HC Deb 28 October 1902 vol 113 cc1021-56

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

Clause 8:—

(9.0.) SIR WILLIAM ANSON moved to insert in sub-Section (d) after "the managers of the school," the following words, "shall provide the school-house free of any charge, except for the teacher's dwelling-house, if any, to the local education authority for use as a public elementary school and." This was intended to make it clear that, whether the school-house was owned by the managers in fee simple, or let to the managers on a lease, or simply hired by them at a rent, these managers must provide the school; and, that being done, the school was a school "not provided" by the local authority. The Government had hoped it had been made perfectly clear that the payment of any rent whatsoever for a school made it a school provided by the local authority, but in order to satisfy hon. Members they now proposed to insert these additional words. There was a certain ambiguity in the word "school-house." In the Act of 1870 it was denned to include the teacher's dwelling-house; but the managers of the denominational schools were not bound to provide more than the premises for the school. The local authority had to keep up the school, and if they did not provide the teacher with a dwelling-house they would be bound to increase his salary. Therefore, if in the school-house there should be, as often was the case, a teacher's dwelling-house, the managers would not be bound to provide that free of charge, because, if so, that would be making a contribution towards the maintenance of the school. Therefore, the Government had included in the Amendment the words, not originally on the Paper, "except for the teacher's dwelling-house, if any." This would enable the managers to charge a rent for the use of the teacher's dwelling-house, and would also lay upon the managers the obligation of putting that dwelling, where there was one, at the disposal of the local education authority. By the insertion of these words regarding the teacher's dwelling-house he had anticipated an Amendment of the hon. Member for Leominster, which proposed to interpret "school-house" as "not including the teacher's dwelling."

MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)

Who is to fix the rent for the teacher's dwelling?

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

Surely it is reasonable to suppose that the managers can agree as to that with the local authority.

MR. LANGLEY (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Is it to be optional or compulsory on the part of the education authority to take the house?

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

Optional, I should say. If they prefer it, they can find a residence for the teacher away from the school.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 17, after the word 'school,' to insert the words 'shall provide the school house free of any charge, except for the teacher's dwelling-house if any, to the local education authority for use as a public elementary school and.'"—(Sir William Anson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said the original Amendment seemed innocuous, but ho confessed that the speech of the Secretary to the Education Department and the new words had not made it more acceptable. What they wanted to make clear was that during the whole time of school hours the school buildings and school rooms should be entirely at the disposal of the local authority. He was afraid these words would involve a very inconvenient limitation. But the most serious objection he had to raise was to the acceptance by the Government of an Amendment, in the name of one of their own followers, which entitled the trustees or owners to charge rent if the teacher's house formed part of the school buildings. That seemed to him totally contrary to what they had understood to be the object of the Bill. They had always supposed the intention to be to give the local authority whole control over the buildings during school hours, as far as secular educational work was concerned. This would interfere with that, and he was very sorry indeed that the Government had accepted the Amendment. Who was to decide the amount of rent? Innumerable questions might arise which would lead to inevitable and intolerable conflict. It might be that the trustees or owners might demand an exorbitant rent and the local authority might find itself in the position of being unable to obtain the necessary buildings for the proper working of the school.

MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN

I have handed in a written Amendment dealing with this point. Can it be taken now?

* THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment seems to deal with the question of the master's house in an inverse sense to that held by the Secretary to the Board of Education.

MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN

Not only the master's house but other premises as well which are usually connected with a school-house.

DR. MACNAMARA

said the alteration of the Government Amendment would make it necessary for him—if, of course, it were carried—to move the deletion of certain added words.

LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE

suggested that the Committee should first deal with the original Amendment of the Secretary to the Education Board. What was really wanted was a clear definition of the word "school-house."

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said that the Government took the definition of school-house from the Act of 1870. Therefore he did not imagine that there would be any dispute as to the first few words of his Amendment. He suggested that the Amendment should be accepted down to and including the words "free of any charge," and then the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire might move his Amendment.

* SIR FRANCIS POWELL

pointed out that the Act of 1870 defined the term school-house as including the teacher's house and all offices and premises belonging thereto.

SIR JAMES RANKIN (Herefordshire, Leominster)

said the object of his Amendment was to get a clear expression of opinion from the Government on the point.

* THE CHAIRMAN

And it is the acceptance of the hon. Member's Amendment that has caused all the trouble.

SIR JAMES RANKIN

But my Amendment has not been embodied in the Government Amendment. The Secretary to the Education Board has not adopted the words "shall provide." My main point is whether the managers shall provide teachers' dwellings or not. The Bill does not say they are not to.

LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE

We understand the Government to agree that the term school-house does not include the teacher's dwelling-house.

SIR JAMES RANKIN

And I warn to make it clear that the managers are not to be under the liability to provide a teacher's dwelling in any case.

MR. ROBERT SPENCER (Northamptonshire, Mid)

Has the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leominster been accepted?

* THE CHAIRMAN

It has been incorporated in the Government Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said the Government had never desired to depart from the definition of school-house given in the Act of 1870.

MR. WHITLEY

remarked that if the Government Amendment as amended were passed it would place many of them under a serious disability by cutting out some very important Amendments.

* THE CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire had better move his Amendment now.

MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN moved to insert after the word "school-house" the words "together with all buildings and all other hereditaments usually occupied or enjoyed therewith." He said it was within his knowledge that in the case of many rural schools the outbuildings were scattered about, and sometimes separated altogether from the school-house and buildings. In order that there might not be disputes as to the property which actually passed from the managers to the local authority, he begged to move the Amendment. The words he proposed would include, for instance, the light to fetch water from a well or access to necessary buildings not in the ownership of the trustees.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— After the word 'schoolhouse' to insert the words together with all buildings and all other hereditaments usually occupied or enjoyed therewith.'"(Mr. Hamphreys-Owen).

Question proposed, "That those words stand part of the proposed Amendment."

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

was afraid he must oppose tins Amendment. He thought it was much better to retain the definition of the school-house as given in the Act of 1870. The Government only proposed to depart from that definition so far as to declare how much of the premises were to be found free of charge. Otherwise they did not intend to depart from the definition.

* SIR FRANCIS POWELL

agreed that it would be better to adhere to the definition contained in the Act of 1870. If there were two definitions it might lead to considerable difficulty of which ingenious counsel would make much.

SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON (Preston)

said there was danger that the words would be construed as making it the duty of the managers to provide the dwelling house. In the vast majority of the schools there was no dwelling house attached.

LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE

thought it would be better to stick to the definition contained in the Act of 1870.

MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN

said that if the Attorney-General could assure him that the two instances ho gave were covered by the definition in the Act of 1870 he would withdraw his Amendment.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said the definition included "offices and all premises belonging to or acquired for the school."

MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN

Then I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR JAMES RANKIN

asked if his Amendment should not come next.

* THE CHAIRMAN

It seems to me it has been accepted by the Government and moved by them.

SIR JAMES RANKIN

said the Government had not accepted it to the extent that managers were not to be called upon to provide the teacher's dwelling.

(9.30.) MR. BRYCE

said he understood that where there was no teacher's house the obligation would not lie upon the managers to build one, but where there was a teacher's house it was to be provided as part of the school.

SIR JAMES RANKIN

thought it would be most unfair if those who had provided a school-house should not have the advantage of it. In cases where there did not exist a school-house the local authority should pay an additional salary so that he might rent a convenient house. The words suggested would satisfy him if the managers were not under an obligation to provide a teacher's dwelling.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said that was made quite plain by his Amendment, "Except for the teacher's dwelling, if any." He thought that also met the objection of the hon. Baronet the Member for Preston, who seemed to have confused the terms "school-house" and "teacher's dwelling house."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said the question was whether the provision of a teacher's dwelling was part of the equipment of a school for elementary teaching. In the charge of the Archbishop of Canterbury he assured his clergy that, under no circumstances, would they have to subscribe anything at all. He said that they were not going to be liable even for the ordinary repairs of the schools, and he stated that it would only be under extraordinary circumstances that they would be called upon to pay anything. He thought this spirit of shabbiness on the part of the richest religious community in the world in respect of their paltry contributions was shocking. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Question."] He was perfectly in order in what he had said, and he had a right to say that it was showing a spirit of shabbiness not to give up the school-house without a statutory consideration, and, endeavouring to contract out of the liability of providing a house for the teacher, which was the most necessary part of the school. It seemed to him shocking. They wanted to have everything for nothing. [Ministerial interruptions and cries of "That's what you want."] It seemed to him that the people who were bound to supply the school, and who were to have a majority of two to one in the management of the school, should also be bound to supply a school-house for the teacher. Did any one know the real condition of a great number of the small village schools in this country? It was absolutely necessary that there should be a school-house for the teacher attached to the school. This was just as necessary as the school itself. Of all the things created in this Bill the most extraordinary thing is this shabby attempt of the Church to get rid of its liability of providing a house for the teacher. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] It was to his mind perfectly shocking. He thought that a great many other people would think so too when they realised that the Church of England claimed, on account of its bricks and mortar contribution, that they should have for ever a statutory majority of two to one in the management of the school, and then endeavour, upon this Amendment, to escape the liability of providing a dwelling for the teacher in order to secure the few pounds which they would get for the rent of this school-house. This Amendment threw a light upon the spirit and the purpose with which this Bill was inspired. This was a demand which was utterly unjustifiable, and he should resist this Amendment as far as he could.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had just told the Committee that the Archbishop of Canterbury had said something which was shocking. What he was perfectly certain of was that the greater part of the remarks of his right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire were absolutely irrelevant to the Amendment under consideration. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"] The situation was a very simple one if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the case. They had very often in a country village a teacher's house provided as part of the school building, and they might have cases in which there might be difficulty in finding another house for the teacher. The Amendment of his hon. friend would have the effect of requiring that the managers should put at the disposal of the local education authority, not only the school-house, but also the teacher's dwelling house attached to the school. That disposed of the first charge. He was only referring to charges made by the right hon. Gentleman which had any relevance whatever to the Amendment. The second charge was, "Are you going to charge a rent for it?" Of course the managers ought to have a rent for it.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Why?

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said if the right hon. Gentleman would give two minutes dispassionate consideration he would see that if the teacher got a school-house thrown in he would get a less salary. If he got £150 a year plus a house, he would expect £170 or £180, or whatever might be a fair rent for the house, in case he had to provide it himself. In many cases there were no teachers' dwelling houses at all.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Then the managers ought to build one.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said the most convenient course was, in such a case, to give the teacher a higher salary and let him provide the dwelling house for himself. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was a piece of shabbiness that the managers should not give a part of the salary. Did he suggest that the managers should be bound to build a dwelling house for the teacher where one did not exist at the present time? [An HON. MEMBER: That is not the Amendment.] He was simply dealing now with the strictures of the right hon. Gentleman. It would be perfectly preposterous to place on the managers the obligation to build a teacher's dwelling in cases where it did not already exist, for the simple reason that it would be more convenient to rent a house somewhere in the neighbourhood for the teacher. He should strenuously oppose any such Amendment as that put forward, which would compel the managers to put up a teacher's dwelling house. The Amendment proposed by his hon. friend exactly hit the justice of the case. It prevented any managers from withholding the teacher's dwelling house from the use of the teacher, and entitled them to a fair payment by way of rent because the letting of the dwelling house to the teacher would reduce the salary which would have to be paid to the teacher by the local authority.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

Who will fix the the rent?

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said it seemed to be a fixed idea with hon. Gentlemen opposite that in everything which concerned this Bill everybody would act in the most unreasonable way possible. [An Hon. MEMBER: Will they agree upon the rent? Of course they would, because they were reasonable people, and in case of any dispute the Board of Education would intervene.

DR. MACNAMARA

said the great majority of the teachers' dwellings attached to voluntary schools were given to the teachers free of rent, and he thought the Government ill represented the Church of England if they said that, in the altered condition of things, the Church of England should charge a rent for those dwellings.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

The rent is to be charged to the local authority, for if the teacher is provided with a house he will not receive so much salary from the local education authority.

DR. MACNAMARA

said he did not imagine that the teacher was involved at all, but, as he understood the question, in future the local authority would be charged a rent for a building which had hitherto been used rent free.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

pointed out that in the past the teacher's dwelling had affected the salary, and it would continue to affect it when the schools came under the local education authority. He did not think they were entitled to ask the managers to contribute that portion.

DR. MACNAMARA

said that at present the denominationalists found the school buildings and residences for the teachers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not all of them."] The teachers used the school-house rent free. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, but that affects their salaries."] No doubt it was so. The point of the matter was that the teacher's salary would remain the same as at present. Therefore, what would happen as a practical issue would be this—that, where in the past a building had been used by the teacher with no rent paid, in the future the trustees or managers would get a rent for that for which in the past they had got no rent at all. The Government ill represented the Church of England in such a proposal. He did not think the Church desired to drive a hard bargain. Now the Attorney General and the Permanent Secretary to the Board of Education argued that in consequence of having had these residences rent free lower salaries had been fixed. Did they think that the teacher's salary would be changed? The teacher would remain the same person, and he did not think that any change would be made in the salary. What would happen would be that where in the past a building had been used by the teacher rent free, in future the denominationalist trustees would get a rent for that building. He did not think the teacher's salary would be modified at all. Did the Attorney General suggest that the local authority would agree to make up this rent by an increase in the teacher's salary?

(9.45.) SIR ROBERT FINLAY

replied that if the voluntary schools gave the teacher a house, at the present time they gave him so much less salary, When the local authority took over the school, if they got the house for the use of the teacher, they would continue to pay him so much less salary. It was obvious that if they got the salary reduced they should recoup the owners of the house, who enabled the local authority to obtain a teacher at a lower salary.

DR. MACNAMARA

contended that the teacher would still get the saint salary, and he did not think by this proposal they were representing the views of the Church of England. He was quite sure that where the Church in the past had provided a building free of rent they were prepared to continue that in the future. He should have thought it would not have paid a great National Church to drive a hard bargain like this and be rather haggling in a small matter of this kind. He thought the word "shabby" was very well used in connection with these proceedings.

*(9.50.) SIR FRANCIS POWELL

pointed out that the Legislature had already drawn a distinction between the school building and the part used as the teacher's dwelling. The Act exempting elementary school from rates laid down that the school dwelling was rated and had to pay rates. Therefore it was clear from that Act that the Legislature had drawn a distinction between the school buildings and the dwelling. He knew a case where a teacher had ceased to reside in the official, dwelling, and her wages had been re assessed. That was a proof that the value of the dwelling was taken into consideration when the salaries were fixed. Everyone who knew the working of the School Board system in London, Bradford, and all great towns, knew that the dwellings were not part of the school premises, and the teachers were paid a higher salary when they had to provide their own residences. He was astonished to hear that great educationists sitting opposite did not seem, to have the most practical elementary knowledge upon this subject. As regarded the remarks made by the hon. Member for Poplar, who stated that there would be a difficulty in finding out the rent——

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

In fixing it.

* SIR FRANCIS POWELL

thought the hon. Member did not give the education authorities much credit for business capacity. A teacher's dwelling was like any other dwelling, and any other person acquainted with the management of property would have no difficulty in fixing the rent. He regretted that in dealing with a matter like this, which was really somewhat of a commercial character, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire should fulminate against the Church of England. He could not see how those fulminations had any relevance to the matter under discussion. He had not read the charge of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but if his Grace had said that the charge for the maintenance of those buildings would be a light one his statement was not based upon careful consideration of the facts. The cost imposed by this Bill upon voluntary schools would be a heavy, serious, and a growing charge, and ho felt quite sure that as far as the Church of England was concerned Churchmen would spend money upon this object to the utmost of their capacity. Instead of making this serious attack upon the Church of England, he thought the light hon. Gentleman ought to be grateful to the Church for the educational work it had accomplished.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

reminded the hon. Baronet that the Archbishop had expressed the view that it would only be in exceptional cases, where a large improvement had to be undertaken, that the subscribers would be called upon in future for any subscriptions at all.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

That is not the Amendment before us.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said it was part of the same thing. It was a provision for paving the repairs out of the schoolmaster's house, which, he contended, was an essential part of the educational equipment of the school. And, as to introducing a commercial matter into the discussion, that was not the fault of the Opposition, but of the Government and those who inspired them. When they built a now school in the country, who was to build a dwelling-house for the schoolmaster? A school without a house for the master would be utterly insufficient. Really, to claim as a right the appointment of the teacher, and then to say that the teacher's house was no concern of the managers, was one of the most extraordinary propositions he had ever heard.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

rose to a point of order. He asked whether they should not discuss one thing at a time, namely, the point raised by the proposal now before the Committee.

* THE CHAIRMAN

I called upon the hon. Member for North Camberwell to make his speech, but he did not move his Amendment.

DR. MACNAMARA

said he understood that the Amendment did not include the teacher's dwelling-house.

* THE CHAIRMAN

What we have been discussing—perhaps the Committee will be surprised to hear it—is the Amendment of the Secretary of the Board of Education.

MR. WHITLEY moved an Amendment omitting the words from the Government Amendment "except for the teacher's dwelling-house, if any." He thought this Amendment would bring the subject to a clear issue. He did not propose to go back to the subject whether rent was part of salary or not. The ground he took was—Is it, or is it not, part of the bargain that these schools should be provided without any charge, including the master's house which had always been taken to be part of the school premises? [An HON. MEMBER: No.] There was a bargain made with the Bishops. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University told them a little about it in a speech to his constituents the other day. He would be very much surprised if the right hon. Gentleman were to get up and say to the Committee that it was not understood when the Bill was drawn, that what the Church brought into the hotchpot, as lawyers said, was the whole of the educational equipment for the purposes of elementary education, including the master's house where there was one. He could prove his contention in this way. The figures quoted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, when speaking in the country as to the sacrifices made in the great amount of money spent in years past on educational purposes, in every case included the money for the teachers' houses. He would go so far as to say, without fear of contradiction by any one who had a share in the drawing up of the Bill, that it was originally intended that the whole of the hereditament should be given free of charge in return for having four of the six members in the managing body, and in his judgment it was rather mean to charge a rent for the schoolmaster's house. The result would be that in many places the Church would get a money value out of the Bill sufficient to provide an additional curate in addition to the two to one majority on the Board of school management.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— To leave out the words 'except for the teacher's dwelling-house, if any.'"—(Mr. Whitley.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. CRIPPS (Lancashire, Stretford)

said that the simple business question was this—Is it right, as has been assumed, that under this Bill the salary of the teacher is to come out of the public funds? Hon. Members opposite had based a large number of their arguments against the Bill on the allegation that the whole of the salary of the teacher was to come from public funds, and that he ought not to be appointed to denominational schools by denominational managers. If it was true that the salary of the teacher was to come out of public funds, it was clear that the Amendment of the Secretary of the Board of Education was right.

MR. M'KENNA

said if the hon. and learned Gentleman was in the House yesterday when a speech was made by the noble Lord the Member for the Biggleswade Division he would know that they were told they were in error in supposing that the teachers' salaries were to be met by public funds. The noble Lord developed the argument by stating that as the buildings were being transferred to the local authority, the managers were in fact paying part of the salary. It was on that ground that the noble Lord got the support of many members, and now, the day after the battle, the hon. and learned Gentleman came and told the Committee that the salaries were to be paid out of public funds. Why were the Government playing fast and loose with this matter? The Act of 1870 laid down that the school-house included the master's house, if any. He believed he was justified in saying that the action of the Government was a shabby and mean proceeding. They had represented to the country that they were going to get a certain asset from the denominational schools and that asset was now being reduced. What the Government were now proposing was to make money out of the local authorities; in other words, they were asking that those authorities should pay the managers for the dwelling-houses. He trusted the Committee would adhere to the definition in the Act of 1870.

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE

said this difficulty would never have arisen but for the definition in the Act of 1870, which included in the term "school-house," the teacher's dwelling. He ventured to think that many Members of the House, and many people outside, never know until this discussion arose that the definition included the teacher's house. It was really absurd to make capital out of the fact that the term school-house was originally inserted in the Bill. The term "school-house" was not intended to be interpreted according to the definition in the Act of 1870, and to insist upon that by adopting the Amendment to the Amendment would be to throw an unfair burden on the managers of the denominational schools.

MR. PERKS

said this was a question which affected the Wesleyan Church as well as the Established Church, and certainly the managers of the Wesleyan schools, in all about 500, never entertained the idea that they were going to receive rent for the teacher's house. In the county of Lincoln almost all the teachers' dwellings were part of the school buildings, and in many cases building grants from the State had been received, not merely for the school, but for the teacher's house. It therefore seemed to him that it was going back on a bargain for the Government to suggest in the interests, not of the Wesleyans or the Roman Catholics, but of the Church of England, that in respect of the teacher's house rental should be paid, which manifestly must go as an endowment to some Church institution in the village. It seemed to him, regarding this as a business transaction, when they had to balance the question as to who was to pay the burden, the County Council or the Anglican Church, that the Amendment was a just one.

(10.20.) COLONEL PILKINGTON (Lancashire, Newton)

said he thought hon. Gentlemen opposite did not take a sound view of this question. It was possible that they had too many leaders, and not one. He had come most distinctly to the conclusion that the very best thing that could happen was that the local education authority should pay rent for the teacher's house because it would give that body more control. If they wanted the new education system to work well, the more the local authority paid the better, because it would give them more control. That, was absolute commonsense and he thought that the denominational managers and the proprietors of the schools were making a mistake in pressing their opposition to the Amendment. If they had a sense of logic they would not boggle at the Amendment, but swallow it at once. He should vote for the Amendment. He suggested to the hon. Gentlemen opposite that they were rather on the wrong tack in this matter and that they should consent to the payment of the rent of the teacher's house in order to get control over him.

MR. BRYCE

said that his hon. friend, the Member for East Somerset, seemed to argue that this difficulty had arisen because no one knew the definition of a school-house given in the Act of 1870 until this Amendment came up for discussion. But surely the draftsman of the Bill, and the Attorney General, and the First Lord of the Treasury knew the definition in that Act. They all remembered that when the First Lord introduced the Bill he told the House that the consideration which was being given for the Bill by the denominations was the provision of the school buildings and their repairs. When the right hon. Gentleman said that, everybody took him to mean buildings in the sense in which the phrase had been previously used; that: was in the sense in which the phrase was defined in 1870. It was not a fair way to treat the Committee to depart from the bargain held out to Parliament and the country in April last. The Government Amendment now effected a complete alteration of the terms on which the Bill was recommended to the country. He agreed with the hon. Member for Newton that the more the local authority paid the better would be their control, but he questioned whether the local authority would acquiesce in a system which would shift the burden of repairs from the managers to them. He maintained that this was an unfortunate proposal in the interests of the Bill and of the Church of England it self, and he believed that the Government would later on regret the proposal.

SIR JAMES RANKIN

said it seemed to him the very height of injustice to those who had been generous enough to build the school-house in conjunction with the school itself, that they should not have the benefit when the local authority took over the school. He believed that until the debate that night not a single word had been spoken by a Minister or a Leader of the Opposition mentioning that a teacher's dwelling-house was part of the school building If it were laid down that all these poor parishes must provide teachers' dwellings as well as school buildings, it would be a sure way to turn quickly the denominational schools into provided schools. He therefore thought that, in justice to the denominational schools, the Amendment of the Secretary to the Education Department ought to be carried, and he hoped that the Committee would support it.

MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN

said that the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment forgot that this was a new bargain—that those who provided the school-houses and the dwellings were going to be relieved, under the Bill, of a burden of something like. £800,000 a year. On that ground, he insisted that the public should have the whole of the plant and apparatus by means of which elementary education had hitherto been carried on.

SIR HENRY FOWLER

said that he wanted to put a question to the Government, and also to the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. It was alleged that the intention of the Government from the first was that rent should be paid for the teachers' dwelling-houses. Let him call attention to the Bill as originally introduced. Clause 18, sub-Section 3, set forth that— In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, any expression to which a special meaning is attached, in the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900, shall have the same meaning in this Act. Now, there was an expression in the Act of 1870 which said that "school-house" was taken to include the teacher's dwelling. But it was not until the Secretary to the Education Department placed his Amendment on the Paper that this exception was brought before the Committee in any shape or form. That was not the original proposal of the Government. It was not in the Government Bill. Why was it now proposed? He did not think it was a proposal so much in the interests of the Church as in the interests of the owners of property. He knew that in Scotland the schoolmaster's house was universally attached to the school-house, and he believed that it was so in most cases in England. It was part of the equipment and plant which was to be handed over to the local education authority; but it was not until four or five months after the Bill hail been introduced that a new term and a new burden had been proposed to be imposed.

MR. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.)

said that according to the definition in the Act of 1870, the whole buildings, including the school-house and the teacher's dwelling, were included. If the Amendment were adopted, in large towns where the value of land was so rapidly increasing, the land owners would have the right to demand an exorbitant rent, or to take over part of the ground.

MR. YOXALL

said that as a matter of fact, many of the teachers' dwelling-houses were not fit to live in. They were too small, badly lighted, and ill supplied with water. If the local authority was required to pay the rent for the use of these dwelling-houses, they should have a choice in the matter, and not to take them over if they were not in a sanitary condition.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said that in answering another question on the same subject he had stated most distinctly that he did not consider the local education authority would be under any obligation to take over the teacher's dwelling-house if they did not choose to do so.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said that the Secretary to the Board of Education had stated that the local authority would not be obliged to take over the teacher's dwelling-house though it was part of the school building.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

Not obliged.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Then who is to live in it?

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he very much regretted that the Government had gone back on the proposal they had placed on the Paper. The previous night an hon. Gentleman opposite had objected to the appointment of the teachers by the local authority on the plea that a fair bargain had been made. He asked whether the Government, by the proposal they were now making, were not breaking a bargain. Supposing the rent was charged in respect of a schoolmaster's house where the school premises were held under the same trust deed, what would become of the rent? The educational trust was to give elementary education to the children of the poor. He wanted to know if the rent was to be given for educational purposes, or for what other purpose? Was the money to go to the Church, or to the land owners, or to the trust for elementary education? There was one other point. In some cases, in addition to the school premises, there were endowments. He would like to know whether these were to be handed over for educational or for some other purposes.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said that if the Amendment was carried the rent would go to the managers' fund, and would be applicable to any object to which they could apply it within the terms of their trust. In regard to the question of endowments, that was a matter that would have to be dealt with separately. The question how they should be divided between the managers and the education authority would depend largely on the original purpose for which they were given.

SIR HENRY FOWLER

said he wished that the Committee had copies of the trust deeds laid before them. He had in his possession a copy of the model trust deed of the National Society. This was the trust deed on which the land was conveyed— To permit the said premises and all buildings thereon erected, or to be erected, to be for ever hereafter appropriated and used as and for a school for the education of children and adults, or children only, of the labouring, manufacturing, and other poor classes of the parish, and as a residence for the teacher or teachers of the said school, which said school shall always be in union with and conducted in furtherance of the principles of the National Society for promoting the education of the poor in the principles of the Established Church. He thought it would be a very strong order to appropriate the income derived from such property to a private purpose.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said he thought the right hon. Gentleman would see that the money would not be devoted to any private purpose. It would be strictly applied to the purposes of the trust, and for the purposes of education. The trust was modified somewhat by changed circumstances, but it was perfectly clear

that if the rent was received it would go to the managers' fund, and when applied to the repairs of the building, was really being used in furtherance of education.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

asked whether the rent would be one of the receipts mentioned in Clause 13, sub-Section 2, which said that all receipts in respect of any school should be paid to the local education authority.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said certainly not. If the hon. Gentleman would look at the sub-Section he would see that it excluded sums specially applicable for purposes for which provision was to be made by the managers.

MR. M'KENNA

asked if the right hon. Gentleman had considered Section 23 of the Act of 1870 in connection with the Amendment. He submitted that under that Section there could be no letting, except at a nominal rent.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said that Section 23 of the Act of 1870 had not the remotest application to the matter before the Committee.

(10.48.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 217; Noes, 111. (Division List, No. 433.)

Gordon, Maj Evans(T'rH'mlets Lawson, John Grant Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge
Gore, Hn G R. C. Ormsby-(Salop Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Round, Rt Hon. James
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Royds, Clement Molyneux
Goulding, Edward Alfred Llewellyn, Evan Henry Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Graham, Henry Robert Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) Lowe, Francis William Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) Loyd, Archie Kirkman Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.
Grenfell, William Henry Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight
Gretton, John Macdona, John Cumming Sharpe, William Edward T.
Groves, James Grimble MacIver, David (Liverpool) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Gunter, Sir Robert M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Smith, Hon. W. F.D. (Strand)
Guthrie, Walter Murray Malcolm, Ian Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Hall, Edward Marshall Milvain, Thomas Stewart, Sir Mark J. M' Taggart
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Hare, Thomas Leigh Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxfd Univ.
Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Morrell, George Herbert Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'nN
Hay, Hon. Claude George Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Thornton, Percy M.
Helder, Augustus Mount, William Arthur Tollemache, Henry James
Henderson, Sir Alexander Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.
Hickman, Sir Alfred Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Valentia, Viscount
Higginbottom, S. W. Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Hoare, Sir Samuel Myers, William Henry Walker, Col. William Hall
Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. Newdegate, Francis A. N. Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Nicholson, William Graham Wanklyn, James Leslie
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Nicol, David Ninian Welby, Lt.-Col A. C. E (Taunton
Hoult, Joseph Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N. Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne
Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsham Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Parker, Sir Gilbert Williams, Colouel R. (Dorset)
Hudson, George Bickersteth Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Pemberton, John S. G. Willox, Sir John Archibald
Jeffreys, Rt Hon. Arthur Fred. Percy, Earl Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Pilkinaton, Lieut.-Col. Richard Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Johnstone, Heywood Platt-Higgins, Frederick Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Kemp, George Plummer, Walter R. Wylie, Alexander
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Kennedy, Patrick James Purvis, Robert Younger, William
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop Pym, C. Guy
Keswick, William Rankin, Sir James
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Remnant, James Farquharson TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Renwick, George Sir Alexander Acland-
Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th Richards, Henry Charles Hood and Mr. Anstruther-
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Leigh, Sir Joseph
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Leng, Sir John
Allen, Charles P, (Glouc., Stroud Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Levy, Maurice
Ashton, Thomas Gair Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Lewis, John Herbert
Barran, Roland Hirst Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lloyd-George, David
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Fuller, J. M. F. Lough, Thomas
Bell, Richard Goddard, Daniel Ford Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Griffith, Ellis J. M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton M'Kenna, Reginald
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William Mansfield, Horace Rendall
Burns, John Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Markham, Arthur Basil
Burt, Thomas Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Mather, Sir William
Buxton, Sydney Charles Hemphill Rt. Hon. Charles H. Middlemore, John Throgmort'n
Caldwell, James Horniman, Frederick John Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Causton, Richard Knight Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Morley, Charles (Breconshire)
Cawley, Frederick Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Moss, Samuel
Cremer, William Randal Jacoby, James Alfred Newnes, Sir George
Crombie, John William Joicey, Sir James Norton, Capt. Cecil William.
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Kearley, Hudson, E. Nussey, Thomas Willans.
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Kitson, Sir James Partington, Oswald
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Labouchere, Henry Paulton, James Mellor
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Lambert, George Perks, Robert William
Duncan, J. Hastings Langley, Batty Philipps, John Wynford
Edwards, Frank Layland-Barratt, Francis Pirie, Duncan V.
Ellis, John Edward Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Price, Robert John
Priestley, Arthur Strachey, Sir Edward Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Rea, Russell Taylor, Theodore Cooke Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Reckitt, Harold James Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Rigg, Richard Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Roe, Sir Thomas Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.
Runciman, Walter Thomas, J A (Glam'rgan, Gower Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Sehwann, Charles E. Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R. Yoxall, James Henry
Shackleton, David James Tomkinson, James
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Toulmin, George
Shipman, Dr. John G. Trevelyan, Charles Philips TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Soares, Ernest J. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants White, Luke (York, E. R.) Mr. William M'Arthur.
Stevenson, Francis S. Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

(11.0.) DR. MACNAMARA moved to insert in line 2, after the word "free" "for all educational purposes," and if that were accepted he would afterwards move to omit all the words after "authority." They had been told that the use of the school buildings was part of the bargain which had been struck between the public and the denominational system; but after what had happened during the evening he believed that before the contract was sealed one of the parties to it would relent. The denominationalists were giving the use of their schools and an undertaking to keep them in repair; the public, on the other hand, were paying the whole of the cost of maintenance and had conceded four-sixths of the management to the denominationalists, and also the right to continue denominational teaching, although the whole cost of maintenance was provided from public funds. He thought it was hard that a great national Church, of which he spoke with great respect, should begin to haggle over the bargain in the way they had heard; and he thought that the Government were doing the Church a very ill service in allowing it to haggle as to the extent to which the buildings should be used. He was aware that Dr. Temple had stated that the annually recurring repairs would be taken out of the rates. That was an addition to the bargain of which he was very sorry to I hear. The Question before the Committee was, what was meant by the words "for use as a public elementary school." He understood that the Bill was for the purpose of co-ordinating all forms of education, but directly they found the money, then co-ordination was off. When the money was to be found there was to be co-ordination to any extent, but when it came to the use of the buildings, then co-ordination was to cease. He resisted the proposal on one ground only. According to the Bill, all night school work was other than public elementary education. Therefore, under the Bill, if they were to have the use of the buildings for public elementary education only, the local authority, if they desired to run a night school, would be charged rent for the use of the buildings for that work. He called that preposterous, and he would cite, in support of his contention, the right hon. Gentleman the late Vice-President, who said that the buildings should be had free of charge for ordinary night school work. The great bulk of that work was purely elementary education. It might be defined in the Bill as other than elementary, but that did not make it higher education. Was it conceivable that the Church desired to charge rent for the use of the buildings for ordinary elementary night school work. That would be the effect of the Bill unless amended. The rent which would be charged for the use of the building to be used as the teacher's residence, plus the amount of money that would have to be paid for the use of the buildings for all education other than elementary, would easily cover the whole cost of the repairs. He did not believe that the Church desired to drive such a hard bargain with the local authority, and he trusted the Government would not do the Church the ill service of insisting on it. The least they could ask, and the least the Church and the Government ought to give, was that for all public educational purposes—elementary, higher, or technical—they ought to have the buildings rent free. He should have thought that in a Bill the main purpose of which was the co-ordination of education, the Church would gladly and willingly agree to give the public authority the use of the buildings free for all public educational purposes.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— In line 2, after the word 'free' to insert the words 'for all educational purposes.'"—(Dr. Machamara.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he did not believe that there was any difference between the two sides of the Committee on the subject. They had to deal at the present moment with school-houses which were the absolute property of the existing owners, but which were to be used I for educational purposes during the hours in which elementary education was to be carried on within their walls. On that they were all agreed, and they had provided the buildings free of charge during these hours. Then came the question as to whether they ought to use the buildings for any purpose outside these hours. He quite agreed that it was probably desirable, in the educational interests of many districts, that the un-provided schools should be used in the evening for the purposes of continuation schools and other analogous purposes. That was quite true, and he was, sure every hon. Gentleman would agree with him up to that point. But that was not the whole case. But they had also to remember that these schools were used for parochial purposes, and a great many other admirable purposes connected with the social life of the district, and if every evening was used, or if there was the power to use every evening by the education authority for purposes in which the owners of the schools were not interested, they might be doing a great injury and injustice to the trustees and managers of those schools, and to the denomination at whose cost they were built. [HON. MEMBERS: Partially built.] They would not go into that ancient controversy; What they had got to do was to find a compromise between these two perfectly legitimate views, and the only compromise which he thought would meet both the case of the education authority and that of the owners of the schools was that the education authority might use the schools for educational purposes on not more than three nights a week. That would cover the requirements of the local authority for educational purposes, and would leave the schools open for the use of the trustees and managers for purposes connected with village life, and for the purposes of the denomination whose requirements ought to be considered. The hon. Gentleman was in error in saying that the Government were anxious to obtain rent for the schools for evenings on which they might be used for educational purposes. He would not suggest that. He thought it was fair that there should be a rent for the teacher's residences, but he also thought that in those cases where the education authority could not find accommodation elsewhere—that was the important point—they should have the right to use those schools for three nights a week rent free. He ventured to suggest that the Committee should adopt the view he had expressed.

MR. BRYCE

asked if the right hon. Gentleman proposed to move the Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUE

said he would be prepared to move an Amendment to carry out the general policy he had adumbrated.

DR. MACNAMARA

asked if he understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that if the public authority wanted the school for any educational purpose whatever [MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.] for three nights a week it was to have it rent free?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said provided, of course, that the public authority had no schools of their own in which to carry out the same object.

SIR WILLIAM MATHER (Lancashire, Rossendale)

said that at present board schools in large towns Were used six night a week for continuation classes; and he asked how was it possible to have a public elementary school, in any sense of the Word, where the work was restricted to three nights a week.

MR. WHITLEY

said he was greatly interested in evening schools; and thought that as far as they were concerned the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. would meet the case; but there were other questions to be considered. For instance, it might be desirable that certain ex-voluntary schools should be used for higher grade education; and unless the words in the Amendment were modified, the managers would be able to charge rent for that purpose. He protested strongly against limiting the right to use the buildings in cases where no other room was available. The schools were to be handed over for educational purposes to the local authority, in return for great privileges; and he did not think that the local authority ought to be put under the liability of finding other schools if they possibly could. The day school was the natural place in which to hold continuation classes; and, certainly, if they only asked for its use for three nights a week, without any further qualification, he thought their demand was very moderate and reasonable.

LORD HUGH CECIL

said the proposal of his right hon. friend did not sound in his ears as an unreasonable one, but he thought it right to point out to the Committee that it was not a question of what they themselves might think was reasonable or unreasonable. There was a certain danger that if these matters were piled one upon another, if concession after concession were made, that there might come a point at which a large number of managers might refuse to go on with their schools. The proposal seemed perfectly reasonable to him. He thought it was certainly desirable that the schools should be used for educational purposes, assuming that they were legitimate and bona fide; but he had observed, in some instances, that the patience of the managers was running out, and that there was an increasing opinion that the Bill was nor such a very good Bill. Though no doubt it relieved the managers from the hard task of raising considerable sums of money, yet it put upon them disabilities, inconveniences, and in some instances humiliations, to which they were not accustomed. Was it desirable that there should be a general, or anything like a general, repudiation of the Bill by existing school managers? He did not know what hon. Members opposite, might say in their controversial moments, but in their uncontroversial moments he believed they did not desire to throw on the ratepayers the great cost of replacing the existing voluntary school buildings. He did not think that they would find that very popular. Further, he was quite sure that his hon. friend would very much deplore the great denominational system suddenly, or to any very large extent collapsing. They themselves, were able to view these matters calmly and dispassionately; but they should not press them too far, or forget that there were others to be considered who did not always take a perfectly calm view, and who might easily take the bit between their teeth and upset the education system of the country. Having uttered that word of caution, he would, suggest to the Government that it would be very desirable at the proper opportunity to carry out the assurance which had been given time after time, that the ownership of the buildings would not be affected by the Bill, and to insert express words saving the ownership—not only saving it in law, but making it manifest to everybody that it was saved. That might have a soothing effect on the minds of managers. Everyone would agree that the schools existed for educational purposes; and, further, that there was really no controversy between the supporters of the schools and their opponents as to the importance of education, or that it was not most desirable that the buildings could be used in the evenings to advance higher education or any other legitimate educational purpose.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that, although he did not always agree with his noble friend with regard to the controversies raised by the Bill, he agreed with him absolutely in everything he had just said. He agreed that there were many owners of voluntary schools who would be tempted to say, he thought quite erroneously, "If all these limitations and disabilities are to be put upon us, why should we give up our building at all. Why should we not throw on the district the whole cost of providing elementary education, and use our buildings for our own purposes?" That was a real possibility, and, although hon. Gentlemen opposite would not agree with him, he thought a real danger in the present Bill. All he could say was that while he perfectly recognised that the scheme of the Government required great sacrifices from the owners and managers of voluntary schools, he quite agreed that voluntary schools in extremis would have nothing but gain from the Bill, although many voluntary schools would lose largely. To all he would say that they should sacrifice their relatively personal and individual views in order to carry out the general scheme of education which the Bill provided. He understood his noble friend to say that he did not dissent from the Government in thinking that three nights a week was not an unreasonable compromise. Private owners were being asked to give up their buildings without fee or reward for educational purposes, which were not legally associated with elementary education at all, and he thought that the Committee should recognise that that was a sacrifice.

* SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

said he was surprised that the proposal was spoken of as if it were something new. The buildings were already taken under two Acts of Parliament for the use of candidates at elections. Surely that was a public purpose. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are paid for."]

(11.30.) LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE

said he thought the concession made by the Prime Minister was perfectly reasonable one. The evening continuation schools were now regarded as secondary schools, but he asked anyone who knew anything about continuation schools in country districts whether they were not, in reality, public elementary schools. They were used to teach children of agricultural labourers who were irregular in their attendance at the day schools, who had forgotten nearly everything they had learned, and who came to the continuation schools to recover a little of their lost knowledge. Could such a school be called a secondary school His hon. friend the Member for the Rossendale Division referred to the large towns, but they had to consider the case of the country districts also. In the large towns there would be the old School Board buildings, and although, no doubt, it might be very desirable to have the use of the non-provided schools on every evening in the week, he thought, however, it would be wise to accept the concession of the right hon. Gentleman, because in the country districts three evenings a week might prove sufficient, and in the large towns there would be the provided as well as the non-provided schools. The noble Lord who had addressed the Committee said that they might find that the owners of the non-provided schools might be inclined to throw up the Bill altogether and let the country face the great expense of purchasing the schools. He did not claim to speak for anyone but himself, but he thought that was what his hon. friends would desire. He said unhesitatingly that the further they went with the Bill through Committee, the more it could be seen how absolutely absurd it was to try and make a school at the same time a non-provided and a provided school, a sort of school which was neither fish, flesh, nor good red herring. He believed that the whole system was likely to break down, and that the only logical solution was, as Lord Salisbury said, "Buy them."

* SIR CHARLES DILKE

said, with reference to a challenge that was made from the other side of the House, that he had now verified the matter, and there was no doubt whatever as to the absolute accuracy of the statement that there were seven different purposes for which these schools could now be used free of charge in every case.

MR. PIKE PEASE (Darlington)

said that the hon. Member for North Camber-well had referred to the bargain between the public and the owners of the denominational schools. He thought, however, that the Opposition might accept the concession which had been offered by his right hon. friend, especially as he had always understood that the hon. Member for North Camberwell was of opinion that the Bill ought to pass, and also because of the fact that the bargain, from the point of view of the Opposition, had been very much improved.

DR. MACNAMARA

said he had not yet been able to see the precise terms of the Amendment of the First Lord of the Treasury, but he understood from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the public authority was to have the use, free of rent, of the buildings three nights a week for educational purposes.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Where they have not their own buildings.

DR. MACNAMARA

said it might be as well to have the exact words before proceeding further, and he would, there-fore, withdraw his Amendment.

MR. WHITLEY

said that two important questions had been raised. One was that the words "public elementary schools" excluded higher grade work, and the other was the restriction foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman that the buildings could only be used if no other premises were available. He hoped both points would not be overlooked.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said that the; provision of schools for other educational work would not be governed by the words "public elementary school" in his Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

understood the hon. Gentleman to be reluctant to withdraw the Amendment until he knew what the substitute was to be. He proposed, after the word "school" to insert "and also for other educational purposes if the local education authority have no other suitable accommodation, but not oftener than three days a week."

SIR WILLIAM MATHER

What is meant by "other suitable accommodation?"

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

In schools belonging to themselves. I do not mean that they should go into the open market and hire rooms. But if they have provided schools under their own control, I think it is rather unfair that they should come upon the non-provided school when it is really not necessary.

MR. WHITLEY

said the point, ho had raised was not yet covered. The conversion of a part of a school into a higher grade school under the second part of the Bill was excluded. It would be desirable to leave out the limiting words "public elementary school."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

replied that that could not be done. The Government never contemplated that it should be in the power of the local authority to convert a primary voluntary school into a secondary school. That would be destroying its whole value as an elementary school.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, with drawn.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— After the word 'school,' to insert the words 'and also for other educational purposes if the local education authority have no other suitable accommodation in providing schools, but not more often than three days a week.""—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Question proposed "that those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

MR. BRYCE

thought a hard and fast rule might prove rather hard and inconvenient in practice. In many cases more than three days a week could well be given, but as far as he could see, there was no means by which the local authority could call for more than that number of days. The purposes for which the schools Would be wanted when not educationally employed were laudable and excellent, and all would desire to see the buildings put to the best possible purposes. But the words of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be deficient in elasticity. What was wanted was a scheme under which it would be in the power of some impartial authority to say if it could not be shown that the buildings were wanted for denominational purposes, that the education authority could have them for more than three nights.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

thought it would be well for the Committee to accept the Amendment in the spirit in which the Prime Minister had moved it. As he understood it the right hon. Gentleman would not have the slightest objection to providing that the school-house should be available for educational purposes, if necessary, on more than three nights a week, unless it was reasonably required by the managers for other purposes.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that that matter would be open to arrangement; but he did not believe that there would be the smallest difficulty in having the schools for educational purposes six nights a week, unless there was some local reason to the contrary. What the Government desired to prevent was the managers taking advantage of their power over a school in the evening hours because they happened to have a quarrel with the local authority. The Amendment declared that the local authority had a right to demand the use of the school on three nights in the week, and all the rest, he was sure, might be left to arrangement between the parties.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said that was; why he thought it would be wise to accept the Amendment now, reserving the right to move subsequently the extension he had suggested

Question put and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

(11.52.) MR. A. K. LOYD (Berkshire, Abingdon)

said the object of the Amendment he was about to move was to remove the ambiguity which at present existed as to the funds out of which the managers were to keep the buildings in repair. By some the words were understood to imply a personal liability on the part of the managers, and by others that the fund was to be provided ad hoc. The words he proposed would remove the ambiguity by enumerating a few specified sources of the kind to which the Clause was intended to apply, while the words "or other" would show that an exhaustive list had not been attempted. Another object of the Amendment was to meet the hostile and unwarranted limitation which some people would be ready to put upon the resources available for this purpose, Amendments already appeared on the Paper proposing to deprive the managers of the power to use endowments for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the local education authority. Thus to cripple the managers could only have the effect of rendering it impossible for them to comply with the local authority's requirements, with the result that the school would be broken up. For the most part, the trust deeds would fall under four heads. They provided that the income for endowments should be applied to the fabric of the school, to the support and maintenance of the school generally, to the provision of free education, books, etc., for a specified number of children, or to the payment of teachers' salaries. The exclusion of endowments from the resources available to the managers would be directly contrary to the first two of those articles of the deeds. He submitted that the only condition which ought to be placed upon the application of endowments was that they should be used for educational purposes in the parish or locality for which the trust was created; and that condition would be complied with by applying the income from endowments to the necessary repairs called for by the local authority.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 17, after the words 'out of,' to insert the words subscriptions, donations, income hum endowment, or other.'"—(Mr. A. K. Loyd.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

* SIR CHARLES DILKE

pointed out that the Government had promised to bring in fresh proposals with regard to endowments, and, as the Amendment raised the question of endowments, it was necessary that the Committee should know what the Government were going to propose.

MR. BRYCE

agreed that the question was very important, and suggested that Progress should be reported.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.