§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 8:—
§ THE CHAIRMAN
said the Amendments in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University †were not in order, as they, taken together, constituted an alternative clause which could only be moved if this clause were omitted.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)
said his Amendment was in† For general effect of the series of Amendments referred to, See second statement of Sir William Anson below.65 substance the same as he was allowed to move on Clause 1, and was intended to give the owners of the schools as well as the local authority access to the Commission, He ventured to submit that that was within the scope of the clause.
§ THE CHAIRMAN
said the first Amendment, taken with consequential Amendments, amounted to a proposition which practically made it compulsory upon the Board of Education to make a scheme on undefined lines whereas the clause was that the local education authority, or, if the Committee desired, the owners as well, might apply to the Commission to make a scheme, and these schemes were to be made in accordance with legal principles as regarded the trusts and under certain prescribed conditions. Amongst, other things they had to consider whether the carrying on of the school as a public elementary school was the best method of carrying out the trust, and would not make a scheme unless it was. That was a quite different proposal from the proposal of the hon. Baronet.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
submitted that so far as his Amendment went on the Chairman's ruling it was in order. He was quite prepared to withdraw the words "Board of Education," which he had proposed to insert lower down. All he desired to do was to give owners access of the Commission. His proposal was—Where the owners of any existing voluntary schools held under charitable trusts or the local education authority, desire to do so, they may, if no arrangement has been made with respect to the school house under this Act, at any time after January 1st apply to the Commission appointed under this Act.
§ THE CHAIRMAN
said in that case the hon. Baronet had better take it at the point at which the same question was raised in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kingston.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
said that as he understood the ruling it would be out of order to move an Amendment which had the object of substituting the Board of Education for the Commissioners.
§ THE CHAIRMAN
said his ruling was not that at all. He had to take the Amendments of the hon. Baronet altogether, and they constituted a new clause outside this discussion.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
asked whether, if that were so, he would not be in order in moving to omit sub-section (1).
§ THE CHAIRMAN
said that to omit the sub-section would be practically omitting the clause. What the hon. Baronet desired to do had better be left until they came to the end of the clause.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
thought it was a very important matter. It might be that to omit the sub-section would be to emasculate the clause, but was that a ground for ruling the suggestion out of order?
§ THE CHAIRMAN
said that if the right hon. Gentleman would look at the clause he would see that the omission of the subsection would make nonsense of the clause.
§ MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)
moved to insert after " charitable trusts," the words " and the Charity Commissioners are satisfied that the object of the trust is solely educational." At the present moment the Charity Commissioners decided whether a trust was educational or not, and they had made, he understood, very considerable progress in deciding the nature of these trusts. So far as he could gather, under the Bill this power of revision was to be removed from the Charity Commissioners. He saw no reason for that; hence his Amendment, which was designed to provide that the Commission, in the preparation of schemes, should only deal with buildings held under educational trusts, leaving untouched buildings held under charitable trusts. This would be only carrying out the statement of the Minister for Education on the First Reading of the Bill. There were many trusts that were not solely educational. He had in his mind the case of a school where the building was conveyed to the trustees for a great number of purposes and used as an elementary school, Sunday school, parish 67 hall, and gymnasium. If this clause was passed in its present form the trustees might not have the power to use the schoolroom for those useful purposes, and a great hardship would be done. The strongest support of the Amendment was to be found in the peech of the Minister for Education on the first Reading of the Bill. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman said that the owners of school premises included in Parts I. and II. were, of course, free agents and could refuse to allow the local education authority the use of their school premises, and could either keep open premises as a school without receiving any public money, close it altogether, pull it down, or do what they liked with it. After that statement how was it possible to ask the Committee to pass this clause, which put all schools held under charitable trusts under the Commission of three?
In page 5, line 6, after the word ' trusts,' to insert the words ' and the Charity Commissioners are satisfied that the object of the trust is solely educational.'"—(Mr. Ashley.)
§ Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
thought the right hon. Gentleman would have taken the opportunity at the outset of this clause of stating the names of the Commissioners, because it might entirely modify the views of many Members if the names were satisfactory. In discussing this Amendment they were discussing the composition of a body which would have almost unique powers.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,) Bristol, N.
said he was only waiting until he had an opportunity according to the rules of debate of informing the Committee of the names of the Commissioners. Before doing so he should just like to remind the Committee of what the duties of those three Gentlemen would be. The Commission had often been spoken of in the country as if the three Gentlemen would constitute an engine of compulsion— that was to say, that they should have powers unknown to the law of compelling 68 schools to accept terms which they might be unwilling to accept. He desired to make it perfectly plain there was no element of compulsion in the matter. The duty of those three gentlemen would simply be to decide, according to the existing rules of law and equity, as under stood by the recognised courts of law, whether or not—
§ MR. T. M. HEALY
asked if he might move the omission of the sub-section in order that the right hon. Gentleman might mention the names of the Commissioners.
§ THE CHAIRMAN
said it was quite open to the right hon. Gentleman to mention the names, but upon this particular Amendment he could not allow any comment or discussion on the question of the Commission.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said it had been the common practice of Parliament to omit the first word of a clause to enable a debate to take place on the general question, although the omission of the word made nonsense of the clause.
§ THE CHAIRMAN
said the hon. and learned Gentleman must know that they were discussing an Amendment beyond the first word of the clause, and the Amendment was to insert words which did not give rise to the general question of the clause. The President of the Board of Education, however, might give the names of the Commissioners now.
§ MR. DILLON
hoped that whatever the order of the debate was to be it would be laid down and applied to all alike. If the Minister for Education was to make a general statement—
§ MR. T. M. HEALY
asked if it would not be in order for the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, and for some one to move the omission of the word " where." This was the most 69 important matter in the whole debate, and he submitted that in a case in which the guillotine descended they were entitled to every consideration.
§ MR. ASHLEY
asked leave to withdraw his Amendment in order to move the omission of the first word of the clause, so as to enable the right hon. Gentleman to make his statement.
§ MR. DILLON
did not think the House of Commons ever discussed a Bill under greater difficulties. As the time allowed was extremely brief every facility ought to be given to the Committee to discuss the clause with some knowledge. Unless they got a general statement from the Minister for Education at the beginning of this clause the discussion prior to that statement would be waste of time.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In page 5, line 5, to omit the word 'where.' "—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ Question proposed, " That the word ' where ' stand part of the clause."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he was entirely in favour of this course, but he would ask the Chairman whether he had not taken objection to some observations he made on the ground that his proposal would make nonsense of the clause, and whether this Amendment would not have that effect?
§ THE CHAIRMAN
said he understood that this precise course had been allowed before under such circumstances as these, 70 and that was why he now allowed it. It was a different matter from the proposal of the hon. Baronet.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said he could assure the Committee that he had no other desire than to make the plainest possible statement in the shortest possible time in order to enable the question to be discussed. But before announcing the names of the three gentlemen who had kindly consented to become Commissioners, he wanted to make it plain what their duties would be under the clause as it stood. Their duty would be to determine all questions brought before them by the local education authorities, aye or no, whether, having regard to the particular trust of the particular school upon which their opinion was asked, they thought that the school was bound by its trust, according to the existing rules of law and equity, to transfer itself to the local education authority in view of the provision of Clause 1. In other words, they would have to determine the principle cy pres if they thought honestly there was no other course open to the trustees of the school to carry out their educational trust. Assuming that they found that this trust was primarily educational, that their first obligation was to keep open in the parish or village a school for the education of the adult or infant population, if they found that as a fact upon the trust, they would then have to ask themselves this question, Ought the school, in order to fulfil the trust in the best possible way, to transfer itself to the local education authority? That was the kind of question, and the only kind of question, which would be submitted to them. These trusts varied very much. Some of them were what he called loose trusts—that was to say, they enabled the owners to apply the premises and property to other purposes than those of providing the young of the parish with education. All those trusts, of course, were open trusts, and he could not suppose that they would be brought before the Commission at all. What he contemplated was that the trusts which would be brought before the Commission would be what he called tight trusts—that was to say, trusts the primary object of which was educational and for the benefit of the children in the 71 particular parish. Then it would be for those gentlemen to decide, aye or no, according to the principles of law and equity as they exist now—not as invented by them—whether or not the only proper way of fulfilling the primary object of the trust in order to continue the school as a school was to transfer itself to the authority. And now he was in a position to give the names of the Commissioners. The Right Hon. Sir Arthur Wilson, K.C.I.E. He was a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and everybody who had practised before him would agree that he was one of the most eminent judges we had in this country. Sir Hugh Owen. It was not needful to record his services. He was well known to every educationist in this country. He was the author of the standard work upon education and upon trusts. He had the whole subject at his fingers' ends as a practical man. Although he was by profession a lawyer, the labour of his life had been more in connection with our Civil Service. As everybody knew who had been brought into contact with him, he was a fair-minded man, who had a complete technical knowledge of the whole complicated subject of our education. The third name he proposed was one well known to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was that of Mr. Henry Wilson Worsley-Taylor, K.C., who was a lawyer of very considerable distinction, and whom everybody knew as a most fair-minded man. Mr. Worsley-Taylor sat in the last Parliament on the other side of the House, and he was told that he made a very great impression on both sides of the House as an exceedingly fair-minded man. He had legal acumen and legal knowledge. And he (Mr. Birrell) was satisfied that these three gentlemen who had very kindly consented to constitute this tribunal would discharge their duties in a manner which would secure the perfect confidence of the whole country. Their duty, as he had already indicated, was the legal duty of administering the law as it existed, and no suspicion whatever could by any possibility attach to them.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
did not entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the clause as it stood carried out the intention which he had expressed; but he did not propose to discuss that at the 72 present time. He only rose now to I say that the names the right hon. Gentleman had given the Committee were those of most distinguished gentlemen, and he ventured to say that no men of higher character could have been chosen.
§ MR. DILLON
asked whether they were going to enter on the discussion of the clause on the assumption that it would remain in the Bill and be the accepted mode of procedure. There was an alternative procedure before the Committee, and it would have been well if they had been able at the outset to compare the merits of the two proposals. He did not desire to raise a general discussion now, but he hoped that at a later stage it would be in order to move an Amendment on which they would be permitted to compare the merits of the two methods of procedure.
§ MAJOR SEELY (Liverpool, Abercromby)
thought it would be convenient if the Committee could be informed where, if anywhere, the right hon. Gentleman could give an explanation as to the relative merits of this clause and of the proposed new Clause 3. It would be most unfortunate if through the curtailment of the debate by the Closure they were to go away from this point now and have no opportunity hereafter of discussing the relative merits of the two clauses which contained the most vital principles of the Bill. He would like the Chairman to state where an opportunity could be given to the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement.
§ MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)
also urged the necessity of preserving an opportunity for discussing a proposal which was put on the paper in pursuance of a pledge given by the Minister for Education to bridge over a gap which he acknowledged to exist in the provisions of the Bill. The present course would render it almost impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to redeem his pledge, because they could not suppose that this clause had been brought forward as a sham.
§ THE CHAIRMAN
said he had not yet considered the Amendments sufficiently to say if there would be a convenient point at which to take the discussion asked for, and it was difficult to say how far a discussion on something not before the Committee could be allowed on some of the Amendments proposed on the clause. He thought the Committee should now allow this Amendment to be withdrawn.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. ASHLEY
moved an Amendment to provide that the Charity Commissioners should decide whether the object of a trust was solely educational.
In page 5, line 6, after the word ' trusts,' insert the words 'and the Charity Commissioners are satisfied that the object of the trust is solely educational.'"—(Mr. Ashley.)
§ Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. BIRRELL
said the point really was this. The hon. Member had spoken of the application being to the Board of Education, whereas it was to the Commission of three. Although, of course, he quite agreed that the Charity Commissioners had by virtue of Act of Parliament the power to determine whether or not a charitable trust was wholly or partially educational, the real reason why the Government established this Commission was that there were a number of questions they might have to determine. Were they to go to the Charity Commission they would have to reconstitute it by appointing temporary members. These applications might be very numerous, and the Commission was established in order that they might deal with them rapidlyde die in diem.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered how far the power given to the Commission to determine whether or not a charity was educational, conflicted with the Board of Education Act, which gave to the Charity Commissioners the power to determine that question.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said his attention had been called to that, and he was informed that there was nothing inconsistent with that Act in the present proposal.
§ MR. DILLON
asked whether he was right when he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that this clause would have no application to schools owned without trusts, and schools the trusts of which were not; primarily educational. If that were so a vast body of schools would not come within the clause. Was it not necessary to insert words to make that clear?
§ MR. BIRRELL
thought he had already made that plain in his opening speech. It was very difficult in an Act of Parliament to use the language that could be used in a speech to distinguish between the different kinds of trusts. It was, ha thought, perfectly plain that the clause was only applicable by its language to those schools the trusts of which were of such a character that they could not properly be diverted from educational purposes. Where there was a private owner, he did not come under the principle of trusts; and where it was plain that a school could not be any longer carried on as a school solely belonging to a particular denomination, and might be turned into something else, that would not come within the scope of the clause. He would, however, consider the point of the hon. Gentleman, and if he could make the matter plainer he would do so. His only object was that it should be plain. It would be the task of the Commission, by applying the doctrine of cy pres, to ascertain whether a school could be carried on otherwise than by being transferred to the local education authority.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
, whilst acknowledging the lucidity of the speech of the President of the Board of Education, complained that there was a want of correspondence between the speech the right hon. Gentleman delivered the other day and his speeches on other portions of the Bill with the Bill itself. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at Clause 1 he would see that the observations of the 75 hon. Member for East Mayo were absolutely justified. The right hon. Gentleman had said in his speech, or certainly implied, that the Commission were only to deal with trusts which were primarily of an educational character. The word education, however, was not, he thought, mentioned in the first sub-section. The right hon. Gentleman did not, according to his speech, desire that the Commission of three should deal with loose trusts; but the first sub-section required the Commission to make schemes even for such trusts. It was plain that there was a divergence between the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and the wording of the clause. He would not say that the wording was obscure, but it was very wide. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at it he would see that, taking a concrete; case, if the managers or owners of a school with a loose trust refused to come to an arrangement with the local education authority, then the local authority were empowered by the Bill to bring the case of that school before the Commission. The three Commissioners were required to take a scheme " with respect to the mode in which effect is to be given to the trusts of the school house in the future." Therefore, so far from the action of the three Commissioners being confined and restricted under this clause, they were ordered and directed in every case where a general trust was brought before them to treat the trust and make a scheme for it. He accordingly hoped that the sub-section would be amended.
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,) Leeds, S.
did not think there was much foundation for the apprehension which had just been expressed. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London would look at sub-section (2) as well as sub-section (1) he would find it perfectly clear that all that was intended was to transfer a department of the administration of charitable trusts from the courts to the Commission. It was only in so far as an educational trust was a charitable trust that this section proposed to deal with it, and in order to be a charitable trust it must be one which cast a definite and precise obligation upon its trustees. If the trust came within the category of trusts in regard to education, 76 the obligation in regard to education must be clear and precise. The object of the clause was to prevent existing voluntary schools in such cases becoming derelict. Owing to our educational legislation, a number of those schools would be unable to discharge their duty unless they came in under the general scheme of education. Under the law as it stood it would be the duty of the Charity Commissioners, and in a humble capacity his duty as Attorney-General, to prepare a scheme providing for the administration of the property on lines approximating as nearly as modern conditions would allow to the obligations specified in the trust. The court would be invited to sanction the scheme. This clause proposed to take that jurisdiction from the courts and vest it in a special Commission. The reason for the change was that if the courts were left to administer these schemes they might, their hands being full of other work, be an indefinite time in getting through them. The Commission was constituted subject to a very precise injunction. It was not to apply a new theory of law, but was to be governed by the doctrines which the Court of Chancery was in the habit of applying. The new machinery, he thought, would be much more useful than the old machinery, and it would act quickly. It provided, he considered, a very desirable solution of the difficulty which it was intended to meet.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the learned Attorney-General had made an excellent Second Reading speech in defence of the clause, and he had nothing to say against the hon. and learned Gentleman's survey of the policy of the clause, but contended that he had misapprehended the point which had been raised. The President of the Board of Education had drawn a distinction between loose trusts and tight trusts. All he had asked was that the schools under the loose trusts—
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the subsection applied to every school under a charitable trust, and a loose trust was a charitable trust.
§ SIR JOHN WALTON
said as he understood a loose trust, it was not properly a trust at all. It was a trust that could not be administered on account of its vagueness. A loose trust where there were large discretionary powers which could not be precisely administered would not, he should think, come within the scope of the clause.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that in that case the speech of the President of the Board of Education, which seemed so lucid, became utterly meaningless. There seemed to be in substance no great difference of opinion on this subject. If words were introduced making it clear that the sub-section did not apply to loose trusts, he did not see why the discussion need be prolonged.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said the Minister for Education in his speech on the Second Heading made it clear, so far as he understood, that the Bill would not apply to the case in respect of which the Amendment was moved. He would remind the Attorney-General that they might have, not a loose trust, but a mixed trust—in one and the same deed a trust for educational purposes and a trust purely for recreation or amusements. This amendment was intended to meet such a case. That would not be a loose trust in any sense. A man might leave a block of buildings in Whiteacre —one-half of the buildings to be for the village school and the other half for a swimming bath or recreation hall. The use of the building might be absolutely indivisible. In introducing this Bill on April 9th, the Minister for Education said that, in the case of schools privately owned and those held in perpetuity partly for a non-educational use, the owners would, of course, be free agents altogether. Then what answer was there to this Amendment? The Amendment proposed that in regard to those mixed trusts the owner should be a free agent. The three Commissioners were to act as a sort of chapel of ease to the Court of 78 Chancery, and act on the same principles as the Court of Chancery would. But as the clause was drawn it might be the instrument of great injustice. Who was to bear all the expense? Would the Commissioners: sit in London? If so, witnesses with regard to property in Northumberland would have to be brought to London and kept here at the expense of the owners. If this court was to be a perambulating one, then the owner would have to bear the expense of taking eminent counsel down to Northumberland. There was a grievance either way. The education authority would be upon velvet, because they would have the rates to draw upon. There ought to be some provision in the j clause for the enormous costs of these proceedings; there was none. This clause, which was to bring about the most tremendous changes in our judicature, was as absolutely barren of canvas as the mast of a ship. The Court of Chancery never could act, and never had acted, upon the principles here laid down. It would lead the county councils into a further dance with the money of the ratepayers.
MR. ASTBUKY (Lancashire, Southport)
said he had listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth with the greatest amazement. The most dangerous thing they could do in an Act of Parliament was to try to limit in words the particular scope of the object they had in view, provided they could make that object clear without a verbal definition. The clause made it perfectly clear that trusts which were not primarily educational could not be interfered with. The Commission could not act except in the case of the school-house of an existing voluntary school, which was subject to charitable trusts. The local education authority therefore could not act except in regard to an existing voluntary school which was the subject of a voluntary trust. It was suggested that there were existing voluntary schools subject to charitable trusts which might be called loose trusts, but before the local education authority could deal with such trusts they must relate to existing voluntary schools, subject to such charitable trusts. Then the clause stated that when no 79 arrangement had been come to in 1907 the local education authority might apply to the Commission to give effect to these trusts in accordance with the principles followed by the Chancery Courts. If there was one thing more clear than another it was that the Court of Chancery would deal with the actual nature and character of the trust. Unless it was a defined trust the court could not deal with it. If it were a loose trust, in the sense suggested without this clause at all, if the Attorney-General were to apply for a scheme in regard to the school, it was perfectly obvious that the court could make no scheme at all. But the words of this clause were much more limited than hon. Members supposed. If hon. Members would look at sub-section (2), (b), they would see it was provided that the Commission, if they were of opinion that the use of the schoolhouse for the purpose of a public elementary school by the local education authority in accordance with this Act was the best mode of giving effect to that trust, might by the scheme make provision for the purpose, subject to certain conditions. He could not conceive how they could have anything plainer. If they had a school subject to trusts and in which there was difficulty as to the arrangements to be made between the trustees and the local authority, it was obviously for the benefit of those schools that they should have the rate aid. If that was to be secured in the absence of agreements it could only be secured under such a scheme as this by an application to an existing or newly-constituted court. It carried out the doctrine ofcypres. This explanation would, he hoped, do away with any difficulty or haziness which might be in the minds of hon. Members as to what kind of trusts could be dealt with. They could only be trusts for carrying on a school which was a public elementary school. Allusion had been made to mixed trusts. He did not know himself any voluntary schools which were subject to mixed trusts, but if the two branches of mixed trusts were inseparable then it was perfectly clear from this clause that they could not be dealt with. [An HON. MEMBER: Then why not accept the Amendment.] He thought the Amendment would limit the beneficial effect which hon. Members opposite 80 and the Government wished to derive from this clause. The real object of the clause was this. In the case of a school subject to such a charitable trust, it could not be diverted to any purpose other than education. If that school was not taken over by the local authority what was to happen to it? They did not want the school to be lost, and unless it was taken over and worked as a public elementary school it would be lost, in the sense that it would get no Government or rate aid at all, and the whole object of the clause was that where they found schools subject to a trust of that kind a scheme could be made which would enable them to get Government and rate assistance in order that they might continue educational work in the future. If it were not for this clause what would happen? These schools would not be able, in consequence of their trust deeds, to be worked in the absence of agreements by the local authority. There was no trust deed in the country which enabled a school to be continued by a public authority without such a clause as this. If the Bill were passed without such a deed, and if it were not a wide clause, there would be a number of schools which could not give public elementary education under Clause 1, or be public elementary schools at all under the circumstances contemplated. In those cases the Attorney-General would be compelled to go to the Court of Chancery, and the school would be wound up or sold, and the proceeds applied for educational purposes under the doctrine of cypres. Another point made was that these charitable schools would be subjected to very great expense under this scheme, but it seemed to him that very great expense would be saved to them. All these schools must go somewhere to obtain a scheme. The Court of Chancery had jurisdiction over them, and they would have just as much expense and trouble, if not more, in arguing their case before that tribunal as they would have in doing so before this Commission. The Commission would not sit in inconvenient places or at inconvenient times, and it would save a great many of the trusts from extinction.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)
could not help thinking that 81 they wanted some sort of words such as those contained in the Amendment. He had listened to the speeches of the Minister for Education and of the Attorney-General, and he quite admitted that the intentions of the Minister for Education were excellent, but his speech did not correspond with the clause. The right hon. Gentleman said that but for this provision these schools might be left derelict, but there was nothing in the clause to prevent their being left in that position if the local authority wished. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that there was no difficulty in the definition of charitable trusts. But what about the loose trusts, to which allusion had been made? A loose trust, they were told by the Attorney-General, was no trust at all. The Minister for Education said that it was a trust, but it was not one which was primarily or necessarily educational. He took it that a loose trust was a mixed trust, and it would be necessary for this Commission to define it, unless there were words in the Bill to prevent them. It was difficult to say what was an educational trust and what was not. If the Commission once started out to define what was an educational trust they must invade the province of the Charity Commissioners as denned in this Act of 1899. But apart from the question of mixed or loose trusts, what he wished to ascertain was what security they had that particular trusts would not be broken. The local authority alone had access to the Commission, and the agreement was to be one on the part of the local authority. The trustees might not be a party to the agreement arrived at. The term "a bilateral agreement" had been used, but he thought it was wrongly used, because one party only was agreeing and the other party had no voice in it. These were points which he thought ought to be cleared up. He thought they did need some definition of the expression "charitable trusts," and some clear indication of what were to be the duties of the Commission in respect to trusts which were loosely defined. He did not mean trusts partly educational and partly not, but trusts for giving education in connection with religious instruction of some special character. 82 That was a point which would recur again and again in the course of the clause, and which he thought ought to be disposed of. He entirely agreed that the Commission was composed of gentlemen in whom all on the Opposition side of the House had confidence, but they did wish to have their powers defined, because they would have to deal with an enormous number of schools in the country, and it was desirable that they should feel that security was obtained for them.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said he would gladly insert a definition of charitable trusts in the Bill if he honestly thought there was any good purpose to be served by doing so. But a definition always had a very limiting effect. He remembered Cardinal Newman saying that the definition of Papal infallibility had the effect of restricting its effect in people's minds rather than of extending it. Who w is to say, having regard to the hundreds of varieties of verbal expressions in trust deeds, what was a loose and what was a tight trust? He could not undertake to give any definition in a matter of that kind which would prove satisfactory. He knew, of course, that there were certain trusts that were so obviously loose that if it was found the school could no longer be carried on as a denominational school it would be within the power of the trustees to say that it could no longer be continued as an educational trust, but they would exercise the alternative trust. They were empowered to say that one set of provisions authorised them to carry on a school and another set of provisions authorised them to do something else. That was a kind of tract over which this provision could have no kind of effect, and the words upon which hon. Members could rely in such cases, and upon which he also relied would be found in sub-section (b). The words referred to an educational trust and if the local education authority were so ill-advised as to bring " a loose trust " before the Commissioners, they would suffer for it in not being able to get the use of the school. All that they were seeking to acquire was the continued use of particular premises for a particular purpose—namely, for the use of elementary 83 schools; and if the " mixed trusts " did not interfere with that object when the schools received State and rate aid, he thought that they were unlikely to interfere in the future. The Government were seeking to perpetuate the educational succession of these schools, and to enable them to go on as public elementary schools under the same conditions as before. All that the Commissioners would do would be to see whether or not the public elementary educational work was to continue in the school under the ægis of the local education authority; and this would depend on the nature of the trust. This subject had received very careful consideration.
§ MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)
said he quite admitted that the introduction of very precise words in an Act of Parliament often led to a result quite different from that desired, but the desire of the Opposition for precision on this point was a very natural one. Earlier in the afternoon they were creating under the clause an elaborate compulsory tribunal to come into operation where negotiations had been carried on and had not been concluded. That was what they thought, and the words that had been complained of were simply used because of the belief that where the owners of the school had found it impossible to come to an arrangement this tribunal came in and acted as an umpire against whose decision there was no appeal. The speeches of the Government and their supporters had left the Committee in great doubt, not only as to the effect, but as to the object, of the clause. The right hon. Gentleman would have made the purpose of the clause clear if he had touched on Clause 2, sub-section (2) which gave the trustees all the powers, protections, and advantages which the Committee had been told were to be found in this clause. What became of any protection given by Clause 3 unless the Committee made it precise by the introduction of this Amendment? The cumulative effect of Clause 1 and subsequent provisions had really deprived owners and trustees of these schools of any advantages of any sort or kind. What became of the school belonging to private owners or of schools under " loose trusts? " Were they to be frozen out?
§ MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)
said that as far as the Wesley an schools were concerned there was some anxiety to know how the clause would operate. At the same time, however, they had no reason to fear its operation. The suggestion in the Amendment that the Charity Commissioners should be called in-into action before the local authorities acted in order to decide whether a trust was wholly educational would, in the opinion of the Weslevan Education Committee, cause unnecessary delay and expense. In the opinion of the Wesleyan Committee it would be quite satisfactory, in connexion with many hundreds of their schools, leave to the Commission the duty of stating whether the trusts were educational or otherwise. The Minister for Education had just stated that, if those trusts were not distinctly educational trusts, it would not be within the purview of the Commission to deal in any way whatever with the revenues of such charitable endowments. In other words, the Commission would have no jurisdiction. But what they were really concerned to know was what was going to happen with reference to some of their schools as to which it was difficult to say whether they were, or were not, educational trusts, and whether the schoolhouses did even come within the operation of the clause. In connection with their places of worship they had in many cases buildings on adjacent sites, costing in many cases £5,000 or £10,000; buildings which were erected partly for purposes of secular education but which were largely used for the purposes of Sunday schools as well as day schools. He presumed that under the clause it would be open to the local education authority to pick and choose between the denominational schools. The Weslevan Education Committee did not object to that; but then came the question, what was to happen to the school that was left. As far as he understood it, it was open to the local education authority, not having taken the school, to say they would take the trustees of that voluntary school before the Commission, that they were of opinion that something might be gained for the locality from the educational standpoint by compelling the Commission to settle what was 85 to be the future application of the educational endowments of that particular school. It was important to the Wesleyan Education Committee to know whether he had rightly interpreted that clause. He wanted the Minister for Education to answer, if he would, these two questions:—(1) Whether the local education authority had power to summon the trustees of a Wesleyan school, or a Wesleyan building which was supposed to be impressed with an educational trust, before the new tribunal to settle what was to be the future application of any educational endowments connected with that school, even though the school building was a part of a Wesleyan Methodist church property and enterprise; and (2) supposing the Wesleyan Church decided to run one of its voluntary schools in future as a private venture school, as a State-aided or some other type of school, would the conditions under which that school would be run in future come in any way whatever, on the application of any educational endowment appertaining to that school, under the jurisdiction of the new tribunal?
§ MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)
asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not put an end to the matter by inserting, after the words " charitable trusts," the words " for educational purposes." That would put into the Bill words which the right hon. Gentleman had used in the debate. There were many cases of buildings held upon charitable trusts not being educational trusts, out which were in fact used for educational purposes. In cases of that kind the point was, was the Commission to have jurisdiction or not?
§ MR. CAVE
said he quite understood that that was the right hon. Gentleman's view, but he wanted to have it made perfectly clear in the Bill itself, so that it should not be in the power of the local authority to hale before the Commission, whether they would or would not, those schools which, in the words of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the First Reading,admit of a non-educational use.
§ MR. DILLON
expressed the opinion that, if the clause were brought into harmony with the speech of the Minister for Education, it would relieve a good deal of anxiety. He was concerned with loose trusts, which largely prevailed no matter what the Court of Chancery might think on the matter—trusts which, primarily educational, gave to the trustees full discretion to use the schools for other purposes. Let them take the case of a trust of a Catholic school where the deed said that the building was to be used for the purposes of a Catholic school or any other religious purpose. If that was not an educational trust, what would it be? He would like to be assured by some clearer words that a school could not be captured as an educational trust notwithstanding the fact that there was an alternative. The speech of the Minister for Education would come as a surprise to many people in the country.
§ MR. BIRRELL
I thought I had made it perfectly plain that, under the scope of this clause, only those schools could be compelled to permit the use of their premises for the purposes of a public elementary school when it was quite plain that that was the only way in which they could discharge their trust.
§ MR. DILLON
said that, unfortunately, many of them had come to regard the right hon. Gentleman's speeches as one thing and the clauses as another. Unless there was some more clear language used it was not unnatural that there should be a good deal of nervousness and anxiety about this clause. He had studied it very carefully and it appeared to give them no protection. Where there was an alternative discretion these Commissioners might not consider the use of the building as a primary school as the best mode provided for under sub-section (b) and hand over the school for that purpose even if the trustees objected. He thought the case which had been made out was unanswerable. He was inclined to think that the best means of meeting this difficulty was by a proviso. Surely the Minister for Education did not argue that because it was difficult to find words to limit the discretion of the Commissioners they must never attempt to do so.
MR. HERBERT (Buckinghamshire, Wycombe)
thought it might be taken as an indisputable proposition that the Commissioners would not interfere with any trustees or any trusts which could be properly carried out. Let them take the case put forward by the hon. Member for East Mayo where trustees held a building upon a trust for Catholic educational purposes or to sell it or use the building for any other purpose. That was a trust which the trustees could carry out without applying it to educational purposes, and in that case no order could be made requiring the trustees to apply it for educational purposes, because they would be met by the trustees saying that their trust gave them a complete discretion to apply the building either to educational or to other purposes. The Commissioners would have jurisdiction only in eases where the property was held upon trusts which obliged the trustees to apply it, to some extent, to educational purposes. The object, of this clause was to meet the case which arose owing to the passing of Section 1, which said to trustees holding premises upon trust: " We will not give you any money unless you come under public control." The result would be that a large number of schools under educational trusts would not be able to be carried on by the trustees for educational purposes at all, and the object of the Bill was not to interfere with trusts, but to enable trustees to carry out their trusts. In the case of an educational trust, the object of those interested would be that the trust should be carried out in the most beneficial manner. The position which had to be met was this. Supposing this clause was not passed, and it was left, to the ordinary law, and Clause 1 came into operation, no further public money would be given to those schools held upon trust and they could not be carried on. Consequently the local authority would have to make provision by building new schools for the children in that particular district, with the result that a large amount of public money would be spent in building new schools to accommodate the children now attending the trust schools who would have to come out 88 of them as soon as Clause 1 came into operation. The trustees would then be holding schools upon trusts which they could not carry out and the Charity Commissioners would come down upon them and they would have to form some scheme for carrying out those trusts. Of course they could not do it so beneficially if the educational part of their trust had been fulfilled by the expenditure of public money in building new schools. The result would be that in a large number of instances the schools which could have been transferred most beneficially could not be transferred at all for that purpose, and they would have to be dealt with in some other manner not so beneficial. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford seemed to think that these three Commissioners would make orders behind the backs of the trustees. He would remind the hon. Member that the three Commissioners would be acting in a judicial capacity, and it was inconceivable that they would make any order in respect of any schools or trusts without giving full opportunities to the trustees to be heard. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover had spoken very disrespectfully of subsection (a.). He wished to point out that that sub-section was a necessary part of the machinery for dealing with the matter according to the scheme of the Bill. The object of the Commission was not to let schools become derelict and allow them to be dealt with before the appointed day arrived, so that they might know whether to build new schools or take over the old schools. If the trustees said they intended to carry on the school that would be a complete answer to the jurisdiction of the Commissioners. But the Commissioners would have to be satisfied that the trustees bona fide intended and were able to fulfil their trusts by continuing the school, and were nut merely attempting to make the Act unworkable. The question whether the trustees bona fideintended to fullil the trusts would often be a very difficult one, and might give rise to expensive litigation unless there were some definite rule laid down to guide the Commissioners. 89 in determining the matter. The object of sub-section (1) was to guide the Commissioners and to tell them that they were not to treat a declaration that they were going to carry on the school asbona fideunless they were able to show a good and sufficient guarantee that the school would be effectively continued for, at least, five years. That was a matter of machinery enacted merely in the interests of economy and to save the enormous litigation which might arise over that question. With regard to the stricture passed by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, of course the Commissioners would act in accordance with the rules which were usual in the Court of Chancery, and they would have something corresponding to the preliminary investigation in Chambers. They would not bring down expensive counsel to deal with the matter until they had had a preliminary inquiry and determined whether any important and difficult questions arose.
said he had not the precise provision in his mind, but he had no doubt it was provided for. He was sure they need not trouble themselves about that, for the money would be provided to enable the procedure to be properly carried out. The Amendment, as he understood it, would provide for an appeal to two public bodies instead of one—first to the Charity Commissioners to determine whether the object of a trust was educational; and then, if they determined that it was, there would be a second appeal to the three Commissioners. It appeared to him that the Amendment would double the expense and double the delay in applications for schemes.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)
said the hon. Member who had just spoken, and also the hon. Member for 90 Southport, appeared to have forgotten altogether sub-section (2) of Clause 2, which provided that the trustees under any trust deed had full power to transfer their school to the local education authority, apart from any question as to the application, to be made to the Commissioners for a scheme under Clause 8. Therefore Clause 8 did not come upon the scene at all until the trustees had been unable or unwilling to come to an arrangement with the local education authority. Clause 8 provided that the local education authority—May, if no arrangement has been made with respect to the schoolhouse under this Act, at any time after the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and seven, apply to the Commission appointed under this Act to make a scheme with respect to the mode in which effect is to be given to the trusts of the school-house in future.The hon. Member for North Louth had asked a question which he ventured to answer at once in the affirmative. If the trustees held a school on what was called a loose trust—he adopted that word as meaning a trust where the trustees had discretion, and could use it alternatively —they might use the schoolhouse either for the purpose of public elementary education, or if they thought fit, say in the case of the Wesleyans, as a place of worship or meeting house. That discretion was absolutely vested in them. The trustees could be taken by the local authority before the tribunal under Clause 8, and the tribunal could be asked to make a scheme with respect to the mode in which effect was to be given to the trust of the schoolhouse in future. [Cries of "No, No."] Hon. Members said " No, no," but the clause said so. When the trustees were brought before the tribunal the principles of the Court of Chancery were to be followed. The Minister for Education had stated that the new tribunal had power to interfere only in cases where that was the only mode of giving effect to the trust, but the right hon. Gentleman in his speeches from time to time had omitted to refer to the important provision in sub-section (b) of this clause that in making a scheme the Commission might make provision for the use of the schoolhouse for the purpose of a public elementary school if they were of opinion that that was " the best mode " of giving effect to the trust. That was a 91 discretion which the Commissioners would be bound to use instead of the trustees. In the ordinary case the trustees would have the discretion of using the schoolhouse as a place of meeting, and that was a matter for them to determine, but if the local education authority applied for a scheme it would be entirely for the Commissioners to determine " the best mode " of giving effect to the trust. It was perfectly clear that under the clause as it stood trustees who held a school on an alternative trust would, when taken before this tribunal, have their discretion taken away. In that way the clause would become a gigantic engine of oppression. If the local education authority were unable to get the terms they wanted out of the trustees they had this gigantic engine to bring them to reason from their point of view. Trustees who wished to keep their schoolhouse as a church instead of a school could be brought before the tribunal and have a scheme forced upon them. That would be a gross injustice to trustees of what he called alternative or discretionary trusts, who might not have gained the good graces of the local education authority.
§ LORD BALCARRES
said the hon. Member for the Louth division had stated that in his opinion the Charity Commissioners would be called in to settle the nature of the trust before the Commission under Clause 3 came into operation.
§ LORD BALCARRES
said that was a point on which he wished the opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary. The Minister for Education had stated that it was quite obvious that this clause was only to apply to educational trusts proper. Who was to settle the precise nature of those trusts? He understood the hon. Member for the Louth Division to say that there would be some antecedent body which would discriminate between the various trusts, and that when this stage was passed it would be obvious whether a school came under Clause 8 or not. Those who had studied the Return of non-provided schools in Kent knew that there was an 92 extraordinary variation in the schools in the different communities. From the admirably drawn up Memorandum by Mr. Selby Bigge which was prefixed to the Return it appeared that a large number of the trusts were of what might be called a " loose" character Who was to settle whether those trusts in Kent were or were not trusts which should be dealt with by the Commissioners? It had taken five or six months to produce this Return, and in view of that fact it was evident that it would take a long time to examine the 12,000 or 15,000 trusts throughout the country, in order to ascertain whether they would come under Clause 8. Be wished to know whether there was to be an antecedent stage before the trusts came before the Commissioners.
§ SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)
said he wished to put a concrete case. Supposing it had been decided that an existing voluntary school had an alternative trust—what was called a loose trust—could the trustees of that school be brought before the Commission at all? If they could, they were driven to sub-section (2) to see what would happen. The Commissioners had to proceed exactly as if they were the Court of Chancery. It was too absurd to tell the Committee that once the trustees had been brought before the Court of Chancery the only thing the Court could do was to dismiss the case altogether. If the proceeded according to the methods of the Court of Chancery, it would be open to the Commissioners to say " We have got the same powers as the Court of Chancery, and we are bound to act on the same principles; and looking all round we find that the best way is to utilise the trust for the benefit of the school." It was not a question for the discretion of the trustees, but it was for the Commission to determine how the trust was to be carried out. Was, then, the alternative trust to be within the jurisdiction of the Commission? When there was this divergence of opinion on the point, and seeing that this was a matter of large importance, he could not for the life of him understand why, instead of using the words " under charitable trusts," the Government, if they were perfectly clear as to what they meant, 93 should not put in the words, " to be settled in trust for educational purposes only."
§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,) South Shields
said that the right hon. Gentleman had put a concrete case which, it was claimed, would enable one to touch the difficulty and to solve it without trouble. The case was that of a trust which had an educational purpose and an alternative purpose; and the right hon. Gentleman had asked if such a trust was brought before the Commission what was the nature and extent of its powers as affecting the alternative trust. The answer was quite clear. The Commission was compelled to give effect to the procedure of the Court of Chancery. It was its duty to act according to the principles of the Court of Chancery. What were those principles? If anyone brought such a trust before the Court of Chancery, and if the trustees were willing to give effect to the alternative trust, it was their duty to do so. The Committee had been somewhat misled by the language used with regard to this Commission, as if it were a Commission with roving and unlimited powers. It had no such powers. It must act on the principles followed by the High Court of Chancery; and in the case of an alternative trust there could be no doubt about its action. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University asked why they should not add the expression " to be settled in trust for educational purposes only "after the words "held under charitable trusts." They were, however, here dealing only with the schoolhouses of the existing voluntary schools. What was an existing voluntary school? It was denned by this Bill as a public elementary school, so that they were dealing with a public elementary school under trust. He did not think it would add to the force of the clause if they spoke of a public elementary school being held only in trust for educational purposes. That followed obviously on the language of the clause. Reference had been made to tight and loose trusts; but there was no doubt whatever as to the kind of trust with which the Commission would have to deal, viz., trusts affecting public elementary schools. Private adventure 94 schools would not be affected at all. If the owners of any school chose to say, " We do not wish to transfer our school; we are going to carry it on as a certificated efficient school, and we shall give the proper guarantee to the Commissioners in that respect," they were entirely free to do so. This clause was only framed to deal with the difficulties of those schools the owners of which, could not carry them on as efficient schools. It referred to schools as to which there had been no agreement under Clause 2, and which found themselves in a difficulty because they were not self-supporting trusts, but were dependent upon the Parliamentary grants. That was the difficulty from which the Commission would help to relieve them. The Commission would really operate in the direction of benefiting those schools which one might call derelict. To limit the powers of the Commission by the use of the word "solely" would have a tendency to cut those schools out of the operation of the clause, which he thought was not exactly what hon. Members opposite wanted. To cut them out for Clause 2 by a failure to come to an agreement under that clause and from Clause 8 by inserting the word " solely " would put them in a financial difficulty of a very serious character.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY
made a suggestion which he thought would solve the difficulty, namely, after the words "educational authority" in line 6, to insert "with the consent of the Attorney-General." This Government would certainly be in office during the next five years, and surely there could be no objection to saying that the interpretation of this clause should be subject to the consent of the law officers of the Crown during that period. An hon. Gentleman below the gangway had said that it would be unfair to have any one before this tribunal, putting him to all the costs, unless there was something in the nature of a preliminary inquiry. Clause 9 provided for nothing of the sort and he thought the suggestion was a very proper one. There was another alternative, that the local education authority should make it a condition precedent that the costs of the inquiry should be paid by the trustees.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid.)
rose to a point of order and asked whether the remarks of the hon. Gentleman were relevant to the Amendment.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY
May I suggest, Sir, that my hon. and learned friend has points of order on the brain.
§ THE CHAIRMAN
said the hon. and learned Member's remarks were, as he understood it, by way of recommending an alternative to the Amendment before the Committee and bore on the question which would naturally and properly arise on the Question before the Committee.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said they all wished to find a solution of this question, and he hoped the Government would reconsider their decision.
§ SIR E. CARSON
said the Solicitor-General had admitted that where there was an alternative trust the trustees might be brought before the Commissioners. Before the trustees were brought before the Commissioners he thought there ought to be some preliminary step, perhaps the fiatof the Attorney-General, so that if it was not necessary that course should not be taken.
§ MR. ASHLEY
thought they all wished the same thing, viz., that the trustees should not be brought before the Commissioners unnecessarily. He hoped the Government would accept an Amendment standing lower down in the paper in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston to insert after the word " trusts" in line 6 the words " for educational purposes only." That would define the trusts, and if it were agreed to he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster)
said he desired to be quite clear as to the learned Solicitor-General's answer to the important question put by the hon. Member for Louth, and to inquire whether if the trustees of a school decided
§ to carry on their public elementary school as a certified school, and therefore free from control or interference by the local education authority, the passing of this clause would enable that use to be made of the trust money and the trust property. He put the concrete rase of a school which had been carried on for many years as a public elementary school under trusts for that purpose. With a view to the perpetual endowment of the school a scheme had been sealed by the Board of Education embodying certain conditions as to the governing body, management, and religious teaching, to which the scheme gave the sanction of the law. On the faith of that scheme having been sealed granting the specified conditions money had been handed over and property conveyed. If the trustees considered that the conditions thus sanctioned by the Board of Education could not be carried out by this Act, were they entitled to convert the school into a certified school and so leave it free from the operation of this clause, although it had up to now been carried on as a public elementary school?
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said if he correctly gathered the purport of the hon. Gentleman's question he had previously answered it. There was nothing to prevent owners of an efficient school from carrying on that school as a certified school, and there was nothing to prevent the Commission from framing a scheme for that purpose.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. ASHLEY
moved to insert in page 5, line 6, after the word " trusts," the words " for educational purposes only."
In page 5, line 6, after the word " trusts" to insert the words " for educational purposes only."—(Mr. Ashley.)
§ Question put, " That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 167; Noes, 306. (Division List No. 187.)101
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E)||Ambrose, Robert||Anstruther-Gray, Major|
|Acland-Hood.Rt. Hn.SirAlexF.||Anson, Sir William Reynell||Arkwright, John Stanhope|
|Arnold-Forster,Rt Hn.HughO.||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt. Hn.Sir H.||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Muntz, Sir Philip A.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Flynn, James Caristopher||Murphy, John|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Nicholson, Wm, G.(Petersfield|
|Balfour,Rt. Hn.A .J.(CityLond.)||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Nield, Herbert|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Gilhooly, James||Nolan, Joseph|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Ginnell. L.||O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary,Miil|
|Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)||Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.)||Halpin, J.||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hambro, Charles Eric||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hammond, John||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||O'Hare, Patrick|
|Blake, Edward||Harrison- Broadley, Col. H. B.||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Boland, John||Hay, Hon. Claude George||O'Kelly, James(Roseommon, N:|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Malley, William|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hazleton, Richard||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Healy, Timothy Michael||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Bull, Sir William James||Helmsley, Viscount||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hervey,W.F.(Bury.S.Edm'ds||Pease.Horbert Pike (Darlington|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Percy, Earl|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. .J. H. M.||Hill,Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hills, J. W.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hogan, Michael||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hornby, Sir William Henry||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Cave, George||Hounston, Robert Paterson||Reddy, M.|
|Cavendish,Rt.Hn. Victor C. W.||Hunt, Rowland||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Joyce, Michael||Redmond William (Clare)|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Kennaway.Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Roberts,S.(Sheffield (Ecclesall)|
|Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Chambelain.Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.||Kenyon-Slaney.Rt. Hn. Col.W.||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Coates,E.Feetham (Lewisham)||Kilbride, Denis||Salter, Arthur Clavel|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||King.SirHenry Seymour (Hull)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Smith.Abel H. (Hertford, East|
|Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham||Smith,F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)||Liddell, Henry||Starkey, John R.|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Crean, Eugene||Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Dublin,S.)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cullinan, J.||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Thomson, W Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Delany, William||Lundon, W.||Turnour, Viscount|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramaay(Galway)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon.Alfred||Valentia, Viscount|
|Dillon, John||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard|
|Dixon-Hartland, SirFred Dixon||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Dolan, Charles Joseph||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down.S.)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.|
|Donelan, Captain A.||MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Doughty, Sir George||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||M'Kean, John||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Duffy, William J.||M'Killop, W.||Wilson, A. Stanley (York,E.R.|
|Duncan,Robert (Lanark.Govan||Magnus, Sir Philip||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Young, Samuel|
|Faber Capt W V (Hants W.)||Mason, James F.(Windsor)||Younger, George|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Meagher, Michael|
|Fell, Arthur||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Mooney, J. J.||Ashley and Mr. Rawlinson.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Barnes, G. N.||Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)|
|Alden, Percy||Beale, W. P.||Brace, William|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Beauchamp, E.||Bramsdon, T. A.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne||Branch, James|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)||Brigg, John|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Bellairs, Carlyon||Bright, J. A.|
|Astbury, John Meir||Benn, Sir J. Williams(De vonp'rt||Brocklehurst, W. D.|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Bennett, E. N.||Brodie, H. C.|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford||Brooke, Stopford|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Gethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Brunner,J. F. L. (Lanes.,Leigh)|
|Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Billson, Alfred||Bryce, Rt.Hn. James (Aberdeen|
|Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Black,ArthurW.(Bedfordshire)||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn|
|Barnard, E. B.||Bolton,T.D. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Buckmaster, Stanley O.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hart-Davis, T.||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Burnyeat, J. D. W.||Harvey, A.G. C. (Rochdale)||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Harwood, George||Montagu, E. S.|
|Buxton,Rt. Hn. SydneyCharles||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Cairns, Thomas||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Cameron, Robert||Haworth, Arthur A.||Morley, Rt. Hon. John|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Morrell, Philip|
|Causton,Rt,Hn.RichardKnight||Hedges, A. Paget||Morse, L. L.|
|Cawley, Frederick||Helme, Norval Watson||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Chance, Frederick William||Henderson,J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)||Myer, Horatio|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Henry, Charles S.||Napier, T. B.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Higham, John Sharp||Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Hobart, Sir Robert||Norman, Henry|
|Clarke, C. Goddard||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Cleland, J. W.||Hodge, John||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Clough, W.||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Nuttall, Harry|
|Clynes, J. R.||Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.||O'Donncll, C. J. (Waiworth)|
|Coats, SirT.Glen (Renfrew, W.)||Horniman, Emslie John||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Partington, Oswald|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Hudson, Walter||Paul, Herbert|
|Collins,Sir W. J. (S.Pancras.W.||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Cooper, G. J.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)|
|Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,EGrinst'd||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Cory, Clifford John||Jackson, R. S.||Pearson,W. H. M. (Suffolk,Eye)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Jacoby, James Alfred||Philipps.Col. Ivor (S'thampton)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Jenkins, J.||Philipps,J. Wynford (Pembroke|
|Cremer, William Randal||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Philipps, (Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Crombie, John William||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Crossley, William J.||Jones, William(Carnarvonshire).||Pollard. Dr.|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Jowett, F. W.||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh. Cent.)|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Kearley, Hudson E.||Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.|
|Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Kekewich, Sir George||Radford, G. H.|
|Dickinson,W.H. (St.Pancras,N.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Laidlaw, Robert||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Dodd, W. H.||Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Duncan,C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lambert, George||Rees, J. D.|
|Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall||Lamont, Norman||Renton, Major Leslie|
|Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Lea, Hugh Cecil (St Pancras,E.)||Richardson, A.|
|Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Lever,A.Levy (Essex, Harwich||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Erskine David C.||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Essex, R. W.||Levy, Maurice||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Evans, Samuel T.||Lewis, John Herbert||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee|
|Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Lough, Thomas||Robertson, SirG. Scott (Bradf'rd|
|Fenwick, Charles||Lupton, Arnold||Robinson, S.|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Lutterell, Hugh Fownes||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Findlay, Alexander||Lyell, Charles Henry||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Lynch, H. B.||Rogers, K. E. .Newman|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Rowlands, J.|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Macdonald,J.M. (FalkirkB'ghs||Runciman, Walter|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Mackarncss, Frederic C.||Russell, T. W.|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Gardner, Col.Alan (Hereford.S.)||M'Arthur, William||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||M'Callum, John M.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John||M'Crae, George||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Glendinning, R. G.||M'Kenna, Reginald||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Glover, Thomas||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Sears, J. E.|
|Gooch, George Peabody||M'Micking, Major G.||Seddon, J.|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Maddison, Frederick||Seely, Major J. B.|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Mallet, Charles K.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Gulland, John W.||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Marks,G.Croydon(Launceston)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Marnham, F. J.||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Hall, Frederick||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Massie, J.||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Menzies, WTalter||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Micklem, Nathaniel||Snowden, P.|
|Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset,E||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Soares, Ernest J.||Tomkinson, James||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Spicer, Albert||Torrance, A. M.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)||Toulmin, George||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Steadman, W. C.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Verney, F. W.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||Vivian, Henry||Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthen|
|Strachey, Sir Edward||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)||Wiliamson, A.|
|Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Wallace, Robert||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Strauss, E. A, (Abingdon)||Walsh, Stephen||Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh.N.)|
|Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Walters, John Tudor||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Summerbell, T.||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)||Winfrey, R.|
|Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)||Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radclifle)||Wardle, George J.|
|Tennant,SirEdward (Salisbury)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||Watt, H. Anderson||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr||Weir, James Galloway||Pease.|
§ MR. CAVE
moved to insert in line 6, after the word " authority," the words, " or the owners of the schoolhouse." The effect of the Amendment, he said, would be to give power to the owners of the schoolhouse as well as to the local authority to apply to the Commission for a scheme affecting the schoolhouse. As the Bill stood at present if the negotiations for the transfer of the schoolhouse broke down, the local authority could appeal to the Commission for a scheme to compel the owners to transfer the school to themselves. But while the local authority might do that, the trustees or owners had no power under the Bill to make an application. The result would be that the owners would lose their school in any event; for if the local authority took it over they lost it, and if the local authority did not apply the owners would not be able to carry on the school, and in all probability the building erected for the purposes of a school and suitable for no other purpose would have to be sold for what it would fetch. If that was the alternative before the owners when they come to negotiate, what kind of negotiation would that be? Would not a contract entered into under such conditions be a one sided contract? He thought no one would say that it would be a fair contract. What he proposed was that the Commission should be open to the owners as well as to the local authority; that if the local authority wanted the school they should apply, and that if they did not and the owners thought the school was one that ought to be transferred they should be at liberty to apply. Of course, they would have 102 to satisfy the Commissioners that the school was one that should in the public interest be transferred. Hon. members opposite said they could not see why the application to the Commission was objected to, because it was really for the purpose of securing that the school should be carried on in accordance with the trusts. If hon. Gentlemen really wanted to assist them in carrying out their trusts, why not open the door to them in the way he proposed? It was said that for some purposes this Commission would be in the position of the Charity Commissioners under the Charitable Trusts Acts. But under those Acts application could be made either by the Attorney-General, by persons interested in the trust, or by the owners or trustees of the property in question; and where the total annual value of the trust property was over £50 it was expressly provided that no application could be made except at the instance of the owners. But he was not asking for that. He merely asked that the owners should not be cut out; that they should have power to go in on equal terms, and that the Commission should be an impartial judge between the parties instead of being an executioner, as at present proposed. He was sure that his Amendment would commend itself to many members in the Committee, as all he asked was for fair play and an open field for both parties. He begged to move.
In page 5, line 6, after the word " authority" to insert the words " or the owners of the schoolhouse."—(Mr. Cave.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be inserted."
§ MR. BIRRELL
said that though there might be a good deal to be said for the Amendment, it was absolutely impossible to make it fit in with this clause. In spite of all that had taken place hon. Members opposite did not seem to realise the particular kind of duty which it was sought to lay on these Commissioners. He had never said that they should settle the terms of the bargain between the parties except in a case where the local authority wanted the schoolhouse for the purposes of a public elementary school and the owners of the school would not let them have it. In that case the local authority would go to the Commissioners as lawyers and say, ''Here are the trusts of the school. Look into them and consider them and then answer this question. Is it not the duty of the trustees, having regard to the obligations of the trusts, either to keep this school in their possession as a certified efficient school or to transfer it to the local authority?" That was the sole duty which they sought to impose upon the Commissioners. They did not wish to make them the authority, and they would not be so good as the Board of Education to determine whether or not a local authority should take over a particular school the owners of which were desirous that it should be taken over. The whole object was that the Commission should deal with those who did not want to be taken over, and to find out whether they were entitled to persist in refusing to be taken over. The Amendment might be a very good argument in favour of his new clause, but it was inconsistent with the purposes of this clause. He did not think they could put upon the Commissioners he had named this new burden. [An HON. MEMBER: Will they not be paid?] Yes, but that did not meet his objection. The Prime Minister might have selected other persons, but the duties they had to perform were legal duties and they had to find people acquainted with the law of trust. They were men of legal mind and training and it might be taken that they would do perfect justice and interpret trusts in a proper spirit.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said the speech of the Minister for Education had thrown an entirely new light upon this clause. There was nothing in the clause to suggest that it would bring reluctant and recalcitrant trustees to justice. If a trust school was disregarded by the local authority where the trustees desired to be taken over and desired to have access to the Commission, he con-tended that they should have the opportunity of coming before this very competent court to decide upon what terms they were to be taken over. They were not asking for nearly so much as was to some extent conceded under Clause 2. There they asked that owners who had a school structurally efficient and satisfactory might be able to claim to have their school taken over. They were not now asking for that, but simply for access to a court to determine whether a scheme might not be framed for a school which the local authority had left derelict. The ratepayers might be put to the expense of building new schools which in point of expense and of character might be unsatisfactory to the inhabitants of the area who desired to maintain the voluntary schools. He asked the Minister for Education to look at this matter from the point of view he had put before the Committee. There were a number of trust schools anxious to be transferred; the local authorities might decline to make any arrangement which was satisfactory; and the result would follow that the schools would be left derelict and would be excluded from the operation of the clause. They were asking to come before the Commission to decide what terms would best carry out their trust and continue their career as public elementary schools. That was not much to ask for, and if the clause meant what the right hon. Gentleman said it meant let it be made clear. They were now told that under this clause they could only deal with trustees who had shown themselves negligent in the exercise of their trust and had given the local authority reason to say that they must come before the Commission to determine the terms on which the school might be taken over. He hoped the Government would either alter the words or accept the Amendment.
§ MAJOR SEELY
said they had been told that they could not discuss the new Clause 3 now and the right hon. Gentleman had also told them that they could not discuss bilateral compulsion. The Bill as it stood was not just. There were elaborate provisions in Clauses 3 and 4 for certain kinds of schools to be transferred if the trustees and the people desired it; and yet when all the conditions which the Committee wished to impose had been fulfilled, if the local authority happened to be intolerant they might allow the school to become derelict. On the other hand, the owners of the school were compelled under the Bill to surrender their property. Clearly that was unfair and could not be defended logically. The Minister for Education had fully admitted that the case was indefensible.
§ MAJOR SEELY
agreed that something had been clone to Clause 4. Compulsion where it was applied must necessarily apply to both parties. He could not understand why the Amendment had not been accepted. The only answer given was that it did not come in this part of the Bill. Upon a former occasion they made an appeal to the Minister for Education, and he very graciously agreed to do what they asked for, but now he told them that he would only be able to do it if somebody who was hostile to them would agree to something which probably they did not want.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said the Minister for Education had told them that this was a penal clause to punish persons who refused to accept the provisions in the earlier part of the Bill, and that he could not contemplate the idea of any person seeking to punish himself and applying this machinery of torture to his own person. That might seem a very good answer, but it was not sound. He would give as an illustration what hap- 106 pened under the Act of 1881. Mr Gladstone proposed to allow tenants to fix a fair rent; but it seemed to be an injustice, and then an option was also given to the landlord to fix a fair rent as well. The definition clause must be considered, because the extraordinary thing was that in regard to the expression " owners," it provided that " where a schoolhouse or any interest therein is vested in the official trustee, or where any difficulty arises as to who are the owners of the schoolhouse or any interest therein, any persons recognised, or appointed to act, as owners for the purpose of this part of this Act by the Board of Education shall for those purposes be deemed to be the owners." In other words, as in the case of the ladies before Solomon, a false mother might be; found as the owner of the property, because the true owners might, in protection of their interests, and in order to evade the legal process, throw every possible difficulty in the way. They might then suddenly find themselves ousted by a nominee of the Board of Education, and they were not even allowed to come in to defend their property or trust. It did seem to him that the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman was one that was well deserving of consideration. This was a question not of drafting, but of substance. It would be very easy to put in a catch clause at the end which would save the blushes of the draftsman. But he did say that to allow an owner, for years probably, to have this threat held over his head by people who did not ever mean to put it into effect would involve trouble and cost to the owner which he ought not to have to suffer.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
hoped the President of the Board of Education would resist the temptation to fall in with the appeal of his hon. and learned friend, who did not vote for the Second reading of the Bill. Those who voted for the Second Reading were in favour of this clause as it stood now, and, according to the Minister for Education, the Amendment proposed was entirely inconsistent with the clause. The principle of Clause 8 was that the local education authorities were not bound 107 to take over any school, and the Committee had already determined that question. This Amendment, however, attempted indirectly to put compulsion upon the local education authorities. So far as the mass of denominational schools were concerned, their case had been dealt with, and, as he thought, fairly satisfactorily to hon. Members opposite, by the Amendment of Clause 4. Whether that was so or not, it was quite clear that the essence of Clause 8 was that the local education authority were not bound to take over any school. The Commission to be set up was hardly the body to determine the question whether the school was structurally fit and whether, having regard to all the local circumstances, the school ought to be taken over. The Commission had to look into the law affecting the trusts of these particular buildings. He was glad his right hon. friend had spoken as he had done. Those who voted for the Second Reading of the Bill deserved to have their appeals attended to more than those who voted against the Second Reading. The only form of Clause 8 consistent with the Bill was the clause as it now stood, and therefore he submitted that the Committee should vote against the Amendment.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the doctrine of the hon. and learned Gentleman was surely a very novel one; it was that those who voted for the Second Reading voted for the Bill as brought in and printed, and that therefore they required special consideration if any alterations were to be made in the course of the discussion.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the only expositions of the principle of the Bill that the Committee could regard as authoritative were those of the Minister in charge of the Bill, and he ventured to say that the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman were not in favour of the principle of local option, which the hon. I and learned Gentleman over and over again had said was the one redeeming quality of the Bill. It was true that the Government had been rather frightened, 108 by such speeches as that which the Committee had just heard, into adopting a different attitude, but the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman were on record, and the time might come when they would have to draw them out in extenso. All he would say at this moment was that it would be entirely at variance with the traditions of the House, and render all discussions in Committee entirely nugatory if the Government refused to accept an Amendment simply because it was not, and indeed could not be, in the Bill as originally introduced. He would point out what appeared to be the gross injustice of the clause. To this transaction of converting a voluntary school into a provided school there were two parties— the local authority and the owners of the school. The Government were aware that, as far as the owners of the school were concerned, they might be inflicting a considerable hardship upon them by a compulsory transfer. Yet while they gave power to the local authority to compel schools to come in, they gave no corresponding power to the owners of the school. The position of the local authority was made easy; the position of the owners of the school was rendered difficult, and even intolerable. Why did the right hon. Gentleman prevent the Commission looking into any case which was brought before it by those responsible for a trust? Why was it that only those who wished to get hold of the school and not those who were responsible for the school were to have permission to go before this body? The local authority was free to reject every part of the scheme made before the tribunal to which they themselves had appealed, but the parties who were not allowed to appeal to the tribunal were bound by the scheme. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was really inconsistent either with his idea of justice or with the frame work of the Bill, to extend to the owners of the schools all the assistance which the new machinery gave to the local authority. It would be unfair to exclude one party from going before this tribunal if it desired to do so, and to make the decisions of the tribunal binding only upon that party. That was the fundamental injustice underlying Clause 8. He earnestly hoped in connection with not only this. 109 Amendment, but the whole scheme of the Bill, that the Government would consider how harsh was the treatment meted out to those schools, and that they would endeavour to remove the feeling of injustice and unmerited wrong which would result from this perfectly arbitrary treatment. The right hon. Gentleman must feel that there was a basis of justice in the demand put forward, and that he could remedy this gratuitous inequality without injuring his Bill. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would make the necessary alterations.
said the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman had some considerable attraction for him. He did desire that the owners of schoolhouses should be put in a position of equality with the local authority to enable them to make a fair bargain when it came to a bargain. While he was impressed with the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman in putting that point, it seemed to him that the answer of the President of the Board of Education was a substantial and practical one which they were bound on the Ministerial side of the House to accept. It had to be remembered that speaking as they ought to do for the public in this matter, they could not put on the local authority the obligation to take over a school which was not needed, even if it was structurally perfect. The Commission was not a proper body to inquire into the question whether a particular school was required, taking into account the circumstances of the district in which it was situated.
§ MR. DILLON
said the hon. and learned Member for the Wycombe division forgot that this was an alternative to Clause 3, and that if this was put in the Bill Clause 3 would be withdrawn. The Minister for Education was in an extraordinary and unparalleled position. He did not remember anything analagous in connection with any Bill he had heard discussed. The Committee did not know what the intentions of the Government were in regard to Clause 3. The case made out by the Leader of the Opposition against the present proposal was absolutely unanswerable. It was 110 proposed that the local education authority should be able to take the initiative and bring the trustees of a voluntary school before the Commission, and that they should not be bound to accept the scheme prepared by the Commission, or any provision in the scheme [An HON. MEMBER: No.] The power was contained in sub-section (b). The President of the Board of Education in adumbrating this clause laid down that it should be bilateral. It gave, however, to the local authority a right which was denied to the schools.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said that so far as the actual Amendment was concerned he did not think he could add anything to what he had already said. Clause 8 was quite consistent with the Bill as introduced. He had never for a moment overlooked the fact that there was this gap. The language which he used in introducing the Bill was—The second clause of the Bill proposes to authorise the local educational authorities, for the purpose of continuing any existing voluntary school as a provided school, to make, with the consent of the Board of Education, any arrangement they can or think fit, by agreement with the owners of the schoolhouse, for obtaining such use of it as is required for carrying on a public elementary school. That is to say, they may make such arrangements as they can by agreement with the owners of these buildings, or such of them as are fit for the purpose of carrying on within their walls, as heretofore, the business of a public elementary school.…"†Later on in the same speech he said that in those schools which had been acquired, special religious teaching of the kind stipulated for would be given if demanded by the parents. The Bill never contemplated imposing on any education authority the obligation to take any school. He had never contemplated perpetuating, nor that it was the duty of the Government to seek to perpetuate, the existing state of things. The Government never intended to proceed on any other basis than that the local education authority should have the option of determining which of the voluntary schools it wanted in order to carry out its obligation of providing for the school children in its area. He started, therefore, with that view. Then, it was, of course, pointed out that there was† See (4) Debates, clv., 1027.111 a gap. He had acknowledged that it was there, and he was asked what was the answer if the local education authorities chose to wage a vendetta warfare against all the voluntary schools in the country. There was no answer except that such a thing was particularly improbable, though the Bill did not impose any obligation on the education authority. Then there was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxford University, which sought to remove the gap by imposing an obligation on the education authority to take over in general terms any voluntary school that wished to be taken over, or, as the hon. Member said, wished to be confiscated. He said at once that it was impossible to come to any such agreement as that, but that, if they wanted to do business, he saw that there were advantages to be gained from the fact that, if all the schools were to be taken over, there must be a bilateral obligation. It would impose on the owners the obligation to part with their schools if the local education authority wished to have them, and it would get rid of all the questions that would be submitted to the Commission of three. If the trustees chose to say, " We do not worry about our trusts; we are prepared to hand over on terms," that would be a very useful thing, and get rid of the heavy work that would be imposed on the Commission. He could not impose his new clause on hon. Gentlemen opposite because it was not any clause in his Bill. It was an eirenicon, and it imposed on private owners an obligation he expressly excluded them from. There was only the compulsion of the law in certain tight educational trusts. The private owner and the trustee with an alternative trust were, so far as the Bill was concerned, free agents. They could snap their fingers at the local authority. The only person who could not say, " You shall not have the school " was the person whose trusts were of such a character that the principles of law or equity placed him under an obligation. He might be obliged to transfer. He could not impose his new clause on the Committee, but he certainly proposed it as a good settlement, and, as to the time for discussing it, it would be the first of the new clauses, and the 112 Committee would find, he thought, that there would be ample time for its consideration. He admitted the matter was in a tangle, and he thought that, if he had been a more experienced Parliamentarian, he would have b en content to express his offer and to wait for hon. Gentlemen opposite to press it further. He had done the best he could for facilities under both Clause 3 and Clause 4, and he had no anxiety to avoid discussion on this new clause. It certainly would have a full opportunity of being discussed. What its fate would be he did not know, and consequently he was obliged to go on with Clause 8 as it stood, though he quite agreed that, if the new clause were adopted, Clause 8 would have to be considerably modified. He could only say he could not accept the Amendment under this clause. It would upset the whole scheme. It would impose on the Commission a kind of duties they were not qualified to perform, for they would have to collect information which the Board of Education had already got, and it would impose on them administrative work which they could not be asked to do.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said that, however much those on his side of the House might differ from the right hon. Gentleman, they recognised his candour and the charm of his language. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had not met the point. These local bodies were shifting and changing bodies. They were elected every three years, and, whatever plan in the nature of a counter proposal was made to the Commission, they might either refuse to accept the scheme or say, " We find the burdens on our taxpayers so great that we throw over the whole thing." Accordingly the supporters of the Amendment said, ''Permit the manager or trustee himself to set the education authority in motion. Let him be a plaintiff instead of a defendant, and say ' Either impose this trust as a matter of perpetual obligation on this body or let me be free for ever from it.'" Was that unfair? Was it not common justice? The right hon. Gentleman had said that they had no right to refer to Durham and no right to cast suspicion upon the local authorities, but when statements of that 113 character were made by great local authorities when the Bill was merely before the House of Commons, what would they do when it became an Act of Parliament? If they said these things in the green tree, what would they do in the dry? There was a spirit abroad among local education authorities which rendered defence absolutely necessary on the part of school managers and trustees. If this was to be a punitive clause, would any man come before the Commissioners, as an applicant, to apply for an order in regard to purchase unless he had no other resort? The provisions of the clause were calculated to drive a man into the fire and he thought they were entitled to have some reconsideration of the matter.
§ The schools ought to be given a final appeal on this question, and it should be made plain that once the local education authority set the ball rolling they had taken an inevitable step, and that if they started a scheme they must stick to it; if they had put the county to the expense of £3,000 or £4,000 they must bear that responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education had not met the argument which he had addressed to the Committee.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 109; Noes, 247. (Division List No. l88.)117
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Flynn, James Christopher||O' Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)|
|Ashley, W. W.||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gilhooly, James||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Balfour,RtHn.A.J. (City Lond.||Ginnell, L.||O'Hare, Patrick|
|Barnes, G. N.||Haddock, George R.||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.||Halpin, J.||O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N.|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hammond. John||O'Malley, William|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Blake, Edward||Hayden, John Patrick||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Boland, John||Healy, Timothy Michael||Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Percy, Earl|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hills, J. W.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Hogan, Michael||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Houston, Robert Paterson||Rawlinson, John Frederick P.|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Hunt, Rowland||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Jowett, F. W.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Joyce, Michael||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Cave, George||Kennaway.Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.A(Wore.||Kilbride, Denis||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)||King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)||Seely, Major J. B.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Lundon, W.||Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Smith,F. E. (Liverpool,Walton)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Sullivan, Donal|
|Crean, Eugene||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.||Talbot, Rt.Hn.J. G.(Oxf'dUniv.|
|Cullinan, J.||MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)||Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Delany, William||M'Killop, W.||Turnour, Viscount|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||Magnus, Sir Philip||White, Patrick (Meath. North)|
|Dillon, John||Meagher, Michael||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Dolan, Charles Joseph||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Mooney, J. J.||Young, Samuel|
|Doughty, Sir George||Muntz, Sir Philip A.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Murphy, John||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir|
|Duffy, William J.||Nield, Herbert||Alexander Acland-Hood and|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Nolan, Joseph||Viscount Valentia.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary,Mid|
|Alden, Percy||Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Barlow, Jn. Emmott (Somerset|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.||Barlow, Percy (Bedford)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Barnard, E. B.|
|Astbury, John Meir||Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight||Beauchamp, E.|
|Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Morse, L. L.|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.||Gulland, John W.||Murray, James|
|Benn, Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt||Gurdon, Sir W Brampton||Myer, Horatio|
|Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.||Hall, Frederick||Napier, T. B.|
|Bennett, E. N.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster|
|Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford||Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Billson, Alfred||Hart-Davies, T.||Nuttall, Harry|
|Birrell, Rt Hon. Augustine||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)|
|Black,ArthurW.(Bedfordshire)||Harwood, George||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Bolton,T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.)||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)|
|Brace, William||Haworth, Arthur A.||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye).|
|Branch, James||Hedges, A. Paget||Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton)|
|Brigg, John||Helme, Norval Watson||Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke|
|Bright, J. A.||Henderson,J.M. (Aberdeen.W.)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Brodie, H. C.||Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)||Price, C.E. (Edinburgh.Central)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.|
|Brunner,J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Higham, John Sharp||Radford, G. H.|
|Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Hodge, John||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Rees, J. D.|
|Burnyeat, J. D. W.||Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset,N.||Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Horniman, Emslie John||Richardson. A.|
|Buxton,Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas||Hudson, Walter||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Byles, William Pollard||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Cairns, Thomas||Illingworth, Percy H.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Jackson, R. S.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight||Jenkins, J.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Cawley, Frederick||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd|
|Charnning, Francis Allston||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Robinson. S.|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Jones,SirD.Brynmor (Swansea)||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Clarke, C. Goddard||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Cleland, J. W.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Clough, W.||Kekewich, Sir George||Runciman, Walter|
|Clynes, J. R.||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Rutherford. V. H. (Brentford)|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland).|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Laidlaw, Robert||Samuel. S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Schwann. C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E Grinst'd||Lambert, George||Schwann, Sir.C. E. (Manchester)|
|Cory, Clifford John||Lamont, Norman||Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. F.||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Sears, J. E.|
|Cowan, W. H.||Lea,HughCecil(St.Pancras, E.)||Seddon, J.|
|Crombie, John William||Lever, A. Levy(Essex,Harwich||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)||Shipman. Dr. John G.|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Levy, Maurice||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Lewis, John Herbert||Snowden, P.|
|Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles||Lough, Thomas||Spicer, Albert|
|Dodd, W. H.||Lupton, Arnold||Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Steadman, W. C.|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Essex, R. W.||M'Callum, John M.||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Evans, Samuel T.||M'Crae, George||Summerbell, T.|
|Everett, R. Lacey||M'Kenna, Reginald||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Faber, G. H. (Boston)||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Taylor. Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Fenwick, Charles||M'Micking, Major G.||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Maddison, Frederick||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Findlay, Alexander||Mallet, Charles E.||Thompson,J. W.H.(Somerset,E .|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Tillett. Louis John|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)||Torrance. A. M.|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Marnham, F. J.||Toulmin, George|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Massie, J.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Gill, A. H.||Micklem, Nathaniel||Verney, F. W.|
|Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John||Molteno, Percy Alport||Vivian, Henry|
|Glendinning, R.G.||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Glover, Thomas||Montgomery, H. H.||Walsh, Stephen|
|Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer||Winfrey, W.|
|Wardle, George J,||Wiles, Thomas||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Watt, H Anderson||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Wedgwood, Josiah C.||Wills, Arthur Walters||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Weir, James Galloway||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)||Pease.|
|Whitebead, Rowland||Wilson.J.W. (Worcestersh., N.)|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
moved to substitute January 1st, 1908, for January 1st, 1907, as the date after which applications to the Commission might be made by the local authority, in the absence of arrangement, to make a scheme in regard to an existing voluntary school held under a charitable trust. When they discussed Clause 1 the President of the Board of Education held out some hope that he might, as the Bill went through Committee, reconsider the dates which were fixed in it, and he ventured to think that, having regard to the late period of the year and the arrangements of the Government for an Autumn session, there was no great probability of arrangements being made between the trustees and the local authority, before the 1st of January, 1907. If no such arrangements were made, the trustees might under the Bill at once be brought before this Commission, and he thought the Minister for Education would see that it was fair to allow a certain interval to elapse during which the parties to these complicated transactions for the transfer of elementary schools should discuss and consider the arrangements to be made. He thought that everybody would feel that they should have an opportunity of coming to a fair arrangement satisfactory to both parties. If the Bill was to come into operation at all, he, for one, would wish that it should be worked with the utmost good will on all sides, but he did not think that that would be the case if only a month or six weeks elapsed between the time when the Bill became law and the time when the parties to these difficult transactions were brought before the statutory Commission. Therefore he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to extend the dates in the Bill not only at this part of it, but elsewhere, so as to allow a year to elapse before the trustees could be treated in 118 the way which the Bill contemplated and be brought struggling and reluctant before the Commission. He thought a year should be allowed to elapse, for the purpose of giving the trustees an opportunity of considering the new condition of things to be brought about by the Bill. If the additional time was accorded, he hoped that in the course of the year it might be possible for some friendly arrangement to be made and further friction in regard to these schools avoided. Under the construction put upon the clause by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education, it was only to operate where the trustees were found wanting in the exercise of their proper duties towards their trust, and if they declined to carry on their schools under arrangement with a local authority, they were to be brought before these three distinguished gentlemen who would settle the terms of the transfer. Before this took place, however, he thought some time should be allowed to elapse, and it was in his view somewhat farcical, having regard to the; lapse of time which must take place before the Bill became law, to bring it into force at so early a period. Although when they first asked for an extension of time in May it was considered unreasonable, what was unreasonable then might be considered reasonable now in July. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take that view and allow this extension.
In page 5, line 9, to leave out the word ' seven ' and to insert the word ' eight.' "—(Sir William Anson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word ' seven' stand part of the clause."
§ MR. BIRRELL
said he did not think any useful purpose would be served by putting this matter off for a whole year. He thought the provision might be 119 trusted to inflict no injustice on any man. On the other hand, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked the fact that already the owners of these schools, by access to the public Press and taking some interest in what was going on, had in all probability acquainted themselves with the nature of their trusts and already knew what their legal rights were. He thought it would be a pity that a whole year should be wasted when many of the owners were perfectly ready to submit their case as to whether they were so restricted by their trusts as to be obliged to accept the proposals of the local authority.
§ MR. RAWLINSON
joined in the appeal that had been made by his hon. friend. He pointed out that the right, hon. Gentleman had apparently lost sight of one fact in his courteous reply He had said that these trustees were prepared to submit their case, but they had no power to do so. They had no power to apply at all. It was the local authority only who could invoke this tribunal. Therefore it was not a question of the willingness of the trustees, but of the willingness of the local authority to invoke the aid of the Commission. And their willingness would not come into question until sufficient breathing time had been allowed for a negotiation with the trustees and for the negotiation to fail. It was not probable that this Bill would pass into law until December. If it was passed in December and the tribunal commenced its work on January 1st,no breathing time would be left at all An unreasonable authority could rush these matters before the Commission at once. If there were first to be negotiations between the local authority and the trustees the Commission should not come into existence or be called into requisition before a reasonable time had been allowed for a settlement to be arrived at between the parties. Then why should they go to the trouble and expense of appointing a Commission which was to come into existence on January 1st? He submitted that they had a perfectly good case for asking for further time and for asking the Government not to allow this Commission to come into being until at least a year later, so that the parties might be able to exhaust all methods of 120 arriving at a compromise before they were rushed before this tribunal.
§ MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)
said that if the Bill did not become law before the 31st of December it would not become law this session. But if it became law he did not think the question of expense was worth considering, having regard to the other issues involved. He could not conceive that the Commission would allow itself to be hurried into action until reasonable time had been allowed for negotiation, and therefore he was of opinion that the Government's proposition was preferable to that of the hon. Baronet.
§ MR. BRIDGEMAN (Shropshire, Oswestry)
said that if the Government seriously desired to have as many schools as possible coming to terms with the local education authority, without having recourse to the Commission, they were in his opinion taking a very unwise course in refusing to extend the time mentioned in the section. He thought at one time the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to extend the time, if not for a year, at least for six months. He believed there should be an extension of time for the reason that the trustees might feel from reading the words of this section that the local education authority could take them at once before the Commission. If they felt that, they might think it would be impossible for them to come to an agreement with the local authority for want of available time to consider the question, and they would therefore dismiss any idea of attempting to come to an arrangement. If it was the wish of the Government that the voluntary schools should come to an arrangement voluntarily, the right hon. Gentleman must admit that the longer the time that was given to consider the question the less chance there would be of any friction.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said the great bulk of the voluntary schools in this country were held on trust, and he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman desired voluntary arrangements to be made it was essential that some time should be given. If this Bill became law in December and this section came into force on January 1st what chance 121 was there of making any arrangement? The Bill changed before their eyes every day. Even now there was a new clause which they might not have an opportunity to discuss. As the Bill contemplated the possibility of arrangements being come to, it would be most unreasonable to put such arrangements out of the question by bringing these compulsory powers into existence so quickly.
§ SIR FRANCIS POWELL
said he desired to mention a further point, and that was the early date at which this Bill was to come into operation. It was totally contrary to their usage to put an Act of this kind in force at so early a date. The argument held even stronger as regarded the exercise of the powers under Clause 8. He believed that many negotiations would reach a satisfactory conclusion if more time were given; whereas if the matter were hurried there might be regrettable action taken, resulting possibly in a hot dispute. It was also very desirable that more time should be allowed with a view to the framing of schemes. There was no doubt that these schemes in a large proportion of cases would assume something like the form of by-laws and regulations. If that were so, and they were to be satisfactory, it was really essential to the good working of the clause that ample time should be given for consideration. That applied to schools of every character. His suggestion was made in the interest of the public generally, and of education, and with a view to the effective working of the Act.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said in view of the fact that it might be re-considered at a later stage of the Bill he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. RAWLINSON
moved to omit the words, " Commission appointed under this Act" and insert " Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice." He said the onus of defending this exceptional legislation clearly lay with the Government, and to-night they had learnt definitely that the Commisson when appointed was to do nothing more than the Court of Chancery was doing at the 122 present time. If that were so, what was the object of having a Commission on exactly the same lines as the Chancery Division? The clause from the procedure point of view was absolutely inadequate. It was highly expedient that instead of this Commission, which was the final court, being troubled with every case from start to finish the preliminary questions should be taken in chambers instead of in open court. That was done in the Chancery Division by Masters, and it was highly desirable that interrogatory matters should be dealt with in that way. Under the Bill there was no sort of machinery to deal with preliminary matters. It had been hinted that the Chancery Division would be over-worked. The judicial power of that division was at present very strong, and the Judges were well abreast of their work, so that there was ample time for them to deal with this matter. Then there was the question of costs. He ventured to submit that it was to be an itinerant Commission. The cost of bringing witnesses to London, however, would be infinitesimal, and the number of witnesses to be examined comparatively few. Such questions as that of the proper construction of a trust would be tested apart from any evidence at all. The expense of taking assistance from London to the country would be greater than the cost involved in bringing people from the country to London. There was the great prestige of the Chancery Court. The general public had thorough confidence in the Chancery Judges. He was not for a moment reflecting upon the capacity of the three gentlemen who it was proposed should constitute the Commission. The point was that a decision of the High Court gave greater satisfaction and carried more confidence than that of any arbitrator sent down to a place to determine a case. The mere fact that the Commissioners were appointed under a controversial Bill by the Government must necessarily tend more or less to weaken the confidence of the general public in any decision arrived at by them. Was it necessary to put into a Bill already teeming with difficulties and with matters sufficient to cause suspicion among trustees whose property was being dealt with in this way, a. 123 proposal of this sort, when there was at hand a tribunal fully competent to carry out the desire of the Government that the trusts should be administered according to the same law as they always had been?
In page 5, lines 9 and 10, to leave out the words ' Commission appointed under this Act,' and to insert the words ' Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
§ Question proposed, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. MICKLEM (Hertfordshire, Watford)
questioned the wisdom of allowing these arrangements between the trustees and the local authorities to go first to the High Court, then to the Court of Appeal, and then to the House of Lords. After a case had gone through the tribunal of the House of Lords, having regard to the fact that it was a matter which involved certain religious disputes between the trustees and the local authorities, the House of Lords might decide that they had no power to deal with it and might themselves appoint a commission, as they had recently done in regard to another matter. Such a suggestion would not be made by any member of the Bar who had practised in the Chancery Division of the High Court. It would mean that in each case where the trustees and the local authority did not agree there would be heavy expense incurred in trying the matter before the court. His hon. friend seemed to think that it was a very simple matter to try a case in the Court of Chancery. Apparently he had overlooked the fact that although at the present moment the work of the Chancery Court might not be so heavy as in former years, yet it was so heavy that the Judges were always engaged on that work, and to bring in a number of new cases would inevitably mean delay. It would also mean that in every case they would have to have the whole business done by professional lawyers. Why did they want to bring in the lawyer to settle these disputes? Let them imagine bringing such disputes up to the High Court and employing counsel to argue the matter 124 in Chambers. The expense of trying these matters before the High Court would be very great. If the trustees were reasonable, in nine cases out of ten they would be met by a reasonable local authority. If there was any difference of opinion the Commissioners would go down to the locality and settle the matter in ten minutes to the satisfaction of everybody.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said he had never heard a speech with which he more profoundly disagreed. It was their old friend, the advantages of arbitration over the courts of the country. These were not cases which could be decided by tossing up a halfpenny. Questions might arise involving considerable legal difficulties, such as the construction of trust deeds. But he could not support the Amendment, because the particular tribunal constituted by the Government consisted of very eminent and impartial gentlemen, and he preferred that these three gentlemen should try the issues that might arise in the first instance. He recognised that it would be desirable to have some kind of appeal on points of law. For those reasons he should not be able to support the Amendment.
§ MR. BLAKE
said he was averse to the practice of imposing special duties on Judges of the High Court which tended to divert them from the discharge of their ordinary duties. The Commissioners would be fully competent to discharge the judicial duties which would devolve upon them, and the discharge of those duties would be facilitated by the combination of an effort to moderate asperity between the parties. The characteristics that belonged to these gentlemen were such as led to the belief that a moderating influence would be exercised, such as would not come into play under the rigidity of proceedings before the court. At the same time provision should be made for appeal upon legal points.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH,) Islington, W.
did not think the Amendment was serious, and it was obvious it met with no support. Reasons against it had been clearly 125 stated and he hoped the Committee would come to a decision.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said the hon. Gentleman was in the habit of supposing a question was not serious until the course of discussion undeceived him. He was himself impressed with the value of the Commission until he heard from the hon. Member for Watford the sketch of the manner in which those gentlemen were to do their work. According to that hon. Gentleman the considerations which induced trustees to withhold their school from a local authority were to be disposed of within a short interval between luncheon and the departure of an afternoon train. If such was to be the off-hand manner of dealing with the construction of a trust deed he was inclined to think there was much to be said in favour of the Amendment of his hon. friend. If they were to be told that the Commission was to deal in this off-hand and high-handed manner with the construction of a trust deed, he was inclined to think that, unless they got more information as to the modus operandi under this Bill, it would be much better to go to the Court of Chancery. There was an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Chancery, but there was to be no appeal under the Bill.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
moved to omit the words after " scheme," and insert " for the use of the schoolhouse for the purpose of a public elementary school in accordance with the trust of the schoolhouse." He said that on Clause 2 the Minister for Education pointed out that the local education authority was to have the use of the schoolhouse for the purpose of a public elementary school, and, so far as was necessary, to carry out the necessary repairs and alterations. His object was to limit the use of the school-house by the local authority to that purpose, and beyond this, to enable the trustees to carry out the intention of the trust as nearly as possible. The words in the clause left open the possibility of the building being used for a purpose other than that of an elementary school. He believed it was the intention of the Government that the use of the school- 126 house should be confined to the purpose of a public elementary school.
In page 5, line 10, to leave out from the word 'scheme,'to the end of subsection (1), and insert the words 'for the use of the schoolhouse for the purpose of a public elementary school in accordance with the trust of the school-house.' "—(Sir William Anson).
§ Question proposed, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. LOUGH
said there had not been a single argument advanced in favour of the Amendment. The Government much preferred the words in their own drafting of the Bill. He could not conceive any reason for making the change proposed. The Amendment did not seem to be in any sense an improvement on the words proposed to be left out. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to press the matter further.
§ LORD BALCARRES
said the Parliamentary Secretary had not met the point raised by his hon. friend. There were certain trusts which had dual obligations—namely, to deal with elementary education, and to deal also with parochial work of a charitable and social nature. The Amendment moved by his hon. friend would make perfectly clear what the Commission was expected to do in relation to these trusts. The Parliamentary Secretary had brushed aside the Amendment as if it were an obstructive or stupid one, but it was obvious that these dual trusts were more numerous than the hon. Gentleman seemed to think. He appealed to the hon. Gentleman to give this matter fuller consideration than he had yet given to it.
§ SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)
said the position which the Parliamentary Secretary had taken in regard to this Amendment was an extraordinary one. It seemed to him that there was great force in the Amendment, and that it deserved greater consideration than had been accorded to it by the hon. Gentleman. The Amendment preserved the right of the pious donor to use all the money he had given for the 127 purposes of the trust. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman opposite would give some reason why the desires of people who created trusts should be ignored as would be done if the clause were passed as it stood.
§ MR. PERKS
said he hoped the Government would give an answer to two very important questions on which hitherto they had not had a very clear answer. He asked these questions on behalf of the Wesleyan Education Committee, representing a large number of Wesleyan schools in the country, and he hoped he might have a clear answer. The first question was whether in the event of Wesleyan church trustees being unable to come to an agreement with the local authorities concerning their schools, which he hoped would not be the case, the local authorities might cause such trustees, to appear before the Commission for the purpose of inspecting and readjusting their trusts. The other point was whether the Commission had jurisdiction to draft a scheme for Wesleyan trust property, where the trusts were partly for education and partly for non-educational purposes. Might they take it authoritatively from the Government, as absolutely their intention that in such cases, the moment the Wesleyan trustees produced their model church deed or other legal instrument which provided for school and church purposes, the Commissioners were required to decide that they had no jurisdiction? He hoped the Solicitor-General would give them a clear answer to these very important questions, as the Wesleyan church had large interests at stake, and they wanted to know how the clause affected them.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
, who was almost inaudible in the Gallery, was understood to say that in regard to the first question the answer was that the local authority might be left to deal with the trustees, and bring them before the Commission if they desired that a scheme should be made. But if the trust deed was one which involved an alternative trust, the Commission would never dream of doing more than the Court of Chancery, or of drawing up a scheme of its own when there was already an adequate way of dealing with it provided in the trust deed.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said he did not think the trustees would display any difficulty about letting the local authority know what the trust deeds were. As to the second question put by the hon. Member for Louth, whether the Commission had jurisdiction to draw up a scheme where the trust was partly educational and partly not, that again depended on the trust. It was impossible to answer precisely questions of this kind which covered an immense variety of trusts or to say what the Commission might hold in regard to some particular trust. It would be the duty of the Commission to give all the effect they could to the terms of the trust deed.
§ SIR E. CARSON
said he thought that the question which had been raised in this debate was one of importance having regard to the way in which the clause was framed. It might be that the Government only meant to give jurisdiction to the Commissioners in the case of elementary schools, but that was what they did not say. In fact they said exactly the contrary. As the hon. Member for Louth had said, unfortunately the opinion of the Solicitor-General expressed in Parliament would not have the least effect on the Court when the Act came to be construed. What was the scheme of the section? It was that when the trustees were brought before the Commission, the Commission was to frame a scheme with respect to the mode in which effect was to be given to the trust of the schoolhouse in the future. And then by sub-section (b) if the Commission were—Of opinion that the use of the schoolhouse for the purpose of a public elementary school by the local education authority in accordance with this Act is the best mode of giving effect to the trust they may by this scheme make provision for the purpose, subject to such conditions (if any) as to payment or other matters as may be agreed to by the local education authority, and as the Commission think just.The very fact that restrictions were put upon the Commission showed that they were to fix a scheme to carry out the trust. The object of the Amendment 129 of his hon. friend was to restrict this section to that which the Government said was their purpose, viz., that the Commissioners were not to interfere with the trust unless for the purpose of making it available for a public elementary school if they thought that that was the best way of carrying it out. Anyone who had looked at the Return laid on the Table of the House would see that this clause would bear on an immense number of schools where there
§ was an alternative trust. He thought there could be no doubt that, under the section as it stood, even in the case of an alternative trust, there would be jurisdiction for the Commissioners to settle a scheme for the purpose of carrying out that trust.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 282; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 189.)133
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W||Haworth, Arthur A.|
|Astbury, John Meir||Cooper, G. J.||Hazel, Dr. A. E.|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd||Hedges, A. Paget|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Cory, Clifford John||Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen, W.|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)|
|Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset||Cowan, W. H.||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Cremer, William Randal||Higham, John Sharp|
|Barnard, E. B.||Crombie, John William||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Crosfield, A. H.||Hodge, John|
|Beale, W. P.||Crossley, William J.||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Beauchamp, E.||Davies, David (Montgomery Co||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)|
|Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset,N.|
|Bell, Richard||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Hudson, Walter|
|Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Hutton, Alfred Eddison|
|Benn,SirJ Williams (Devonp'rt||Dodd, W. H.||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Benn, W.(Tw'rHamlets,S.Geo.||Duckworth, James||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel|
|Bennett, E. N.||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Jackson, R. S.|
|Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Jenkins, J.|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Dunne,MajorE. Martin (Walsall||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Billson, Alfred||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Jones,SirD.Brynmor (Swansea)|
|Black, ArthurW.(Bedfordshire)||Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Jones, Lief (Appleby)|
|Bolton,T. D. (Derbyshire,N. E.)||Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire|
|Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)||Essex, R. W.||Jowett, F. W.|
|Brace, William||Evans, Samuel T.||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Everett, R. Lacey||Kincaid-Smith, Captain|
|Branch, James||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Brigg, John||Fenwick, Charles||Kitson, Sir James|
|Bright, J. A.||Fiennes, Hon, Eustace||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Broeklehurst. W. D.||Findlav, Alexander||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster|
|Brodie, H. C.||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Fowler, Rt Hon. Sir Henry||Lambert, George|
|Brunner,J.F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Fuller, John Michael F.||Lamont, Norman|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Fullerton, Hugh||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Lea,Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras.E.)|
|Burnyeat, J. D. W.||Gill, A. H.||Leese,SirJosephF. (Accrington)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn||Lever,A.Levy (Essex, Harwich|
|Buxton, Rt.Hn. Sydney Chas.||Glover, Thomas||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Levy, Maurice|
|Cairns, Thomas||Grant, Corrie||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David|
|Gauston,Rt. Hn. RichardKnight||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Lough, Thomas|
|Cawley, Frederick||Gordon, Sir W. Brampton||Lupton, Arnold|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Hall, Frederick||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs),|
|Clarke, C. Goddard||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Mackarness, Frederic C.|
|Cleland, J. W.||Hart-Davies, T.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Clough, W.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||M'Crae, George|
|Clynes, J. R.||Harwood, George||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Raphael, Herbert H.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Thomas, SirA.(Glamorgan, E.)|
|M'Micking, Major G.||Rees, J. D.||Thomas.David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Maddison, Frederick||Richards, Thos, (W. Monm'th)||Thompson, J. W.H.(Somerset,E|
|Mallet, Charles E.||Rickett, J. Compton||Tillett, Louis John|
|Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Ridsdale, E. A.||Torrance, A. M.|
|Marks.G. Croydon(Launceston)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Toulmin, George|
|Marnham, F. J.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Verney, F. W.|
|Massie, J.||Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradfr'd||Vivian, Henry|
|Masterman, C. F. G.||Robinson, S.||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Walsh, Stephen|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Walters, John Tudor|
|Montgomery, H. H.||Runciman, Walter||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Russell, T. W.||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Morley, Rt. Hon. John||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Wardle, George J.|
|Morse, L. L.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Murray, James||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Myer, Horatio||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Napier, T. B.||Schwann,SirC.E. (Manchester)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Nicholls, George||Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncast'r||Sears, J. E.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Norman, Henry||Seddon, J.||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Seely, Major J. B.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Nuttall, Harry||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Parker, James (Halifax)||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)|
|Partington, Oswald||Simon, John Allsebrook||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Paulton, James Mellor||Sloan, Thomas Henry||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh,N.)|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)||Soares, Ernest J.||Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Spicer, Albert||Winfrey, R.|
|Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)||Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)||Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk,Mid)|
|Pearson.W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Steadman, W. C.||Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd|
|Perks, Robert William||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal|
|Pickersgil1, Edward Hare||Strachey, Sir Edward||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Pirie, Duncan V.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Pease|
|Price,RobertJohn (Norfolk, E.)||Summerbell, T.|
|Radford, G. H.||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc)||Halpin, J.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham.||Hammond, John|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO.||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Balcarres, Lord||Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Craik, Sir Henry||Hills, J. W.|
|Balfour, Rt.Hn.A.J.(CityLond.||Crean, Eugene||Hogan, Michael|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cullinan, J.||Houston. Robert Paterson|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.||Delany, William||Hunt, Rowland|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Devlin,CharlesRamsay(Galw'y||Joyce, Michael|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Dillon, John||Kennaway, Rt.Hn.Sir John H.|
|Blake, Edward||Dolan, Charles Joseph||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Boland, John||Donelan, Captain A.||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn.Col. W.|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Doughty, Sir George||Kilbride, Denis|
|Bridgeman, W Clive||Douglass Rt. Hon. A. Akers||King, Sir HenrySeymour (Hull)|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Duffy, William J.||Law, Hugh A.(Donegal, W.)|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Duncan, Robert(Lanark.Gov'n||Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants., W.)||Long, Col.CharlesW.(Evesham)|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||London, W.|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Flavin, .Michael Joseph||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Flynu, James Christopher||MacNeil, John Gordon Swift|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.)|
|Cave, George||Gilhooly, James||M'Kean, John|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Ginnell, L||M'Killop, W.|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Haddock, George R.||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Meagher, Michael||Percy, Earl||Starkey, John R.|
|Mooney, J. J.||Powell, .Sir Francis Sharp||Sullivan, Donal|
|Murphy, John||Power, Patrick Joseph||Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G(Oxf'd Univ.|
|Nield, Herbert||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Nolan, Joseph||Ratcliff, Major R. F.||Thornton. Percy M.|
|O'Brien.Kendal(TipperaryMid.||Rawlinson, John Frederick P.||Turnour, Viscount|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Reddy, M.||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Redmond, William (Clare)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|O'Dowd, John||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Young, Samuel|
|O'Hare, Patrick||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.||Salter, Arthur Clavell||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|O'Malley, William||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Alexander Acland-Hood and|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Viscount Valentia.|
|Parkes, Ebenezer||Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)|
|Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlington||Snowden, P.|
§ LORD R. CECIL
moved to amend sub-section (2) by leaving out paragraphs (a) and (b), including the four sub-clauses of paragraph (b), and substituting for them, the words " and shall have regard to." He said that the effect of the Amendment would be to direct the Commissioners to act in accordance with the principles followed by the High Court in exercising as the successors of the Court of Chancery the ordinary jurisdiction as to charities inherent in that Court, and to have regard to such other circumstances as might, in their opinion, properly be considered. By the clause as it stood the Government directed the Commissioners to make a scheme in accordance with the principles of the High Court, and then proposed a series of limiting instructions which could only result in cutting down the price to be paid by the local authority to the owners of the schoolhouse. That was an unsatisfactory way of dealing with the question. The proper way of dealing with it was to leave the Commissioners a free hand and direct them to do justice between the parties according to the principles of the High Court of Justice. That was the course which was pursued in much simpler matters and in regard to subjects of much less importance. Under the ordinary arbitration clause the view had been taken that it was not a proper course to give the arbitrators instructions. The proper course to take was to appoint a proper tribunal and leave them to administer the matter acting upon general considerations. The only purpose of these 134 sub-clauses was to cut down the price. In regard to sub-section (a), why should a five years guarantee be required for the effective continuance of the school? Surely that was a matter which might well be left to the Commissioners. Supposing the Commissioners were satisfied that the trust could well be carried out without a guarantee, or a guarantee for a shorter period, why were they to be compelled only to pass a scheme which would bring a guarantee for five years into force? He thought that there were very few cases in regard to which the proposal would be necessary. He could not, moreover, conceive upon what ground of justice sub-section (b)) was imported into the Bill. If the school had received grants or assistance from public funds towards the building or repair of the schoolhouse it had only received its proper payment for the performance of public duties, and he did not see why, the schoolhouse being the property of the owners, such considerations should be taken into account, in fixing the price to be paid. Then in regard to the provision that, the Commissioners should take into account the limited nature of the user of the school by the local education authority, that was quite unnecessary. He quite agreed that it was a question to be considered, because it necessarily arose. But it was not necessary to put such a direction into an Act of Parliament, and as he had said, the only effect of doing so would be to invite the Commissioners to give a less price than they would otherwise award. Again, he could not imagine what bearing the facilities given in the school for special religious instruction and the 135 performance of the original trusts had to do with the matter. The facilities given would not benefit the owners of the school house but the children, who had received or would receive instruction. Then it was provided that the Commissioners should take into account the cost of maintenance and repair. But that was a matter which any tribunal would naturally consider without any special direction. If one was buying a property, naturally they would consider the cost of keeping it up, and of course it was an element which must be considered in fixing the price. To insert such a provision was an insult to the Commissioners, and only showed the animus with which this sub - clause had been drawn. ["Oh."] Well, he could not see what other purpose was served by putting these provisions in. They were certainly not put in to increase the price, and their only object could be to cut it down. In his judgment that was the whole object of the clause. He thought that when they were appointing a special tribunal composed of very eminent gentlemen, they might trust them to do what was just. The whole of these conditions were therefore superfluous, and in some respects unjust, and they ought to be cut out of the clause.
In page 5, line 16, to leave out from the word ' court,' down to the word ' such ' in line 39, and to insert the words ' and shall have regard to.' "—(Lord R. Cecil.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word ' sufficient,' in line 19, stand part of the Clause."
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said he was sure hon. Members would see that it was only fair to the Commissioners that there should be something in the nature of general directions as to the principles on which they were to proceed. They were only illustrative, administrative directions and but slightly limited their discretion. For instance, it was laid down in sub-section (a) that where it was proposed to carry on a certified efficient school as an elementary school there should be a guarantee for the 136 effective continuance of the school for at least five years. That had to deal with the case of schools which were useful schools for the education of the whole area in which they were placed. Let them suppose there had been an application to the Commissioners to see what was to be done with a school; no arrangement had been come to, and the school had ceased, to be an elementary school, and was to be carried on as an efficient school. There the Commissioners-had to say that the scheme was not one that could be sanctioned unless a guarantee was given that it should be carried on for five years. Where an application was made with regard to a school of this kind, which would not be in the position of a school receiving a public grant, the Commissioners were very properly directed that no scheme was adequate unless accompanied by such a guarantee. Then, when a local authority was asked to make a payment, why should not payments already received by way of grants or assistance be taken into account? The schools were not self supporting. They were coming to the public for aid in order that they might be carried on as public schools, and what more reasonable condition could be attached than that those who were fixing the rent should have regard to the public money received by a school? As to the limited nature of the user of the schoolhouse, surely that was a reasonable direction. Obviously it would be very unjust to fix a rent without taking that into account. He suggested that there might be a modification of the rent in cases which approximated to extreme cases. They were not putting any fetters on the Commissioners, but were inviting them to take into consideration the fact that, while the owners of voluntary schools were being relieved of burdens, much of the burden of the trust was being, taken over by the local authority.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the hon. and learned Gentleman had not denied that every one of the conditions which his noble friend desired to omit were conditions which would limit the pecuniary considerations given by the public authority to the school. According to the Solicitor-General these were all. 137 general, illustrative, and indicative directions, but why were the illustrations all on one side? Why had all the illustrations been unilateral? There were two parties who came before the tribunal, and the House gave directions to the tribunal, all of which were intended to illustrate the procedure to be adopted. But all those illustrations went to diminish the consideration to be given to a school, and all the ingenuity of the Government had failed to discover one illustration which would tend towards the augmentation of the consideration. That was unfair and one-sided treatment. The right hon. Gentleman had over and over again repeated that these Commissioners were to be Judges, who had to consider the procedure of the Court of Chancery, and nothing else. Their duties were to have no administrative character. What was his astonishment, then, to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say that what the Commission had to consider under subsection (a) were the educational necessities of the district. What had these three gentlemen to do with the educational necessities of the district?
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said he did not state that the Commissioners had to consider the educational necessities. What he had said was that the Government had to consider the educational needs of the district, and, therefore, in dealing with any scheme which might be formulated by the Commissioners, they had thought it right that the Commissioners should not treat a proposal to carry on an elementary school as adequate, having regard, of course, to the necessities of the district, unless it was accompanied by a guarantee. That was a very different statement.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he saw no difference at all. The original proposition of the Government reiterated and reiterated was that nothing was to influence the three Judges but the considerations which would influence the Court of Chancery if they were dealing with the trust. Neither the Minister for Education nor the Solicitor-General could say that the Court of Chancery would ever stipulate that the school must be carried on for five years. Sub-section (a) was absolutely inconsistent with the repeated pledges of 138 the Minister for Education that these Commissioners should take nothing into account except the law as carried out by the Court of Chancery. His observation with regard to sub-section (b) was—what was to be the position of these three great lawyers whom the Government had asked to be Commissioners? Had they merely to consider what would best carry out the intention of the original framers of the trust? Supposing they came to the conclusion that £100 a year rent should be paid and that there should be religious instruction on two days a week, could they order that? No, because their scheme, according to the words of the sub-section, was to be—Subject to such conditions (if any) as to payment or other matters as may be agreed to by the local education authority.''The Government proposed to set up a court which was to interpret the trust deeds as a Court of Chancery, but before this Court could give its decision it must consult the local authority, and the local authority was to be supreme. What happened then? Either the Commission would have to modify their decision, or else the scheme must be abortive from the beginning. There was another alternative, which he understood was rejected by the Government, namely, that the local authorities should be obliged to accept the scheme of the Commissioners. Upon that depended the status of the three Judges and the fate of the schools with which they were dealing. If the three Commissioners were not to give their own decisions, but were to be influenced by the local authority, where did the impartiality of these Judges come in? If on the other hand the local authority was not to be allowed to interfere at any stage of the proceedings and would have to wait until the final verdict of the court was given, what was going to happen then? The local authority must either accept or refuse. If it accepted then there was an end to the matter, but if it refused what would happen? The Government said one of the objects of this clause was to prevent schools becoming derelict. Upon the face of it, it seemed that the schools must become derelict. He thought at all events that, it would be clear from what he had said that if there was no obscurity in the 139 mind of His Majesty's Government there was considerable obscurity in the Bill which they had framed, and that obscurity had in no sense been removed by the answer which the hon. and learned Gentleman had given to his noble friend. The only other point which he needed to dwell upon was the question of whether they ought to diminish the rent according to the amount of denominational religious instruction given in the school. It seemed to him a most astonishing proposition to say that the rent of a school should be diminished according to the amount of religious instruction. He could not himself see the connection between rent and religion. The rent should be determined largely by the advantages which the authorities derived from the school. The school was not worth less to them because religious education was carried on there as well as secular education. Why then should they pay less? A phrase had fallen from the Solicitor-General which had caused some surprise, because it was not to be found in the Bill. It was the phrase " certified efficient school." But the explanation, if singular, was not remote. The Solicitor-General was quoting, not from the Bill, but from the speech in which it was introduced by the Minister for Education. Perhaps the House would permit him to read one or two extracts from that speech. The right hon. Gentleman said †The Commission will be the authority before which those owners of the school-houses who have not come to terms with the local authority will he carried for the purpose of determining their schemes. In making such schemes ' the Commissioners shall act in accordance with the principles followed by the High Court in exercising the ordinary jurisdiction as to charities inherent in that Court, but they shall not treat the proposal to carry on an elementary school as a proper mode of giving effect to the trusts of the school-house, unless sufficient guarantee is given for the effective continuance of the school as a certified efficient school for a period of at least five years.'The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:A certified efficient school is a school within the law in this sense, that to attend it is to obey the law, but it does not receive any assistance from the rates or taxes.† See (4) Debates, clv., 1036.140 Then he said:If they are of opinion that the best mode of giving effect to the trust is to allow the local education authority to use the school-house for the purposes of a public elementary school, they may by the scheme require the local education authority to comply with such conditions as to payment, otherwise not being inconsistent with this Act, as they think just.The hon. and learned Member for Mid. Glamorgan had declared that he voted for this Bill because it embodied the principle of local option. He was mistaken. He voted for the introduction of the Bill knowing that according to the plan of the Minister for Education the decision of the Commissioners was to be obligatory on the local authority. That plan alone would relieve this clause from all its contradictions and inconsistencies, and prevent a local authority from throwing in the face of the Commissioners the scheme which they had prepared. He thought the Committee would feel that some further explanation was desirable from the right hon. Gentleman, more particularly to show how the plan of this clause fitted in with the repeated assurances that the functions of these judges were to be such as might be exercised by the Court of Chancery, carrying out the same law, having the same authority and commanding the same general respect.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said the primary duty of the three Commissioners was to decide the question " Aye " or " No " whether, having regard to the trusts of any particular school brought before them, they had in their opinion no other course than to decide by the principle of equity that they could only fulfil those trusts by continuing it as a public elementary school under the control of the local education authority. That was a judicial duty. The right hon. Gentleman was not particularly well acquainted with the duties of the judges of the Chancery Division, and on that fact he probably ought to be congratulated The Chancery judges having, in the first instance, expressed their opinion on the trusts submitted to them, had constantly, as part of their duty under the Charitable Trusts Acts and other Acts, to frame schemes and to settle terms in accordance with the principles they had laid down.
141 Though it was true, therefore, that their main duty would be the determination of a nice point of law, any one who read the clause and what flowed from their decision, assuming that the school should be transferred, would see that there was an obligation to frame a scheme giving effect to the decision that the Commissioners had already come to. He did not think that there was anything inconsistent in what he had said. While the Commissioners had the duty of interpreting the trusts they might say to a school, "You can go away; your trusts are quite tight, and you cannot possibly be transferred to the local authority." Thus there was an end of the matter, though under the law of cy-pres the duty was imposed upon them of framing a scheme to give effect to their decision. The noble Lord proposed to strike out the sub-sections in order to leave a free hand to the Commissione0rs. Having regard to the eminence of the Commissioners, perhaps the words in the sub-section were not absolutely necessary. But as to the building grants which the schools had received, he thought that it was a matter of business that they should be brought fairly to the minds of the Commissioners. When a property was being sold and a price was being asked for it, it surely was not irrelevant that the owners of the schools should be reminded that the public had already contributed towards their support. As to the phrase " certified efficient schools," he said that he intended on the occasion referred to by the right hon. Gentleman to avoid making use of quotation marks; he intended to give a general paraphrase of the words; but when he came to the point his command of language failed him a little, and he read the words from a draft that had been subsequently altered. But the alteration was in favour of the contention of hon. Members opposite, and he did not see why the Government should be blamed for altering the Bill in the interest of a juster clause. The point, however, was as to whether sub-section (a) was a fair subsection. He thought that it was, for reasons already given by the Solicitor-General. The Commissioners were not simply to be told by the representatives of the trustees, " We will keep the school going on our own account." They were 142 to be able to say, "if you are to carry on your school outside the local authority, if you are yourselves to keep it open as an effective school, you must not only say that that is your intention, you must give us some assurance." The word "guarantee" was not a technical term. They were to have an assurance from men of honour that there would be good reason to suppose that the school would be carried on for five years. That would be a guarantee that there were behind the school the means of support. He did not mean to say there must be promises of support on which they could sue for the recovery of money; but there must be a genuine belief and guarantee that there were behind the school persons of sufficient means to secure that the school was likely to continue. Sub-section (a) was a reasonable one. A point was made against him; but the noble Lord's Amendment proposed to strike out all those words on which the point arose. The point was that he used language which went to show that, if the Commission had made a scheme and fixed a rent as being a fair and proper rent, it ought to be obligatory upon the local authority. If that were so the acceptance of the noble Lord's Amendment would be the best way to get himself out of that difficulty, which would then disappear altogether. But he was not going to accept it. The proper time to make the clause conformable with his language would be upon an Amendment on that sub-section, and not upon the present Amendment, The difficulties were, of course, with the local authority itself— whether there was the power to enforce a money payment on the local authority. He would like to have time to consider the proposal. He would give the subject his most careful consideration, and if he thought his speech involved an obligation of that kind he would give effect to it.
§ MR. EVELYN CECIL (Aston Manor)
said that they had just affirmed in passing sub-section (2) that the Commission was to exercise the jurisdiction of a Court of Chancery, but no sooner had they done so than it was proposed immediately to restrict that very jurisdiction. He thought that was 143 thoroughly unwise, and that the Commission should act completely in accordance with the principles of the Court of Chancery. Otherwise a trusting people might be misled. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education talked of applying cy-pres doctrine, but he did not understand how that could apply to the present case. He always understood that the Courts could not vary a trust to meet their own views as to what would be for the general advantage of the public. Then there was the question of financial guarantee for the effective continuance of the school for a period of at least five years. To whom was that guarantee to be given? Was it to be given to the local authority? And supposing it was not fulfilled, what then was to be done? Was a new scheme to be made? And what was to happen at the end of the five years? Was there then to be a new scheme? It was supposed that the Commission was to be brought in to settle differences when the owners of a schoolhouse and the local education authority were at loggerheads. But according to the sub-section the local authority was to set the Commission in motion, and then it was to have an absolute veto on its proceedings. He thought that the whole clause was ludicrous, and he could not understand how it could be put into operation with any consistency whatever. There were no other means, therefore, in his opinion, of dealing with the problem before them than by accepting the Amendment now before the Committee.
§ MR. WYNDHAM
said the Minister for Education had given, not a pledge, but an undertaking to reconsider his attitude when they reached a certain point of sub-section (b). He wished to know whether the Minister for Education would include in the promise he had given consideration of the question of facilities, upon which inability to agree would probably more often arise than on the question of rent.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said he did not think he could give that pledge. Even sup- 144 posing that he did not keep his promise, in consequence of the opportunity for discussion in Committee not being reached, he adhered to what he had said and would do what he thought he ought to do on the Report stage. The promise did not carry with it the question of facilities.
§ MR. R. PEARCE (Staffordshire, Leek)
trusted that the Government would not give way at all. There was full security in the clause for fair dealing for all concerned, and it was very important when making schemes which would have the effect of an Act of Parliament and could not be reviewed by any Court that there should be the limitations contained in this clause. He thought that many who were concerned in trusts would welcome those limitations and that their existence would induce them to enter into schemes.
§ SIR E. CARSON
asked whether the Commissioners would be entitled to consider the mortgages and other charges on schools, which had provided the money for building the schools, and to say that they should be discharged by the local authorities. [" Oh.'] There was nothing unreasonable in that. There was a good deal of indignation amongst many persons interested in the schools that there would be no rent at all in certain cases.
§ THE CHAIRMAN
said the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be talking of amending this portion of the clause, but the Amendment before the Committee was that it should be left out.
§ SIR E. CARSON
agreed, but said he wanted to know whether he would vote for keeping it in, and that depended upon whether the right hon. Gentleman would put these provisions in an equitable form. If they were left in their present position it appeared to him that they would be unfair, and he should vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord. If the right hon. Gentleman was, however, prepared to make the provisions more equitable he should advise his noble friend not to go to a 145 division on this Amendment. It was, therefore, of considerable importance that they should know what the Government were going to do. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's statement as to the Commissioners' acting in accordance with the principles of the Court of Chancery, he thought he ought to say a word in defence of the Court of Chancery. To describe the functions of the Commissioners as being analogous to those of the Court of Chancery was grotesque. They would have no more connection with the principles of the Court of Chancery than the right hon. Gentleman or the Solicitor-General had when they answered Questions in this House on points of law.
§ And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the business.
§ Whereupon Mr. BIRRELL rose in his place, and claimed to move, " That the Question be now put.
MR. STANLEY WILSON (York, E.R., Holderness)
Did not the right hon. Gentleman rise after eleven o'clock?
§ Question put, " That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 320; Noes, 151. (Division List No. 190.)149
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall|
|Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)||Burnyeat, J. D. W.||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Edwards, Frank (Radnor)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Byles, William Pollard||Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Cairns, Thomas||Essex, R. W.|
|Baker, JosephA.(Finsbury, E.)||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Evans, Samuel T.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Causton,Rt.Hn.Richard Knight||Everett, R. Lacey|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Cawley, Frederick||Fenwick, Charles|
|Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somers't||Chance, Frederick William||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Channing, Francis Allston||Findlay, Alexander|
|Barnard, E. B.||Cheetham, John Frederick||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter|
|Barnes, G. N.||Churchill, Winston Spencer||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Beale, W. P.||Clarke, C. Goddard||Fuller, John Michael F.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Cleland, J. W.||Fullerton, Hugh|
|Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne||Clough, W.||Furness, Sir Christopher|
|Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)||Clynes, J. R.||Gibb, James (Harrow)|
|Bell, Richard||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Gill, A. H.|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn|
|Benn,Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt||Collins, Sir WmJ. (S. Pancras, W.||Glover, Thomas|
|Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.||Cooper, G. J.||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Bennett, E. N.||Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,EGrinst'd||Grant, Corrie|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborouh)|
|Bethell, J. H.(Essex, Romford)||Cory, Clifford John||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Gulland, John W.|
|Billson, Alfred||Cowan, W. H.||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Crean, Eugene||Hall, Frederick|
|Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire||Cremer, William Randal||Harcourt, Right. Hon. Lewis|
|Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire,N.E.)||Crombie, John William||Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)|
|Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)||Crosfield, A. H.||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)|
|Brace, William||Crossley,William J.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Hannsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh|
|Branch, James||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Hart-Davies, T.|
|Brigg, John||Davies, W.Howell (Bristol, S.)||Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)|
|Bright, J. A.||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Harwood, George|
|Brocklehurst, W. D.||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)|
|Brodie, H. C.||Dodd, W. H.||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Duckworth, James||Haworth, Arthur A.|
|Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs.,Leigh)||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Hazel, Dr. A. E.|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Hedges, A. Paget|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Montagu, E. S.||Shaw, Rt, Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)|
|Henry, Charles S.||Montgomery, H. H.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon.,S.)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Higham, John Sharp||Morley, Rt. Hon. John||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||Morrell, Philip||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Morse, L. L.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Hodge, John||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Snowdon, P.|
|Holden, E. Hopkinson||Murray, James||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Myer, Horatio||Spicer, Albert|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Napier, T. B.||Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.||Newnes, P. (Notts., Bassetlaw)||Steadman, W. C.|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Nicholls, George||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Hudson, Walter||Norman, Henry||Strachey, Sir Enward|
|Hyde, Clarendon||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Nuttall, Harry||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Jackson,R. S.||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Summerbell, T.|
|Jenkins, J.||Parker, James (Halifax)||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Partington, Oswald||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Paul, Herbert||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea||Paulton, James Mellor||Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)||Tennant, H.J.(Berwickshire)|
|Jones, William(Camarvonshire||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Jowett, F. W.||Pearson, SirW.D. (Colchester)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Kekewich, Sir George||Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)||Thomas. David Alfred(Merthyr|
|Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Philipps, Col.Ivor(S'thampton)||Thompson, J.W.H(Somerset,E|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke||Tillett, Louis John|
|Kitson, Sir James||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Torrance, A. M.|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Toulmin, George|
|Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)||Pirie, Duncan V.||Trevelyan. Charles Philips|
|Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Pollard, Dr.||Verney, F. W.|
|Lambert, George||Price, C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)||Vivian, Henry|
|Lamont, Norman||Price, Robert John(Norfolk,E.)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Radford, G. H.||Walsh, Stephen|
|Lea, Hugh Cecil(St.Pancras, E.||Raphael, Herbert H.||Walters, John Tudor|
|Leese, Sir JosephF. (Accrington||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.|
|Lever,A.Levy (Essex,Harwich)||Rees, J. D.||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)||Renton, Major Leslie||Wardle, George J.|
|Levy, Maurice||Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Richardson, A.||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Rickett, J. Compton||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Lough, Thomas||Ridsdale, E. A.||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Lupton, Arnold||Roberts, Charles H (Lincoln)||Wedgwood, Josiah C|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Robertson. Rt. Hn.E.(Dundee)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs.||Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Mackarness, Frederic C.||Robinson, S.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|M'Arthur, William||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wiles, Thomas|
|M'Crae, George||Rogers, P. E. Newman||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Rowlands, J.||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Runciman, Walter||Williamson, A.|
|M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Russell, T. W.||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|M'Micking, Major G.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Maddison, Frederick||Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.|
|Mallet, Charles E.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh.,N.|
|Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Marks, G-Croydon(Launceston)||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Winfrey, E.|
|Marnham, F. J.||Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)||Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk,Mid)|
|Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Scott, A.H. (Ashton-und.-Lyne||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Massie, J.||Sears, J. E.||Woodhouse, SirJ.T(Hudd'rsfi'd|
|Menzies, Walter||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Seddon, J.||TELLERSW FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Seely, Major J. B.||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Pease.|
|Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.)||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Nolan, Joseph|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ryMid|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fletcher, J. S.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.HughO.||Flynn, James Christopher||O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Forster, Henry William||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Balfour, Rt.Hn. A. J.(City Lond)||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||O'Dowd, John|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gilhooly, James||O'Hare, Patrick|
|Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester||Ginnell, L.||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Haddock, George R.||O'Kelly,James(Roscommon.N.|
|Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks||Halpin, J.||O'Malley, William|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hammond, John||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Blake, Edward||Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.||Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington|
|Boland, John||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Percy, Earl|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Hayden, John Patrick||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Helmsley, Viscount||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Rawlinson, John FrederickPeel|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)||Reddy, M.|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Hills, J. W.||Redmond, John E.(Waterford)|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Hogan, Michael||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Campbell, Rt, Hon. J H. M.||Houston, Robert Paterson||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hunt, Rowland||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Joyce, Michael||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Kennaway, Rt.Hn.Sir John H.||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Cave, George||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hn.Victor C.W.||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn.Col. W-||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kilbride, Denis||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey||King, SirHenrySeymour(Hull)||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Smith, F.F.(Liverpool, Walton)|
|Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.A(Worc||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Starkey, John R.|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Leo, ArthurH(Hants.,Farcham||Sullivan, Donal|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham||Talbot, Rt,Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Lundon, W.||Thomson, W.Mitchell (Lanark)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Lyttleton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Turnour, Viscount|
|Craik, Sir Henry||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire)|
|Cullinan, J.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Delany, William||M'Kean. John||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galw'y||M'Kilop, W.||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Dillon, John||Magnus, Sir Philip||Wilson, A. Stanley(York,E.R.)|
|Dolan, Charles Joseph||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Meagher, Michael||Young, Samuel|
|Duffy, William J.||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Younger, George|
|Duncan, Robert(LanarkGovan||Mooney, J. J.|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Morpeth, Viscount||TELLERS FOR THE NOSE. — Sir|
|Faber, Capt W. V. (Hants, W.||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Alexander Acland-Hood and|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Murphy, John||Viscount Valentia.|
|Fell, Arthur||Nield, Herbert|
§ Question put accordingly, " That the words proposed to be left out, to the
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 320; Noes, 150. (Division List No.
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Beauchamp, E.|
|Allen,A. Acland (Christchurch)||Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset||Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)|
|Asquith, Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry||Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Bell, Richard|
|Astbury, John Meir||Barnard, E. B.||Bellairs, Carlyon|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Barnes. G. N.||Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury.E.)||Beale, W. P.||Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.|
|Bennett, E. N.||Fullerton, Hugh||Lupton, Arnold|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Furness, Sir Christopher||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Bethell, J.H. (Essex, Romford)||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Gill, A. H.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Billson, Alfred||Gladstone,Rt.Hn. Herbert John||Macdonald.J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Glover, Thomas||Mackarness, Frederic C.|
|Black, ArthurW. (Bedfordshire||Goddard, Danill Ford||Macnamara. Dr. Thomas J.|
|Bolton, T. D.(Derbyshire,N.E.)||Grant, Corrie||M'Arthur, William|
|Boulton, A. C. F (Ramsey)||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||M'Crae, George|
|Brace, William||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Gulland, John W.||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)|
|Branch, James||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Brigg, John||Hall, Frederick||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Bright, J. A.||Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis||Maddison, Frederick|
|Brocklehurst, W. D.||Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Brodie, H. C.||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Brooke. Stopford||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)|
|Brunner, J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh)||Harmsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh||Marnham, F. J.|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Hart-Davies, T.||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Massie, J.|
|Burnyeat, J. D. W.||Harwood, George||Menzies, Walter|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Buxton, Rt.Hn. Sydney Charles||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Byles, William Pollard||Haworth, Arthur A.||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Cairns, Thomas||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Montagu, E. S.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hedges, A. Paget||Montgomery, H. H.|
|Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight||Helme, Norval Watson||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Cawley, Frederick||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Chance, Frederick William||Henry, Charles S.||Morley, Rt. Hon. John|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.)||Morrell, Philip|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Morse, L. L.|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Higham, John Sharp||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Clarke, C. Goddard||Hobart, Sir Robert||Murray, James|
|Cleland, J. W.||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Myer, Horatio|
|Clough, W.||Hodge, John||Napier, T. B.|
|Clvnes, J. R.||Holden, E. Hokpinson||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Holland, Sir William Henry||Nicholls, George|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r|
|Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.||Hope,W.Bateman (Somerset.N||Norman, Henry|
|Cooper, G. J.||Horniman, Emslie John||Norman, Capt. Cecil William|
|Corbett, CH.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hudson, Walter||Nuttall, Harry|
|Cory, Clifford John||Hyde, Clarendon||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Partington, Oswald|
|Cremer, William Randal||Jackson, R. S.||Paul, Herbert|
|Crombie, John William||Jardine, Sir J.||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Jenkins, J.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)|
|Crossley, William J.||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Davis, Ellis William (Eifion)||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Jones.Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea)||Pearson,W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)|
|Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Philipps,Col. Ivor(S'thampton)|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)||Jones,William (Carnarvonshire||Philipps.J. Wynford (Pembroke|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Jowett, F. W.||Philipps, Owen C.(Pembroke)|
|Dodd, W. H.||Kekewich, Sir George||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Duckworth, James||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Pollard, Dr.|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Kitson, Sir James||Price, C. K.(Edinburgh,Central)|
|Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall||Laidlaw, Robert||Pric ,Rob rt John(Norfolk, E.)|
|Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)||Radford, G. H.|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Lambert, George||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Lamont, Norman||Rees, J. D.|
|Essex, R. W.||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Renton, Major Leslie|
|Evans, Samuel T.||Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras.E.||Richards,Thomas(W.Monm'th)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Leese,Sir JosephF. (Accrington)||Richardson, A.|
|Fenwick, Charles||Lever,A Levy(Essex,Harwich)||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Findlay, Alexander||Levy, Maurice||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Foster, Rt, Hon. Sir Walter||Lewis, John Herbert||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Fowler, Rt Hon. Sir Henry||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Lough, Thomas||Robertson, Rt.Hn.E. (Dundee)|
|Robertson.Sir G Scott(Bradf'rd||Spicer, Albert||Wardle, George J.|
|Robinson, S.||Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Steadman, W. C.||Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney|
|Roe, Sir Thomas||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Rogers, F. E. Newman||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Rowlands, J.||Strachey, Sir Edward||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Runciman, Walter||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Russell, T. W.||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)||White George (Norfolk)|
|Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)||White, J. D.(Dumbartonshire)|
|Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)||Summerbell, T.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Samuel, S. M. (Whitchapel)||Sutherland, J. E.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Scarisbrick, T. T. L.||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Schwann, SirC.E. (Manchester)||Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Seott,A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Sears, J. E.||Thomas Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||Williamson, A.|
|Seaverns, J. H.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Seddon, J.||Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr||Wison, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Seely, Major J. B.||Thompson, T. W. H. (Somerset.E||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Torrance, A. M.||Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.)|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)||Toulmin, George||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Shipman, Dr. John G.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Winfrey, R.|
|Silcock, Thomas Ball||Verney, F. W.||Wodehouse,Lord(Norfolk, Mid|
|Simon, John Allsebrook||Vivian, Henry||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)||Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Hudd'rsf'd|
|Sloan, Thomas Henry||Walsh, Stephen|
|Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Walters, John Tudor||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Snowdon, P.||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Soares, Ernest J.||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)||Pease.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.||Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim.S.||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury|
|Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn SirAlex. F||Craik, Sir Henry||Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Crean, Eugene||Hills, J. W.|
|Arnold-Forster,Rt Hn Hugh O.||Cullinan, J.||Hogan, Michael|
|Ashley, W. W.||Dalrymple, Viscount||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Balcarres, Lord||Delany, William||Hunt, Rowland|
|Balfour,RtHn.A.J.(CityLond.)||Devlin,Charles Ramsay (Galway||Joyce, Michael|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick Georg||Dillon, John||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)||Dolan, Charles Joseph||Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col.W.|
|Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry, N.)||Donelan, Captain A.||Kilbride, Denis|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||King,Sir HenrySeymour(Hull)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Duffy, William J.||Lane-Fox, G. R.|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan||Lawl Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)|
|Blake, Edward||Faber, George Denison (York)||Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham|
|Boland, John||Faber, Capt, W. V. (Hants, W.)||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Fardell, Sir T. George||Lundon, W.|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Fell, Arthur||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Bull, Sir William James||Flavin, Michael Joseph||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Fletcher, J. S.||Mac Veigh,Charles(Donegal,E.)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Flynn, James Christopher||M'Kean, John|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Forster, Henry William||M'Killop, W.|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Marks, H. H. (Kent)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Gilhooly, James||Mason, James F. (Windsor)|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Ginnell, L.||Meagher, Michael|
|Cave, George||Haddock, George R.||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.||Halpin, J.||Mooney, J. J.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hammond, John||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Hardy ,Laurence(Kent,Ashford||Muntz, Sir Philip A.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.A(Worc.||Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.||Murphy, John|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Nield, Herbert|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hayden, John Patrick||Nolan, Joseph|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Helmsley, Viscount||O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Hervey,F.W.F(BuryS.Edm'ds||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|O'Connor, James (Wicklow.W.)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Valentia, Viscount|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Redmond, William (Clare)||Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire)|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield.Ecclesall)||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|O'Dowd, John||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|O'Hare, Patrick||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Salter, Arthur Clavell||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|O'Malley, William||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Parkes, Ebenezer||Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East)||Young, Samuel|
|Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington||Smith,F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)||Younger, George|
|Percy, Earl||Starkey, John R.|
|Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Sullivan, Donal||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Lord|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Talbot, Rt.Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.||Robert Cecil and Mr. Ark-|
|Ratcliff, Major R. F.||Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)||wright.|
|Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Reddy, M.||Turnour, Viscount|
§ word ' sufficient,' in line 19, stand part of the clause." 191.)155
§ And, it being after Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.