (Midd'x||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Macartney, Rt. Hn W G. Ellison||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Macdona, John Cumming||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Malcolm, Ian||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Helder, Augustus||Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E(Wigt'n||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks|
|Henderson, Sir Alexander||Middlemore, John Throgmort'n||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Hickman, Sir Alfred||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.||Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Higginbottom, S. W.||Milvain, Thomas||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside||Morrell, George Herbert||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm||Mount, William Arthur||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Talbot, Rt Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUniv|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute||Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Myers, William Henry||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Johnstone, Heywood||Newdegate, Francis A. N.||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Kemp, George||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Valentia, Viscount|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)||Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H (Sheffi'ld|
|Kennedy, Patrick James||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh||Parker, Sir Gilbert||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Keswick, William||Pemberton, John S. G.||Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E(Taunton|
|Kimber, Henry||Percy, Earl||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|Knowles, Lees||Pierpoint, Robert||Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne|
|Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Platt-Higgns, Frederick||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Plummer, Walter R.||Williams, Rt. Hn. J Powell-(Birm|
|Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Lawrence, Wm. F.(Liverpool)||Pryce-Jones, Lieut-Col Edward||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Lawson, John Grant||Purvis, Robert||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.|
|Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Edw. H.||Pym, C. Guy||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham||Rankin, Sir James||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Ratcliff, R. F.||Wylie, Alexander|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Rattigan, Sir William Henry||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Richards, Henry Charles||Younger, William|
|Lockie, John||Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge|
|Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S)||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Lowe, Francis William||Round, Rt. Hon. James||Sir Alexander Acland- Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Davies, M. Vanghan-(Cardigan||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)|
|Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud||Duncan, J. Hastings||Jacoby, James Alfred|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Dunn, Sir William||Joicey, Sir James|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Edwards, Frank||Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire|
|Atherley-Jones L.||Ellis, John Edward||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.||Kitson, Sir James|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Labouchere, Henry|
|Bell, Richard||Fuller, J. M. F.||Lambert, George|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John||Langley, Batty|
|Brigg, John||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Griffith, Ellis J.||Leng, Sir John|
|Burt, Thomas||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Levy, Maurice|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Caine, William Sproston||Harwood, George||Lloyd-George, David|
|Caldwell James||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Logan, John William|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Lough, Thomas|
|Cawley, Frederick||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Crombie, John William||Hobhonse, C. E. H (Bristol, E.)||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Horniman, Frederick John||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Reckitt, Harold James||Thomas, J A(Glamorgan Gower|
|Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Reid Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Markham, Anthur Basil||Rigg, Richard||Tomkinson, James|
|Mather, Sir William||Roberts, John H. (Donbighs.)||Toulmin, George|
|Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)||Wallace, Robert|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Roe, Sir Thomas||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T|
|Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Runciman, Walter||Weir, James Galloway|
|Moulton, John Fletcher||Schwann, Charles E.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Newnes, Sir George||Shackleton, David James||Whitley, George (York, W.R.)|
|Norman, Henry||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Norton, Capt. Ceil William||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth|
|Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham||Soares, Ernest J.||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid|
|Partington, Oswald||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Paulton, James Mellor||Stevenson, Francis S.||Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh, N.|
|Perks, Robert William||Strachey, Sir Edward||Woodhonse, Sir.J T. (Huddersf'd|
|Philipps, John Wynford||Taylor, Theodore Cooke||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Pickard, Benjamin||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E|
|Pirie, Duncan V.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Samuel Evans and Mr. Trevelyan.|
|Price, Robert John||Thomas, David, Alfred (Merthyr|
|Rea, Russell||Thomas, Freeman-(Hastings|
§ Words, as amended, inserted.
(6.5.) DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.) moved an Amendment adding words which would also provide that it should not be lawful for any body of managers to make it a condition of appointment that a teacher should undertake to perform or abstain from performing any duties outside the ordinary school hours or unconnected with the ordinary work of the school. He at once admitted that the purpose he had in view had been sensibly modified by the Amendment, which the Government had accepted, giving a veto to the local authority on the dismissal of a teacher under certain circumstances, but to what extent ho could not yet say. What he was trying to deal with was the case in which it was made a condition precedent to the appointment of a teacher, that in order to obtain the appointment he should undertake to perform certain extraneous duties. He agreed at once that the school teacher should be always ready to co-operate generously with the managers out of school in anything which affected the well-being of the children and the community in which they lived, and he thought teachers were prepared to co-operate in all these things, and they did undertake considerable duties outside their ordinary work. What he said was, that when the teachers had done good service to the State in the school they should be permitted to do exactly what they pleased in their own private leisure, which was not outside the limits of the propriety demanded from a school teacher. Under this new era what he insisted
upon was, that when the managers appointed a teacher they should appoint a teacher and not a parochial factotum. When appointments of this kind had boon made in the past other matters had been brought into consideration, and it very often happened that the best man had not been appointed, and the man appointed was generally a person who had undertaken to perform all sorts of extraneous duties. He did not blame the Church parsons in this matter. He had in his hand a brief extract from the first circular which was sent down to the principal training colleges signed by "J. Kay-Shuttle worth & E. G. Tuffnall" They sent a memorandum to the training college principals advising them as to the lines along which the training of the teachers should go. It was advice to the principals of the training colleges of an official character as to what the State's ideal was in the matter of training teachers. This memorandum says:—
In the formation of the character of the schoolmaster, the discipline of the training college should be so devised as to prepare him for the modest respectability of his lot, Without the spirit of self-denial, he is nothing. His reward must be in his work. There should be great simplicity in the life of such a man. Obscure and secluded schools need masters of a contented spirit, to whom training of the children committed to their charge has charms sufficient to concentrate their thoughts and exertions on the humble sphere in which they live, notwithstanding the privations of a life but little superior to the level of the surrounding peasantry. When the scene of the teacher's exertions is in the neighbourhood which brings him into association with the middle and upper classes of society, his emoluments will be greater, and he will lie surrounded by temptations which, in the absence of a suitable preparation of mind, might rob him of that
humility and gentleness which are among the most necessary qualifications of the teacher of a common school.
Now came the point to which he desired to call special attention. The statement went on—
He should he accustomed to the performance of those parochial duties in which the schoolmaster may lighten the burden of the clergyman. For this purpose he should. learn to keep the accounts of the benefit club. He should instruct and manage the village choir, and should learn to play the organ.
That being the State's ideal 60 years ago, he did not complain that the village parson felt justified in calling into requisition these teachers. But a great deal of water had gone under London Bridge since that time, and whilst he thought the teacher should assist in every way yet he should be permitted in his leisure time to do what he pleased, always provided that he did nothing outside the limits which propriety expected of him, and provided that he did nothing which would exhaust the energies required for the performance of his ordinary duties he had no objection to the teacher playing the village organ. If he were a village teacher he thought that he should apply for the post because it would be a very agreeable change. He should, however, have to learn to play the instrument first. He had no objection to the teacher using his services in any way he pleased providing he did not exhaust himself, and providing it did not militate against the teacher performing his proper work. Cases had come under his notice where a small School Board had said to a teacher seeking an appointment: "The last teacher played the church organ, and if you are going to get this appointment you must do so." He had no objection to a teacher playing the organ if he liked to do so, but he objected to it if it was made a condition of his obtaining and retaining his situation. He admitted that in recent years there had been a very great improvement in the matter of this particular question. He could very well remember that within the last fifteen years more than half of the advertisements for teachers for voluntary schools began with three words, "School, organ, choir," but still it was much too often a condition precedent that if a teacher wished to get an appointment he had to take other duties to those of the school. The hon. Member produced a copy of the School Guardian, the organ of the National Society, for
21st June, 1900, in which there were six advertisements for head teachers, and in four cases the requirements included qualifications which were extraneous to those of school teacher, the qualifications being made a condition precedent to appointment. No doubt payments were made in many cases for these extra services, but that was not the point. The condition narrowed the circle of selection. They were now giving the local authority power over secular instruction, and anything which militated against the teacher's proper discharge of his duties as secular instructor was a matter over which the authority should have a veto. His point simply was, if the teacher wished to do these things—playing the organ, superintending the Sunday school, and singing in the choir—by all means let him do so, but he should not be compelled to do them, and he should be able to give them up if he thought fit. Some time ago he sent out a circular to the teachers in certain counties on this subject, and. in their replies, some of which the hon. Member road to the Committee, they made it clear that the extra duties, with some of them, were made a condition precedent to their engagement, and that they could not give them up without prejudice to their office. These things might have been tolerable in the past, but they were not so now, when the money came out of the public funds. This problem would be vastly improved under this Bill, because candidates for teacherships would have six managers to deal with instead of one. He had no doubt that where in the past it had been possible to make appointments with such conditions attached, it would not be so possible in the future. If a teacher refused to perform these duties he might be dismissed by the managers, but the local authority on appeal by the teacher could veto the dismissal. He hoped he rightly interpreted the effect of the appeal to the local authority. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment—
To insert the words, 'Provided also that it shall not be lawful, for any body of managers to make it a condition of appointment in the case of any teacher, that the said teacher shall undertake to perform or to abstain from performing any duties outside the ordinary school hours or unconnected with the ordinary work of the school.'"—(Dr Macnamara.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ (6.30.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that al though he was not disposed to recommend the Committee to adopt this Amendment, he had nothing to complain of either in the tone of the statement made by the hon. Gentleman or in the matter of it. He had gone very completely into the question in a spirit of great moderation. He gathered that the hon. Member agreed that it would be a great pity if the Committee were to suggest or, still more, to lay down in exact terms that a schoolmaster should do nothing except teach the children secular instruction in the school. It would be a great injury to the schoolmaster, because in manv cases the schoolmaster could earn an addition to his salarv, and it would be a great injury to the parish, because in many out-of-the-way parishes there was practically nobody who could aid a certain side of parochial life except the parson and other religious ministers in the parish and the schoolmaster. It would be as profound a pity to limit the activity of the schoolmaster to his scholastic duties as it would be to limit the duties of the clerical strict work. On these points he thought the Committee on both sides of the House would probably be in agreement with the hon. Gentleman and himself. Then the question arose—Was there likely, under the Bill as it now stood, to be such an abuse of this practice as to make it now desirable to add the rather elaborate provision which the hon gentleman proposed by his Amendment? He thought not. From the hon. Gentleman's own statement it must be evident that the protection already given to the schoolmaster was of so elaborate a kind that any further elaboration was hardly necessary. To begin with, his salary would be paid for teaching in the school, and for that alone. It could not include in the future, as it had in the past, payment for anything outside the work in the school during school hours. The education authority would be acting illegally, and would be liable to surcharge, if they permitted any of the money they gave to the schoolmaster to be payment for work in the Sunday school, or in connection with the choir 1002 or the service of the church. Therefore, if the schoolmaster had to do anything outside his strict scholastic duties, he must do it because he liked it, or because it was worth his while. There was another great protection. He admitted that there were cases, he hoped not many, in which teachers, already over-. burdened by their strictly scholastic duties, were obliged, in order to keep their places, to do other work during the few hours of rest which Saturday afternoon or Sunday might give them, but by the Bill that was absolutely stopped. There could be no doubt that by thus overburdening the teachers, their efficieney as teachers of secular education would be interfered with, and therefore the education authority would have, not only the right, but the duty, to intervene. In the third place, it was quite clear that if any contract was entered into between a teacher and the managers before the teacher was nominated and appointed, the whole sanction for that contract was removed by the Bill, If the teacher was threatened with dismissal for refusing to fulfil such a contract, he could appeal to the education authority. That appeal would be heard by the education authority, and they could enforce their view of the matter He hoped that he had made the position so clear to the Committee that they would see that they would be doing no good to the teachers or to the managers by cumbering the Bill with this condition, which he thought was perfectly unnecessary, either in educational or the personal interests of the teachers.
§ MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH (Anglesey)
said that the Amendment could do no harm, and might do good, as it only asked that the managers should not make it a condition of the appointment of a teacher that he should do parochial work. As the Bill stood, the managers might appoint a schoolmaster, and promise to give him a salary of £150 a year provided he did extraneous work He earnestly asked the Government to accept the Amendment, which only carried out the ideas of the Prime Minister himself.
§ MR. YOXALL
said he thought the First Lord of the Treasury 1003 was mistaken in supposing that the payment of the salary by the education authority would prevent the performance of extraneous tasks being made a condition precedent to the appointment of a teacher. The thing would work out in this way. The vicar, or the churchwardens, or the denominational managers would convey to a given candidate that if he would consent to undertake certain parochial duties on Sunday, he would be placed in the way of obtaining, after his nomination and appointment, from the education authority a salary for performing the secular work of the school. In that way they might induce him to do Sunday School work, play the organ, superintend the clothing club, and for these offices he might receive £5 or £10 per year. This was not such a new thing as the First Lord of the Treasury supposed; and he was afraid that the alteration proposed to be made in the Bill would not remove the ground of complaint which existed in many cases. He recognised the difficulty in laying down a hard and fast line, but he suggested to the First Lord of the Treasury that the right hon. Gentleman should take time to consider this matter, and whether another course might not be possible. In justice to the teachers and to the efficiency of the schools, he hoped that the First Lord would not absolutely refuse to accept this Amendment altogether.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)
said that this matter had been exclusively discussed hitherto from the point of view of the teachers, and he asked the Committee to consider it from the point of view of the local authority. It appeared to him that the Amendment would be a great advantage and protection to the local authority as well as to the teachers. Unless he entirely misinterpreted the Bill, the local authority would be in a very difficult position when fixing the salaries of the teachers. They would not know what the exact position of the teachers was to be, and whether they were, or were not, expected to perform other duties than those connected with the school. It had been pointed out that under the Code an attempt had been made to make it clear that the salaries of the teachers were not to be paid except for duties in 1004 connection with the school, but that it had been exceedingly difficult to keep to that rule. In certain parishes the teacher were expected to play the organ, and even to perform the duties of the sexton. If the Government did not insert this power tonight, he hoped they would take another opportunity of doing so. He asked the First Lord of the Treasury to complete the admirable work he had commenced, and make a clean job of the matter.
§ (6.47.) SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said that every member of the Committee would be in entire sympathy with the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. But it would be clearly ultra vires for the managers to impose an extraneous duty on a teacher as a condition of employment. They could no more impose a condition of that kind than they could impose conditions as to the salary. There were six managers, of whom the majority were laymen, and two were appointed by the local authority; and there was the veto of the local authority on the appointment and dismissal of teachers, which he had no doubt would be at once exercised if a man was dismissed for not performing duties he was not selected to perform; so that the protection was ample. It was not, in his opinion, wise to multiply minute provisions of this kind. Even if it were found that the six managers were guilty of attempting to do that which the Section would not allow, the hon. Member could trust the veto of the local education authority. He hoped the hon. Member would not consider it necessary to press this Amendment.
§ MR. ASQUITH (Fife, E.)
expressed surprise at the interpretation which the hon. and learned Gentleman had placed upon the Clause, which amounted to this, that, in the opinion of the Attorney General, under the Clause as it stood it would be ultra vires for the managers to make the performance of any non-scholastic duty a condition of the teacher's appointment.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said that that was not what he said. What he said was that it would be ultra vires for the managers to impose other duties which were to be covered by the salary paid by the local authority, which was rather a different proposition.
§ MR. ASQUITH
said that that distinction showed the necessity for the Amendment. It was clear that the question of the protection which the Prime Minister agreed the teachers ought to have was not traversed by the Amendment of his hon. friend. It was not given the Clause. Ho agreed that the debate had been conducted in a fair and temperate spirit on both sides of the House, and he agreed that the protection was increased, but in this matter it must be remembered that there was a long, inveterate, and traditional practice to be overcome. In a large number of denominational schools the teachers had always been appointed on condition that in their spare hours they should perform parochial duties. They could not change that position. The pressure brought to bear on managers by persons interested in the Church to keep to the old system would be so strong that unless there were the prohibition of an Act of Parliament the system would be continued. Nobody objected to the schoolmasters utilising their spare hours in these matters, but on the other hand the State had the right to demand their best labour and best ability. This was a very important matter. It was not sufficiently covered in the Clause as it stood. The Prime Minister agreed that the principle of the Amendment ought to be adopted, and the House was also practically unanimous upon the matter. That being so, why should not they put the effect of what they agreed upon on the Statute Book?
§ * MR. DUKE (Plymouth)
said he was glad that the objection to this Amendment on the part of the Government was not one of principle. The objection to its acceptance was the overloading of the Bill with matters of detail. That was an objection that every one took in common with the Prime Minister, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would, see his way at a later stage to reconsider this matter and accept the principle which underlay the Amendment. No doubt it would be a breach of trust to apply as remuneration for extraneous duties a part of the money given for payment of salaries, and no such breach of trust was probable, but there was a further question to be considered. The question was whether willingness and ability to perform extraneous duties were to be con- 1006 siderations in the appointment of teachers. If that was maintained the matter was far more serious, because the first thing the managers would do would be to inform themselves as to whether the schoolmaster was one who would bind himself to perform these duties. The candidate who was willing and able would be welcome, while the candidate who was not, though educationally more efficient, would be unwelcome. He did not wish to labour the point; all he desired to add was the observation that this was a Bill that was not regarded without jealousy, not only among the political supporters of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but also the political supporters of members on the Government side of the House. There were those who heartily supported the Bill but felt that it was a new departure in education which needed to be watched and safe guarded. He trusted the Leader of the House would have regard to that jealousy, because jealousy was a factor which would affect the working of the Bill, and that in this matter, which did not involve a question of principle, and where, in the words of the Attorney General, the interests of the teachers were to be safeguarded, the right hon. Gentleman would see if it were not possible to meet the demand of the hon. Member for North Camberwell at any rate by drafting a form of contract for teachers which would make clear the actual conditions of their appointment.
§ SIR JAMES JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)
hoped after the general expression of opinion in favour of the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept it. He thought it would be found that throughout the country the schoolmasters were only too glad to assist in Church matters, but in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the great grievance was that there was no additional payment for the services. He could see no reason why the Amendment could not be accepted.
§ (6.58.) MR. JOHNSTONE (Sussex, Horsham)
asked the First Lord of the Treasury if he could not see his way to give the substance of the Amendment. He fully agreed with what had been said about overloading the Bill, and it appeared to 1007 him that the Committee had been engaged too long in trying to paint the lily and gild refined gold. Personally he did not think the Amendment was necessary; he thought all that was necessary could be done under the Bill as it stood; but the teachers would value the substance of these words very much, and it would also convey to them the message that the House of Commons appreciated their difficulty.
§ SIR W. HART DYKE (Kent, Dartford)
expressed the opinion that the Committee were devoting a great deal of time to a matter not worth discussion. All were agreed as to what was to be secured, and that was, once and for all for Parliament to put its foot down upon a very evil system. He was very much opposed to burdening the Clause with these words, but he hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would go further than he had done in his speech, and would give them an assurance that words should be introduced, either in some future clause of the Bill or in the Code itself, specifically declaring that this evil system was illegal.
§ SIR JOHN GORST
said this matter could be perfectly well dealt with in the Education Code. At the present moment it was required under the Code that the engagement of every teacher should be made in writing. There was a form specially prepared, and there was nothing in the form of that engagement which gave any encouragement whatever to extraneous tasks.
§ SIR. JOHN GORST
said that was so, but it discouraged them in so far that the model form of agreement did not exclude extraneous tasks. It was very easy to go a little further, and there was no difficulty whatever in the Government now making a promise to consider the propriety of providing that the engagement between the teacher and his employers should be made according to a specific form, and that that form should specifically exclude any extraneous tasks, and that the Board of Education would not recognise any teacher who was engaged in any other form than that laid down in the Code.
§ MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN
said it appeared to him that for the purpose of aiding those who had to administer this Act it would be much better if this were embodied in the Clause; it would not have the same weight if embodied in the Code. There was another point, also; if it were embodied in the Code, when the Code came before the House, if the form of agreement were not satisfactory the Government might not be in so friendly a mood as at present. Therefore he hoped the Government would give way on this trifling point, and get to other business.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said all were agreed as to what was wanted, but they differed as to the means by which the desire should be effected. It had been suggested that it might be effected by the introduction of words in the Code next year, and he would undertake that this matter should be dealt with in the Code of next year in the sense in which the Committee evidently wished it to be dealt with. He could not help feeling that this course would be very much better than encumbering the Bill with the proposed words.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON
contended that the responsibility for this matter should lie with the local authority and not with the Board of Education. The Committee had had the painful experience in the past of the inability of the Board of Education to enforce such a provision in its own Code. The right hon. Gentleman had previously said that the local authority would be able to override the Code, and therefore the responsibility in a matter of this kind should be laid on the local authority. Would the hon. Member the Secretary to the Board of Education undertake to put in the Code a provision that the terms of agreement come to between the managers and the teacher should be submitted for the approval of the local education authority?
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
thought that when the local education authority was asked for its consent to the appointment of the teacher, it might reasonably ask to see the terms of agreement.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
advised the Committee to insist on the insertion of the Amendment in the Clause. At the 1009 moment the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and the attention of the country, was fixed on this matter, and whatever pressure was brought to bear upon the Hoard of Education would lie in the direction of getting rid of this grievance. Directly the Bill was passed, the attention which was now fixed upon the subject would be relaxed, and by the time an opportunity came for discussion of the Code, extraneous influences would be brought to bear on the Hoard of Education, influences very difficult for the House to deal with. It was of no use to attempt to disguise the fact, and it was only necessary to read the resolutions in reference to the Bill passed in Convocation to know whence the influence came. The terms of the contract might clear up the question of extraneous duties, but the inquiries with regard to the qualifications of the teacher would have been gone into and the man selected on the question of extraneous duties before the contract came into the matter at all. The whole question was whether these matters ought to be taken into account in the selection of the teacher. The Code and the form of contract did not affect the point. He hoped the Committee would insist on settling the matter now, and not permit it to be deferred to the Code.
§ MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)
hoped that the Committee would not risk losing the substance by grasping at the shadow. Most hon. Members were in favour of the substance which was embodied in the concession of the Government, but many objected to the form of the Amendment. He did not agree with those who considered that the managers ought to be prevented by hard and fast legislation from taking into account the willingness or ability of a teacher to perform certain duties. He fully agreed that teaching efficiency ought not to be sacrificed for these extraneous duties, but there were many parishes the condition of which was such that as between two teachers of equal teaching ability these outside matters might very well be a determining factor. The risk of their being the determining factor should be provided against, and the Government had promised to see to that. While they all agreed as to the substance—that in 1010 no case should teaching efficiency be sacrificed to any extraneous consideration—they could not accept the hard and fast provision that extraneous matter should never be taken into account, and therefore they would have to vote against the Amendment.
§ MR. LOGAN (Leicestershire, Harborough)
thought it quite possible to find away out of the difficulty. Everybody admitted that it was unfair that the teacher should be asked to carry out certain duties not connected with education. He suggested, therefore, that as this was not a matter of life or death to the Government, the right hon. Gentleman should allow his followers to vote as they liked on the question. The teachers of the country would then get all they asked, viz., simple justice.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said there need really be no division. The language on the other side had been quite as strongly in favour of such an Amendment as the speeches on the Opposition side. All were agreed as to what they wanted; the question was whether it should be in the Bill or in the Code. Were they to be satisfied with a promise that it should be in the Code? Managers never read the Code right through, but they would read this Bill. It would therefore be much better that the provision should be inserted in the Bill itself.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
was profoundly grateful to the Committee for the way in which they had considered the question, and to the Prime Minister for the attitude he had taken up. The suggestion had been made that the memorandum of agreement in the Code should be strengthened so as to render it impossible for these encroachments to be made matters precedent to appointment. He knew what he was talking about in these matters, and he declared that the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary would, from his point of view, and from the point of view of the teaching profession, be an admirable settlement of tins question. His view was that the promised alteration would remove this long-standing grievance, and as far he personally was concerned he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Leave being refused,
§ (7.24.) Question put.1012
§ Committee divided:—Ayes, 119; Noes, 246. (Division List No. 430.)1013
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Price, Robert John|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Horniman, Frederick John||Priestley, Arthur|
|Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Rea, Russell|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Jacoby, James Alfred||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Joicey, Sir James||Rigg, Richard|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Kearley, Hudson E.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Bell, Richard||Kitson, Sir John||Runciman, Walter|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Lambert, George||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Brigg, John||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Shackleton, David James|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Langley, Batty||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Burns, John||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Burt, Thomas||Leng, Sir John||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Levy, Maurice||Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants|
|Caine, William Sproston||Lewis, John Herbert||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Caldwell, James||Lloyd-George, David||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Logan, John William||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings|
|Cawley, Frederick||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n, N|
|Cremer, William Randal||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Thomson, F. W. (Yorks, W.R.).|
|Crombie, John William||M'Kenna, Reginald||Tomkinson, James|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Toulmin, George|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Markham, Arthur Basil||Wallace, Robert|
|Dunn, Sir William||Mather, Sir William||Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.|
|Edwards, Frank||Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Ellis, John Edward||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Moss, Samuel||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Moulton, John Fletcher||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Newnes, Sir George||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Norman, Henry||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Partington, Oswald||Woodhouse, Sir JT. (Huddersf'd|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Paulton, James Mellor||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Perks, Robert William|
|Harwood, George||Philipps, John Wynford||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Pickard, Benjamin||Mr. Samuel Evans and|
|Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Pirie, Duncan V.||Sir Edward Strachey.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Bignold, Arthur||Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bigwood, James||Chapman, Edward|
|Aird, Sir John||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Charrington, Spencer|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Bond, Edward||Clare, Octavius Leigh|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Clive, Captain Percy A.|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Boulnois, Edmund||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.|
|Arrol, Sir William||Bousfield, William Robert||Coddington, Sir William|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex||Cohen, Benjamin Louis|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Compton, Lord Alwyne|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas|
|Balcarres, Lord||Brymer, William Ernest||Cox, Irwin Edward Bambridge|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Bull, William James||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r||Bullard, Sir Harry||Cripps, Charles Alfred|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Batcher, John George||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton|
|Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds||Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow)||Crossley, Sir Savile|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Carew, James Laurence||Cubitt, Hon. Henry|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Carlile, William Walter||Cust, Henry John C.|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Dalrymple Sir Charles|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham|
|Beckett, Ernest William||Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire||Dickinson, Robert Edmond|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Diekson-Poynder, Sir John P.|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-|
|Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Pym, C. Guy|
|Doughty, George||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Rankin, Sir James|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Kennedy, Patrick James||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop||Renwick, George|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Keswick, William||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Kimber, Henry||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lawson, John Grant||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Finch, George H.||Lecky, Rt Hn. William Edw. H.||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Finlay, (Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edwand Algernon||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Flower, Ernest||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Forster, Henry William||Lockie, John||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight|
|Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S. W.||Long, Col. Charles W. (Eveshara||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Gardner, Ernest||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Garfit, William||Lowe, Francis William||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)|
|Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Macdona, John Cumming||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)|
|Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||M'Iver,Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Greene, Sir EW (BurySEdm'nds||Malcolm, Ian||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Manners, Lord Cecil||Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Grenfell, William Henry||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Gretton, John||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Milvain, Thomas||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Groves, James Grimble||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants||Valentia, Viscount|
|Gunter, Sir Robert||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield|
|Hain, Edward||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Hall, Edward Marshall||Morrell, George Herbert||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.|
|Hambro, Charles Eric||Mount, William Arthur||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd'x||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton|
|Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Myers, William Henry||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||Newdegate, Francis Alexander||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Nicholson, William Graham||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R)|
|Helder, Augustus||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)|
|Henderson, Sir Alexander||Parker, Sir Gilbert||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Hickman, Sir Alfred||Pease, Henry Pike Darlington||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Higginbottom, S. W.||Peel, Hon Wm. Robert Wellesley||Wylie, Alexander|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel||Pemberton, John S. G.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Percy, Earl||Younger, William|
|Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm||Plummer, Walter R.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Sir Alexander Acland-|
|Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil||Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward||Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Purvis, Robert|
§ It being after half-past seven of the clock, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the proceedings of the Committee.
§ Where upon MR. BALFOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the (Question 'That the words of the Clause to the word, "school," in line 17, inclusive, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."1014
§ (7.38.) Question put, "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause to the word "school," in line 17, inclusive, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 242; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 131.)1017
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Llewellyn, Evan Henry|
|Aird, Sir John||Faber, George Denison (York)||Lockie, John|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Fardell, Sir T. George||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r||Lowe, Francis William|
|Arrol, Sir William||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Finch, George H.||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred|
|Bailey James (Walworth)||Fisher, William Hayes||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||MacIver, David (Liverpool)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Flower, Ernest||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r||Forster, Henry William||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)|
|Balfour, Captain C. B (Hornsey)||Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W.||Malcolm, Ian|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W.(Leeds||Gardner, Ernest||Manners, Lord Cecil|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Garfit, William||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE.(Wigt'n|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)||Milner, Rt Hon. Sir Frederick G.|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Milvain, Thomas|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Beckett, Ernest William||Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Gore, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire|
|Bignold, Arthur||Gosehen, Hon. George Joachim||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Bigwood, James||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm'nds||Mount, William Arthur|
|Bond, Edward||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Grenfell, William Henry||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Gretton, John||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex||Groves, James Grimble||Myers, William Henry|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Newdegate, Francis A.N.|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Gunter, Sir Robert||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Hain, Edward||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Bull, William James||Bull, Edward Marshall||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Parker, Sir Gilbert|
|Butcher, John George||Hambro, Charles Eric||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Glasgow||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Carew, James Laurence||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd||Percy, Earl|
|Carlile, William Walter||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Hay, Hon, Claude George||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.||Heaton, John Henniker||Purvis, Robert|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hon. J. A (Worc.||Helder, Augustus||Pym, C. Guy|
|Chapman, Edward||Henderson, Sir Alexander||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert|
|Charringion, Spencer||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Rankin, Sir James|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Higginbottom, S. W.||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)||Renwick, George|
|Coddington, Sir William||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Canborne, Viscount||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir. John H.||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Kennedy, Patrick James||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.|
|Cust, Henry John C.||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight|
|Dalrymple, Sir Chares||Keswick, William||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham||Kimber, Henry||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.||Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow||Smith, James Parker-(Lanarks|
|Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Lawson, John Grant||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Doughty, George||Lecky, Rt Hon. William Edw. H||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.||Wylie, Alexander|
|Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Thompson, Dr E. C (Monagh'n, N||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.||Younger, William|
|Thorburn, Sir Walter||Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne|
|Thornton, Percy M.||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Tritton, Charles Ernest||Willox, Sir John Archibald||Sir Alexander Acland-|
|Valentia, Viscount||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)||Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Vincent, Col. Sir CEH. (Sheffield||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Harwood, George||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Price, Robert John|
|Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Priestley, Arthur|
|Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry||Horniman, Frederick John||Rea, Russell|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Rigg, Richard|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Jacoby, James Alfred||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Kearley, Hudson E.||Runciman, Walter|
|Bell, Richard||Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Kitson, Sir James||Shackleton, David James|
|Brigg, John||Lambert, George||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh||Langley, Batty||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Burns, John||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Spencer, Rt Hn. C R. (Northants|
|Burt, Thomas||Leng, Sir John||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Buxton, Sidney Charles||Levy, Maurice||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Caine, William Sproston||Lewis, John Herbert||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Caldwell, James||Lloyd-George, David||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Logan, John William||Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower|
|Cawley, Frederick||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)|
|Cremer, William Randal||M'Kenna, Reginald||Tomkinson, James|
|Crombie, John William||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Toulmin, George|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Markham, Arthur Basil||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Mather, Sir William||Wallace, Robert|
|Duncan, J Hastings||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Dunn, Sir William||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Edwards, Frank||Moss, Samuel||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Ellis, John Edward||Moulton, John Fletcher||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Newnes, Sir George||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Norman, Henry||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Woodhouse, Sir JT. Huddersf'd|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Palmier, Sir Clarles M. (Durham||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||Partington, Oswald|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Perks, Robert William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Philipps, John Wynford||Mr. Herbert Gladstone and|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Pickard, Benjamin||Mr. William M'Arthur.|
§ (7.48.) Question put accordingly, "That the words of the Clause to the word
|The Committee divided:—Ayes, 232; Noes, 106. (Division List No. 432.)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)||Brookfield, Colonel Montagu|
|Aird, Sir John||Banbury, Frederick Greorge||Brymer, William Ernest|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Bartley, George C T.||Bull, William James|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Bullard, Sir Harry|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Butcher, John George|
|Arrol, Sir William||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A (Glasgow|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bignold, Arthur||Carew, James Laurence|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy||Bigwood, James||Carlile, William Walter|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Boulnois, Edmund||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J (Manch'r||Bousfied, William Robert||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.|
§ 'school,' in line 17, inclusive, stand of the Clause."1021
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Parker, Sir Gilbert|
|Chapman, Edward||Heaton, John Henniker||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Charrington, Spencer||Helder, Augustus||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Henderson, Sir Alexander||Percy, Earl|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Higginbottom, S. W.||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Coddington, Sir William||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Purvis, Robert|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Pym, C. Guy|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham||Rankin, Sir James|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Renwick, George|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Staly bridge|
|Cust, Henry John C.||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham||Kennedy, Patrick James||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Keswick, William||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Kimber, Henry||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Doughty, George||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow-||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Lawson, John Grant||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Lee, Athur H. (Hants., Fareham||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Ferguson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Finch, George H.||Lockie, John||Stewart, Sir Mark J.M'Taggart|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Long, Col. Chas.W.(Evesham)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Lowe, Francis William||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf 'd Univ.|
|Forster, Henry William||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Thormpson, Dr E. C (Monagh'n, N|
|Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W||Macdona, John Cumming||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Gardner, Ernest||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Garfit, William||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (EdinburghW||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Valentia, Viscount|
|Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets||Malcolm, Ian||Vincent, Col. Sir C. EH (Sheffield|
|Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Manners, Lord Cecil||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n||Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Milvain, Thomas||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton|
|Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edmunds||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)||Whiteley, H.(Ashton-und. Lyne|
|Grenfell, William Henry||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Gretton, John||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Morrell, George Herbert||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Groves, James Grimble||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Mount, William Arthur||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Gunter, Sir Robert||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Hain, Edward||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Myers, William Henry||Younger, William|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Newdegate, Francis A. N.|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Nicholson, William Graham||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Sir Alexander Acland-|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Barran, Rowland Hirst||Bryce, Rt. Hon. James|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Burns, John|
|Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud||Bell, Richard||Burt, Thomas|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Caine, William Sproston|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Brigg, John||Caldwell, James|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Causton, Richard Knight|
|Cremer, William Randal||Levy, Maurice||Shackleton, David James|
|Crombie, John William||Lewis, John Herbert||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Lloyd-George, David||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)||Logan, John William||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants|
|Dunn, Sir William||M'Kenna, Reginald||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Edwards, Frank||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Markham, Arthur Basil||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Mather, Sir William||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower|
|Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John||Moss, Samuel||Thomson, F. W. (York. W. R.)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Moulton, John Fletcher||Tomkinson, James|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Newnes, Sir George||Toulmin, George|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Norman, Henry||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Norton, Captain Cecil William||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Harwood, George||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Weir, James Galloway|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham||White, Luke (York. E. R.)|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Partington, Oswald||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Horniman, Frederick John||Paulton, James Mellor||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Perks, Robert Williams||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Philipps, John Wynford||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||Pickard, Benjamin||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Joicey, Sir James||Pirie, Duncan V.||Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Priestley, Arthur||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Rea, Russell|
|Kitson, Sir James||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Langley, Batty||Rigg, Richard||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Roe, Sir Thomas||Mr. Cawley, and Mr.|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)||Runciman, Walter||Robert Wallace.|
|Leng, Sir John||Schwann, Charles E.|
§ Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.