§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 3.
In page 2, line 3, after the word: Glasgow' to insert then word 'Govan.'" (Mr. Parker Smith.)
§ Question again proposed, "That the word 'Govan' be there inserted."
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
said it seemed to him that the case for excluding Govan had not been made out, for there had been no proof of the suggestion that there would be any overlapping between Govan and Glasgow. Govan had one of the best conducted school boards in Scotland, and he did not think any reason had been brought forward for incorporating it with Glasgow. He was aware that there was a great deal to be said for the larger educational area, but for the reasons he put forward before the adjournment, he had very great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick)
said that thy accusation that Govan wanted to cut into Glasgow was like the old table of the wolf and the lamb, because, on the 1574 contrary, it was Glasgow that wanted to cut into Govan. The parish of Govan had been an educational unit outside Glasgow for a very long time, and it comprised not only the borough of Govan, but also Partick and other places. Educational districts were going; to be drawn separate and distinct from municipal or any other districts, and because the parish of Govan was within Glasgow for municipal purposes was no reason why it should be included for educational purposes. Naturally the municipality and the school board of Glasgow were anxious to have as large an area as possible within their jurisdiction, and no one could blame them for desiring anything of that kind. Glasgow Corporation and the school board desired to have Govan included in their area, but they had not alleged any adequate reasons for taking this course. The hon. Member opposite had said that there might be overlapping, but no case had been made out showing that any overlapping had taken place in the past. There were schools of all kinds quite equal to meeting the needs of the locality in Govan. What was at the bottom of the desire of Glasgow to include Govan was that they wished to make this an argument for further municipal extension. Municipal extension had been governed in the past by the wishes of the parties concerned, both inside and outside the area, but if a compulsory extension was made in regard to education over the district outside. Which was now fully capable of supplying the best education, and against which no case had been made out to show that it was inefficient or wasteful, a new precedent would be introduced which he was sure would be very mischievous in the future. He hoped that on this question the House would be left free. This was not a matter of interfering with the principles of the Bill, but a case where they had a district of nearly 250,000 people who desired to continue independently because they believed it would be more advantageous to allow the district to remain as it was at present, and because it was not of too large a size to admit of that personal knowledge of schools and teachers which in education was a matter of very great importance. Therefore he hoped the House would be willing to allow 1575 Govan to continue to have an independent existence.
§ MR. CORBETT (Glasgow, Tradeston)
said that the real reason why Govan wanted to retain her present position was that she happened to have nearly all the wealthiest suburbs of Glasgow within her rating area. Not only on the north side of the river but on the south side the wealthiest suburbs were situated, and to allow such a district to remain outside the Glasgow area was a thing which could not be defended. Not only had Govan no separate existence and no natural boundary apart from Glasgow, bat if they examined the boundary line they would find that Govan ran like wedges
§ into Glasgow, and there was not a straight cut between the two. In everything that the Glasgow School Board did for the benefit of the community, Govan obtained its share, but they contended that if they had a line zigzagging between the two communities the difficulties would become enormous. He assured the House that a very different opinion was held by the school board of Glasgow, and if there was a case for Govan bang kept separate, there was an equally strong case for cutting off a large slice from the areas of any of their great cities.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 52; Noes, 189. (Division List No. 147.)1577
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Russell, T. W.|
|Asher, Alexander||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry||Horniman, Frederick John||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Jones, D Brynmor (Swansea)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Burt, Thomas||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Leng, Sir John||Ure, Alexander|
|Caldwell, James||Levy, Maurice||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Weir, James Galloway|
|Crombie, John William||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh)||White Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Partington, Oswald||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Pirie, Duncan V.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Elibank, Master of||Reid, James (Greenock)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Fenwick Charles||Rigg, Richard||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Parker Smith and Colonel Denny.|
|Fuller, J. M. P.||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow||Dickson, Charles Scott|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Donelan, Captain A.|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Doogan, P. C.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Cautley, Henry Strother||Doughty, George|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||; Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)|
|Austin, Sir John||Chapman, Edward||Doxford, Sir William Theodore|
|Bain, Col. James Robert||Clare, Octavius Leigh||Dunn, Sir William|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Ellice, Capt. E. C. (SAndrw's Bghs|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)|
|Bignold, Arthur||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r|
|Bigwood, James||Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.|
|Black, Alexander William||Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Cullinan, J.||Fison, Frederick William|
|Boland, John||Dalkeith, Earl of||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Flower, Sir Ernest|
|Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middxs)||Davenport, William Bromley-||Forster, Henry William|
|Brassey, Albert||Delany, William||Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||Galloway, William Johnson|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Gardner, Ernest|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.|
|Butcher, John George||Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop.|
|Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Malcolm, Ian||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Gretton, John||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.||Sheehy David|
|Hain, Edward||Moon, Edward Robert Paey||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Hammond, John||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Spear, John Ward|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Morpeth, Viscount||Stanley Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.|
|Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Morrell, George Herbert||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.||Mount, William Arthur||Stock, James Henry|
|Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W||Murnaghan, George||Stroyan, John|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Murphy, John||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Hunt, Rowland||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'dUniv.|
|Jessel, Captain Herbert Her ton||Nicholson, William Graham||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)||Thorbarn, Sir Walter|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.||O'Malley, William||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Kerr, John||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Tuff, Charles|
|Keswick, William||Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Kilbride, Denis||Percy, Earl||Valentia, Viscount|
|Knowles, Sir Lees||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Wallace, Robert|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Plummer, Walter R.||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth||Power, Patrick Joseph||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton|
|Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N. R.||Pretyman, Ernest George||Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham||Pym, C. Guy||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.||Reddy, M.||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|London, W.||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Royds, Clement Molyneux||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.|
|MacVeagh Jeremiah||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|M'Crae, George||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
§ *COLONEL DENNY
said he rose for the purpose of moving his Amendment excluding Leith from the suggested area. At the present time there was no overlapping, and the boundaries did Dot impinge upon the boundaries of the city of Edinburgh, consequently there was no danger in placing Leith upon its own feet. Leith was educationally complete, for they had a complete system of elementary and secondary education, and they also possessed a technical college. They had in Leith a most excellent school board, and, what was more important, it cost £1 per child less in Leith for education than in Edinburgh. Leith had more children for the size of the population than any other community in Scotland, and therefore any burgh of that character was perfectly competent to stand upon its own legs. Leith provided education for all classes in its own area, while Edinburgh had done very little comparatively for secondary and technical education. Some of 1578 the endowed schools in Edinburgh were not open to children who did not happen to be the children of the citizens of Edinburgh. Edinburgh educated only from 50 to 60 per cent. of her children under the school board system, whilst the proportion educated under the school board I system in Leith was between 80 and 90 percent. There was a great difference in the character of the two places. Edinburgh was residential and contained a large professional class, whilst Leith was more a population consisting of commercial and industrial people. Leith did not want to join with Edinburgh, and Edinburgh had made no sign whatever I that she wanted Leith to join her. Leith would gain £5,000 by joining with Edinburgh, but they were willing to sacrifice that because they believed that they could conduct their education better themselves. He begged to move his Amendment.
In page 2, line 3, after the word 'Edinburgh,' to insert the word 'Leith.'"—(Colonel Denny.)
§ Question proposed. "That the word 'Leith' be there inserted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY
said he was not going to follow his hon. and gallant friend in his panegyric of the various qualities of Leith. He understood that for the most part the children of Leith went to the secondary schools at Edinburgh.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY
said there was only one school in Leith which was worthy of the name of a secondary school. Anybody who knew the circumstances of Edinburgh and Leith knew that there was no neighbourhood in Scotland where they were more likely to run rival educational establishments. It was perfectly well known that the opinion of the Edinburgh School Board was entirely in favour of the propositions made in this Bill. He did not think that he needed to say very much more upon this subject. He regarded this not as a stronger but as a much weaker case than that of Govan, and he should be very much surprised indeed if the Committee accepted this Amendment.
§ MR. THOMAS SHAW (Hawick Burghs)
said Edinburgh was splendidly supplied with regard to appliances for secondary education, and he wanted to know from the mover of the Amendment whether his proposal to separate Leith from Edinburgh would involve the depriving of Leith children of the benefits of Edinburgh secondary education. On the other hand, he would like to know from the Government whether, if the incorporation took place, the population of Leith would be thereby entitled to share in those splendid endowments with which Edinburgh was provided. If Leith were convinced that she would share the fortunes of Edinburgh in that respect, he thought they would find Leith willing to accept the proposal in the Bill. If Leith, by entering into the school board area of Edinburgh, were also 1580 to enter into joint inheritance of those splendid endowments, he could imagine nothing better than that Leith should join Edinburgh.
§ *MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)
hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment. It was a curious thing that an East of Scotland Member could not be found to state the claim of Leith in this matter, and that those who objected to the proposal in the Bill should have to go to the West of Scotland to get one to advocate the case of Leith. He thought the Secretary for Scotland had made out a good case for the inclusion of Leith in Edinburgh. There was really no physical distinction between Edinburgh and Leith. The boundaries were conterminous and for the sake of uniformity of administration and having regard to the fact that this amalgamation would be a financial gain to Leith, the proposal in the Bill was a good one. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock stated the amount per bead spent on education in Leith, but he did not inform the House as to the rates for education in Edinburgh and Leith respectively. If he had done so, the Committee would have found that the rates of Edinburgh were considerably less than those of Leith. He thought that the Leith people admitted frankly there would be a financial gain to them if Leith were included in Edinburgh. The hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs wished to know whether the children of Leith would under the Bill have the benefits enjoyed by those of Edinburgh. This Bill would give them all those benefits with one exception, and he asked the Secretary for Scotland whether it would not be possible to put that right in the Bill. Heriot's Foundations were only applicable to Edinburgh children. Could these not be extended in some way to Leith children? Prior to 1833 they were eligible, because the area was then under one municipality. Therefore, it would be only reverting to the old state of things if that privilege were again given to Leith. With regard to any debt that had been incurred by Leith, he thought it would be an injustice, as was at first proposed, that they should be called upon to bear the whole responsibility of that. The Bill had been very much improved by providing that any debt would be 1581 jointly borne by the new area, whatever it might be. He thought that was a sound financial principle. Looking to the whole facts of the case he thought there could be no doubt that, if they considered economy and uniformity of administration, the proper course was to approve of the clause as it appeared in the Bill.
§ *MR. DOBBIE (Ayr Burghs)
said the public bodies of Leith were practically unanimous against the proposal in the Bill. He agreed with the mover of the Amendment that there was a stronger case here than with regard to Govan. There was at present no educational connection between Edinburgh and Leith, and there was no municipal connection. Quite the opposite. He differed from the Secretary for Scotland in the view he expressed regarding the efficiency of the machinery for secondary and technical education in Leith. His information was that Leith in many respects was better equipped than Edinburgh in regard, particularly, to technical education. When they considered that Leith had a population of 80,000, and that the children attending its schools numbered 12,000, he thought the Committee must have strong reasons stated to persuade them to take a course contrary to the wishes of the ratepayers. He knew a district in Argyllshire which would have a new school board where the population was only 7,339, and the children attending school numbered only 550. If such a place was to have a school board, Leith ought to have one. This was a matter which should be tested only by school efficiency, and, that being so, Leith would compare favourably in regard to taxable area and population, and the number of scholars was more than two-thirds of the boards to be established under this Bill. He suggested that Leith should be allowed to have a school board, and that if an amalgamation was to take place it should not be by means of a proposal emanating from the Government, but only when supported by the great body of opinion in Leith, and after terms had been adjusted.
§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith Burghs)
said the case for Leith had been admirably put by the hon. Member opposite. He thought the amalgamation which was proposed, except in the case of the four excluded burghs, was sound educationally, and would prevent overlapping. He voted for including Govan in Glasgow, believing that more efficient education would be got under the proposal in the Bill. He had often complained of the extreme autocracy of the Scottish Education Department, and he believed that the two main securities in the Bill for local freedom were the two great education authorities which would be set up in Glasgow and Edinburgh. He believed it would be less possible in future for the Education Department to override those great local authorities than it had been hitherto, and that the local liberty which would find expresssion in these bodies would be the standard by which the local liberty of the smaller bodies would be expressed. The inequalities of local burdens in different areas had been the subject of frequent complaint. This Bill tended to mitigate these inequalities. It would tend to mitigate them in the case of Edinburgh and Leith. Leith would certainly derive some financial advantage under the Bill. Grants in aid would be withdrawn from Leith, and the rating burden would become heavier. Personally, he should be glad to see some of that burden extended over the wealthier region of Edinburgh. He did not find it possible to support the elimination of one burgh because he happened to represent it in that House, and, though he knew the views of the local authorities were against amalgamation, he was of opinion that considerable advantages would result from it. Leith School Board had done extremely good work, and the only ground on which he was opposed to the local authorities was the general one which he had advanced, and which, he thought, sufficiently justified the passing of the clause as it stood.
§ MR. CALDWELL
said he had very great sympathy with Leith on this question. What was being done in the 1583 case of Leith illustrated the great change which was being made in Scotch educational management. In this case they were proposing to go against the sentiment of the place. Leith objected to being annexed to Edinburgh, either for municipal or educational purposes; and he must say it was a very strong step indeed for this House to insist upon their being amalgamated for educational purposes without any further inquiry. What was the ground of the amalgamation? It was not alleged that Leith was deficient in elementary or secondary education. It was said they wanted to combine a certain amount of secondary education between Leith and Edinburgh. That was to say the whole local interest of the burgh of Leith was to be subordinated for the sake of a few people who wanted to get secondary education. No doubt Leith would have a certain amount of repre-
§ sentation on the board to be set up, but it would be minority representation. It seemed ridiculous that the control of education should be taken from the people of the burgh, and practically handed over to another district, merely because that district happened to be larger. Even under the scheme proposed in the Amendment of the Secretary for Scotland they could not bring about an amalgamation except upon the initiative of the local authority. There was no initiative here. There was absolute opposition. He thought that Leith had a stronger claim for separation from Edinburgh than Govan had for separation from Glasgow.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 36; Noes, 171. (Division List No. 148.)1585
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Levy, Maurice||Tennant, Harold John|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Lough, Thomas||Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)|
|Caldwell, James||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Campbell-Banner man, Sir H.||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Pirie, Duncan V.||White Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Power, Patrick Joseph||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Reid, James (Greenock)||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Rigg, Richard||TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Colonel Denny and Mr. Dobbie.|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Horniman, Frederick John||Russell, T. W.|
|Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Long, Sir John||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.||Black, Alexander William||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Condon, Thomas Joseph|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Boland, John||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Crombie, John William|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Brassey, Albert||Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)|
|Asher, Alexander||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Brotherton, Edward Allen||Cullinan, J.|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Balcarres, Lord||Butcher, John George||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r||Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow||Davenport, William Bromley-|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds||Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Delany, William|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cautley, Henry Strother||Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny N.)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.|
|Bignold, Arthur||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Dickinson, Robert Edmond|
|Bigwood, James||Chapman, Edward||Dickson, Charles Scott|
|Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)||Renwick, George|
|Doughty, George||Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N. R.||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S||Rose, Charles Day|
|Dunn, Sir William||Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Ellice, Capt. E. C (SAndrw's Bghs||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Forgusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r||Lundon, W.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Maclver, David (Liverpool)||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Fison, Frederick William||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||M'Crae, George||Sheehy, David|
|Forster, Henry William||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.)||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Gardner, Ernest||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Spear, John Ward|
|Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Malcolm, Ian||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.|
|Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Stock, James Henry|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.||Stroyan, John|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Gretton, John||Morpeth, Viscount||Sullivan, Donal|
|Hain, Edward||Morrell, George Herbert||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Mount, William Arthur||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Hall, Edward Marshall||Murnaghan, George||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Hammond, John||Murphy, John||Tuff, Charles|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Wallace, Robert|
|Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Nicholson, William Graham||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.||O'Brien, K, (Tipperary, Mid.)||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kelkenny)||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton|
|Hope, J. E. (Sheffield, Brightside||O'Malley, William||Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Hunt, Rowland||Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Percy, Earl||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Joyce, Michael||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.|
|Kerr, John||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Keswick, William||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Kilbride, Denis||Pym, C. Guy|
|Knowles, Sir Lees||Reddy, M.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Amendment proposed.
§ In page 2, line 9, after the words 'Kinning Park,' to insert the word 'Rutherglen.'"—(Colonel Denny.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Rutherglen' be there inserted."
§ MR. CALDWELL
said he understood that the Secretary for Scotland accepted the inclusion of Rutherglen in the Glasgow School Board district because the people of that burgh were agreeable. In this case consent was made the ground 1586 of annexation, whereas in the case of Leith and Govan the annexation was made whether the people wished it or not. He thought the wishes of the local authority should have been respected in the one case as well as in the other.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY
said there was a confusion of mind on the part of the hon. Gentleman. The I question to be decided in the case of Leith was whether that burgh should be a separate enumerated district, whereas in the case now before the Committee the point was whether Rutherglen'should be in the Glasgow district or in the Lanarkshire district. There was no co- 1587 relation whatever betweeen the two cases. Not only were the parties in Rutherglen willing to be joined to the Glasgow district, but on educational grounds it was highly expedient.
§ MR. BRYCE
said that as his hon. and gallant friend who moved the Motion represented the burgh of Rutherglen, he thought that the Committee could not go wrong in accepting it. He must, however, express his surprise that Rutherglen was content to be annexed to Glasgow. Rutherglen, or rather Ruglen, was an older town than Glasgow. There was the ancient distich which ran:—Ruglen was a toun when Glasgow was nane,And Raglen will be a toun when Glasgow is gane.
§ MR. HALDANE (Haddongtonshire)
said he rejoiced that the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the historic associations of Ruglen; it was an abuse of pronunciation to call it Rutherglen. Why was it that Ruglen was not originally included in the Glasgow instead of being included in the Lanarkshire district? There was a presumption that it was quite right to include it in the Glasgow district from the fact that the hon. and gallant Member who represented the burgh had advocated it.
§ MR. THOMAS SHAW
said his right hon. friend had mistaken the position in regard to Ruglen and Glasgow altogether. The real object of Ruglen in this matter was not far to seek; it wanted to annex Glasgow, and he saw no reason why anybody outside should object to that arrangement. Seriously, his view was that all suburban districts should be attached to their educational centre. On 1588 that ground he had voted for Govan being annexed to Glasgow, and Leith to Edinburgh. That position was sufficient to justify the Government in accepting the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed.
In page 2, lines 9 and 10, to leave out the words 'and Pollokshaws."'—Sir Charles Renshaw.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ *SIR CHARLES RENSHAW
said he wished to know why Pollokshaws should be included in Glasgow. It might be no doubt convenient to the children in some part of Pollokshaws, but for the educational interests of the children who lived in the county to the south of Pollokshaws the arrangement would be extremely inconvenient. Why was it that this change had been made without any consultation with those responsible for the education of that district?
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY
said that the Department had consulted the educational authorities of Pollokshaws, and they wanted to be included in the Glasgow district.
§ MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS (Lanarkshire, N. W.)
said he had an Amendment on the Paper to insert after "Pollokshaws," "and the parts of the parishes of Govan and Springburn which are not included in those burghs." He would not move this Amendment, as he understood the Secretary for Scotland was going to consider it.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY
said he would consider it, but the probability was that he would not accept it.
§ Question proposed, "That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said he was bound again to ask a Question as to which he had hitherto been unable to get an answer from the Government. He wanted to know why the Government had determined to retain the school board system in Scotland after having destroyed it in England and Wales? When the English Education Bill was before the House, he pleaded with the Government to amalgamate the small school boards, and give the new boards suitable areas, but scorn was poured upon him for making that proposal. The Prime Minister, whom he was sorry not to see in his place, told the House on the London Bill that he was clearly of opinion that it was a most retrograde policy to support the principle of an ad hoc authority. If it was a retrograde policy in 1903, why was it not so in 1904? The President of the Local Government Board had said that for good or evil the Government had decided to support no longer the ad hoc principle. Why were they supporting it there to night? The Vice-President of the Committee of Council had stated that the Government thought an ad hoc authority was an anachronism. If it was an anachronism in 1902, what was it in 1904? It must be more than an anachronism. The condemnation of the ad hoc principle in 1902 and 1903 was absolute and unreserved, and the school board system was denounced as the most reactionary, extravagant, and hopeless system that an offended deity had ever thrust upon the country. Why was it 1590 different now? If it was all wrong for England, why was it all right for Scotland? He put this Question quite seriously, and would go on asking it, and he was entitled to an answer.
§ MR. J. A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden)
said that the Question of the hon. Gentleman was a very pertinent one, and ft appeared to him that he was entitled to some reply. English Members who were obliged to attend to their duties in the House desired to vote on sound principles in connection with education in Scotland; and they were anxious to hear from the Government why a change of front had been adopted in this matter of school boards and the ad hoc principle. Had the Government any reason to distinguish the people of Scotland from those of England and Wales? The latter were equally entitled to the control of their educational system as the people of Scotland.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY
said he was told that the hon. Member for Camber-well would go on asking Questions. There were many people who went through life like that. He would have thought that really the hon. Gentleman would have been rather glad at last to find that somebody appreciated all the things he had said years ago. In answer to the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, he should be very glad to take his education in hand out in the lobby, and show him how the Government had to come to a different decision on a practical matter in Scotland and England. To begin with, in Scotland they had universal school boards, and in England they had not. He had explained fully on the Second Reading what the considerations were which led the Government, in accordance to what 1591 he believed to be the majority of Scotch opinion, to frame a different scheme for the different circumstances of Scotland, to that which had been passed for England and Wales.
§ And it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.