§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 2:—
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)
moved to insert the word "educational" before the word "trust" in Sub-section (b). He said he hoped the Government would see its way to accept the Amendment which was of some importance. Trusts which affected a school were of two kinds. 62 There were trusts which were educational; and trusts which were not educational but charitable, and these latter were generally connected with some religious body. What he wished to submit was that if it were true that schools could be carried on as public elementary schools with trusts which were other than educational in their character, then those trusts should be preserved at all costs. The point he ventured to make was really an important one; it was whether they were right to over-ride, for the purposes of the Bill, trusts which were strictly religious or charitable in character. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education would see that quite different considerations applied to such trusts.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.)
replied that under the general scheme of the Bill the acquisition of school houses by local authorities was limited to the purposes of public elementary schools. Whilst the local authority was in possession of the school for the purpose of carrying out the work of a public elementary school it would not be hampered by any trust whatever. It would be dangerous to strike a distinction in the way indicated by the noble Lord between one trust and another. The only usage the public authority would have of the premises would be that of a public elementary school, and no trust of a religious character would in any way be affected, because the use of the premises for-the purpose of such trust would be altogether outside the purposes for which the local education authority would require them.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said he was very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, but he did not think he had really met his point, because the framing of the clause was such as to leave it entirely in the discretion of the local authority. Let them take the case of a school used as a chapel on Sunday, and assume a hostile local authority or a local authority of a red tape description which came into the school and saw certain fittings and arrangements. He had in his mind a particular school in Sussex which was used for the purposes of a chapel, and he 63 did not see anything to prevent their saying that that was inconsistent with their conception of what a school ought to be for the purposes of education, and they would be entitled to take away all the fittings which were necessary as a chapel in order to fit it for educational purposes. As long as they only took away things which had to do with education then, from the standpoint of this clause, he did not object at all; but he wished very much—and he attached great importance to the point—to limit the discretion of the local authority to the particular class of business with which they ought to interfere. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman did not object to the insertion of the word "educational," except that he distrusted the legal profession and was not quite sure what interpretation might be given
§ to an innocent word by an unduly ingenious lawyer. He therefore asked him if he could not accept the word. He could not believe that anybody had any objection to it in principle, and he believed it would save the consciences of a considerable number of people.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
said that the previous clause gave absolute unchecked power to the local authority to deal with any fittings or make any alterations they deemed necessary for the school, and he did not think the Amendment would effect the noble Lord's point.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 95; Noes, 357. (Division List No. 135.)67
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Nield, Herbert|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Fardell, Sir T. George||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fletcher, J. S.||Percy, Earl|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Powell. Sir Francis Sharp|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'rHam.||Remnant, James Farquaharson|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Hamilton, Marquess of||Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Ropner, Col. Sir Robert|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.||Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Heaton, John Henniker||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry, N.)||Hervey. F.W.F. (Bury S. Edm'ds||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hills, J. W.||Starkey, John R.|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hornby, Sir William Henry||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Houston, Robert. Patterson||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Turnour, Viscount|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Liddell, Henry||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.||Maclver, David (Liverpool)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Magnus, Sir Philip||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Cross, Alexander||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Younger, George|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Doughty, Sir George||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Lord|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Morpeth, Viscount||Robert Cecil and Mr. Ashley.|
|Du Cros, Harvey||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.||Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Ambrose, Robert||Balfour, Robert (Lanark)|
|Acland Francis Dyke||Armitage, R.||Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight.)|
|Adkins, W. Ryland||Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Barker, John|
|Agnew, George William||Ashton, Thomas Gair||Barlow, JohnEmmott (Somerset|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry||Barlow, Percy (Bedford)|
|Alden, Percy||Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Barnard, E. B.|
|Barnes. G. N.||Donelan, Captain A.||Joyce, Michael|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Dully, William J.||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Beale, W. P.||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Beauchamp, E.||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Kitson, Sir James|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Erskine, David C.||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Belloe, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.||Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Lambert, George|
|Benn, John Williams (Devonport||Essex, R. W.||Lamont, Norman|
|Bennett, E. N.||Everett, R. Lacey||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)|
|Bertram, Julius||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid|
|Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)||Fenwick, Charles||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Ffrench, Peter||Lea, Hugh Cecil (StPancras, E.)|
|Billson, Alfred||Field, William||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire||Findlay, Alexander||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)|
|Blake, Edward||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Levy, Maurice|
|Boland, John||Flynn, James Christopher||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Brace, William||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Fuller, John Michael F.||Lough, Thomas|
|Branch, James||Fullerton, Hugh||Lundon, W.|
|Brigg, John||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Lupton, Arnold|
|Bright, J. A.||Gill, A. H.||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Brunner, Sir John T. (Chesnire)||Ginnell, L.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn||Macdonald, J. M.(FalkirkB'ghs)|
|Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)||Glendinning, R. G.||Mackarness, Frederic C.|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Glover, Thomas||Maclean, Donald|
|Burnyeat, J. D. W.||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Gooch, George Peabody||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Grant, Corrie||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S|
|Byles, William Pollard||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)|
|Cairns, Thomas||Greenwood, Hamar (York)||M'Callum, John M.|
|Cameron, Robert||Grove, Archibald||M'Crae, George|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||M'Hugh, Patrick A.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Gulland, John W.||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|Cawley, Frederick||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||M'Killop, W.|
|Chance, Frederick William||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Hall, Frederick||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Halpin, J.||Maddison, Frederick|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Hammond, John||Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
|Clarke, C. Goddard||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Marnham, F. J.|
|Cleland, J. W.||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Massie, J.|
|Clough, W.||Hart-Davies, T.||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Clynes, J. R.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Meagher, Michael|
|Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.||Harwood, George||Meehan, Patrick A.|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Haworth, Arthur A.||Menzies, Walter|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Hayden, John Patrick||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Mond, A.|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.||Hedges, A. Paget||Montagu, E. S.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Helme, Norval Watson||Mooney, J. J.|
|Cooper, G. J.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Corbett, CH. (Sussex E. Grinst'd)||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)||Morrell, Philip|
|Cory, Clifford John||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Morse, L. L.|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Higham, John Sharp||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Cowan, W. H.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Murnaghan, George|
|Crombie, John William||Hogan, Michael||Murphy, John|
|Crooks, William||Holland, Sir William Henry||Murray, James|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Hooper, A. G.||Myer, Horatio|
|Crossley, William J.||Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N||Nicholls, George|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Horniman, Emslie John||Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster|
|Davies, David (MontgomeryCo.||Hudson, Walter||Nolan, Joseph|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Norman, Henry|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Illingworth, Percy, H.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Jacoby, James Alfred||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Delany, William||Jenkins, J.||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, M d|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Jones, David Brymour (Swansea||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Dillon, John||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Dolan, Charles Joseph||Jowett, F. W.||O'Doherty, Philip|
|O'Dowd, John||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|O'Hare, Patrick||Roe, Sir Thomas||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)|
|O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Thomasson, Franklin|
|O'Malley, William||Rose, Charles Day||Tomkinson, James|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Rowlands, J.||Torrance, A. M.|
|Palmer, Sir Charles Mark||Runciman, Walter||Toulmin, George|
|Parker, James (Halifax)||Russell, T. W.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Partington, Oswald||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Verney, F. W.|
|Paul, Herbert||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Paulton, James Mellor||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.||Wallace, Robert|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)||Schwann, Chas E (Manchest'r||Walsh, Stephen|
|Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Scott, AH (Ashton under Lyne)||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Perks, Robert William||Sears, J. E.||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton||Seddon, J.||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent|
|Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Seely, Major J. B.||Wardle, George J.|
|Pirie, Duncan V.||Shackleton, David James||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Price, Rbt, John (Norfolk, E.)||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Radford, G. H.||Sloan, Thomas Henry||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Rainy, A. Holland||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||Snowden, P.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Reddy, M.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Soares, Ernest J.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Redmond, William (Clare)||Stanger, H. Y.||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Rees, J. D.||Stanley. Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Rendall, Athelstan||Steadman, W. C.||Williams, L. (Carmarthen)|
|Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Richards, T. F (Wolverhampt'n||Strachey, Sir Edward||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Richardson, A.||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)||Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh., N.)|
|Rickett, J. Compton||Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Ridsdale, E. A.||Sullivan, Donal||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Summerbell, T.||Winfrey, R.|
|Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Sutherland, J. E.||Young, Samuel|
|Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)||Pease.|
|Robinson, S.||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
Question—"That those words be there added"—put, and agreed to.
§ MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)
moved to omit the words "or in any way restrict their full control of the schools" at the end of Sub-section (b). The words did not appear to be necessary to strengthen the sub-section, and he thought it lay on those who had framed the Bill to justify their retention. The sub-section was perfectly clear and sufficient without the words. Surely the right hon. Gentleman could trust the local education authority to make a suitable bargain with the owners of a school without pinning them down in this way. Of course, it was perfectly right and proper that a trust should be so far changed and modified that a public elementary school could be carried on, but why put in words which were perfectly superfluous? The local education authority might make such alterations in the internal arrangements of a building as to render it unfit to be used on Saturday or Sunday for parochial or denominational purposes. 68 The clause enabled the local authority to put up big divisions in the schoolroom which might make it absolutely unsuitable as a place for holding a public meeting, or any meeting at all.
In page 2, lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words 'or in any way restrict their full control of the school.'"—(Mr. Ashley.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. DILLON
said these words ought to be left out, but his reason for saying so was not the same as that given by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. The hon. Member had made the common mistake of confounding the word "school" with the word "schoolhouse." Subsection (a) dealt with the building, and gave the local authority full power to make 69 the very alterations the hon. Member was afraid of. Sub-section (b) dealt with the school as an entity apart from the building.
§ MR. DILLON
said he saw that the right hon. Gentleman accepted his interpretation. If these words were left in this sub-section he thought a subsequent Amendment of which the right hon. Gentleman had given notice would be out of order. The right hon. Gentleman himself recognised the necessity for some qualification of the clause, and he was going to propose to add: "Nothing in this section shall prevent the granting or requiring of facilities for special religious instruction in accordance with this Act, or prevent a local education authority as a condition of an arrangement made under this section with respect to the use of the schoolhouse of an existing voluntary school, from giving an undertaking to give religious instruction which does not conflict with Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, in the school." He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman, if he did not decide to leave out the words to which the Amendment referred, should introduce some saving words so that his subsequent Amendment might be in order.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said that the hon. and learned Member for Oxford University had pointed out to him the other day that the words "full control of the schools," might possibly interfere with the full effect of the facilities under Clause 3. He had at once acceded to the hon. and learned Member's view, whether he was right or wrong. He himself was advised that the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong, but that was a secret. The first part of the Amendment, which appeared on the Paper that day in his name, he thought had got over the difficulty suggested by the hon. Member for East Mayo. He had no objection to the words "save as hereinafter provided" being added in order to make assurance doubly sure. "School" referred to the operation and work of the school, and not to the actual bricks and mortar. It was desirable that the local authorities, when they entered into an agreement, 70 should have full control of the work of the school, and that was the reason why these words were put into the clause, and that they should not be allowed to fetter themselves by any restriction which would interfere with their rights to use the school premises of the public elementary schools. He did not think that it would be wise to omit the words altogether. The local education authority should not be allowed to better themselves, but he was quite prepared to accept the words suggested by his hon. friend in order to put it in proper order.
§ MR. DILLON
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the words "or in any way which may be hereinafter provided"?
§ LORD BALCARRES
asked if the acceptance of the words "hereinafter provided" in any way conflicted with the purpose of delegation suggested by Clause 26.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said that his view was that the facilities given under Clauses 3 and 4 might be regarded as inconsistent with the provision that these schools should be treated as provided schools. But he recognised that his difficulty had been met by the right hon. Gentleman. As to the last words of the clause he asked whether it would not be worth while to consider that there were a number of people in the country whom those words concerned, who had extraordinary ingenuity in raising difficulties. He did not aim at limiting the control of the local authorities as long as it extended merely to the time for the use of the school as a public elementary school. But there might also be cases in which something might be done by the local authorities in trenching on the rights of the owners of the schools, who might find their powers as to the use of the schools more limited than was necessary to ensure the rights of the local authority.
§ MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster)
said it seemed to him that the I words of the clause as they stood gave to 71 the local authority more power over the schools than was really intended. It would remove any ambiguity if these words were left out.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said he could not but help thinking with the hon. Member for East Mayo that the effect of the clause as it stood would be to allow the local authorities to do anything they liked with the schoolhouses. Suppose there were pictures in the schoolhouse which the local education authority thought were superstitious, and wanted to remove them. There a difficulty would arise; and he asked the right hon. Gentlemen to consider this question from that point of view.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)
thought that if the Amendment he now proposed to move were accepted it would put an end to all doubts upon the point. He did not wish to repeat what had been said in the previous debate, but he was sure that those who were in charge of the Bill would see the difficulty of using the word "school" in different ways. It was no doubt perfectly right for the President of the Board of Education to say that what he meant was the entity, but there was no such use of the English language in the Bill to indicate that what was meant was the entity. He thought it would be safer therefore to accept the wording of his Amendment.
In page 2, line 6, at end insert the words 'house during the time during which it is being used by the local education authority.'
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH, Islington, W.)
said it was quite clear that, under the clause as it stood, the local authority could only get control of the schoolhouse during school hours, and under these circumstances the local authority had not and could not, except by going outside the provisions of the Bill, get any control over the schoolhouse except during the time in which it was handed over to 72 them. That being so, he thought the acceptance of the Amendment would mean undue complication, and, in his judgment, it was quite unnecessary.
§ MR. TALBOT (Oxford University)
said he had on the Paper an Amendment to add the words "as a public elementary school" at the end of the sub-section. He suggested that if the hon. Member for Cambridge University would consent to the insertion of his words at the end of his Amendment, the matter would be made quite clear. He would move the insertion of his words as an Amendment to the Amendment. What he desired was to make it clear that during the school days the local authority should have control, but for the rest of the days which were not school days the owners and managers should have ample and complete use for other purposes.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
At end, to add the words 'as a public elementary school.'
§ Question proposed, "That the words, as amended, be there added."
§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,) South Shields
said it seemed to him that the hon. Gentlemen who were responsible for the Amendment as it now stood would by endeavouring to meet a nonexistent danger create a real danger. The wording of the sub-section was to the effect that the local education authority should have full control of the school when it was conducted as a public elementary school. The preceding sub-section dealt with school houses as such, but the sub-section they were at present discussing referred to the management of the school. If the Amendment were accepted, it would strike the word "school" out of the section, and in its place insert the word "school-house," which would make the sub-section apply not to the management of the school but to the management of the schoolhouse.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said what they, on the Opposition side of the House, wanted to ensure, was that the local education authority should not be able to 73 say that owing to any ambiguity of wording they had some right to use the school otherwise than as a public elementary school.
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford)
said the wording of the subsection was not quite clear, owing to the use of the two words "schoolhouse" and "school." If hon. Members would refer to a paper which had been issued last w eek by the County Council of Kent, giving, a description of the schools in that county, they would find that time after time the trusts were constituted in connection with the schoolhouse. Unless, therefore, they got rid of the trusts under this sub-section they had not got rid of them under any sub-section. It was not sufficient to say they were not merely dealing with the entity; they could not leave out of consideration the trusts which affected the schoolhouse itself.
§ MR. DILLON
thought the introduction of the words which hon. Members desired would injure instead of improving the rights of school owners. The sub-section dealt not with the schoolhouse, but with the use of the school, which was a totally different matter. That was the purpose of the clause, and therefore the only purpose of the sub-section was to deal with the use o f the school-house for the purposes of carrying on a public elementary school. The section was designed to get rid of the right of the owner to break in and hold a bazaar during the school hours. He thought the point was absolutely clear.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said he was perfectly satisfied with the clause as it stood, as it seemed to him to be most suitable for the purposes they had in view.
§ MR. RAWLINSON
said all he desired was to prevent interference with the schoolhouse out of school hours. The words of the sub-section were very wide, and needed restricting.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)
said the Government had been more careful to provide for the absolute supremacy of the local education authority during school hours than to protect the owners out of school hours. If the Government would put in words to redress 74 the balance, he thought it would probably satisfy his hon. friends.
§ DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N)
pointed out that the wording of sub-section (1) clearly indicated that the local education authority was to have full control of the school only for the purposes of a public elementary school.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said he had no objection whatever to the insertion of the words "as a public elementary school." They were all over the clause already. One thing was made perfectly plain, and that was that the only purpose of this clause was to put the local education authority in possession of the schoolhouse for a limited time for a limited purpose. But to oblige the hon. Member for Oxford University—a thing he was always very anxious to do—he would consent to the addition of those words.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In page 2, line 6, at end, to add the words 'as a public elementary school.'"—(Mr. Talbot.)
§ MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR (Liverpool, East Toxteth)
said the Amendment he desired to move ran as follows —And save so far as any stipulation which may be made for giving in the schools such Christian teaching as may be given in the schools under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870.He moved that Amendment because he thought it would very much facilitate the working of the Bill, and in addition allow the owners of the voluntary schools and the local education authorities to embark on special facilities two days a week; it would also permit them to agree as to giving such Christian teaching as was permitted under the Cowper-Temple clause. If the Amendment was accepted by the Government the owners and trustees of voluntary schools would have the power of insisting upon this teaching. If they did not use the power they could not afterwards complain that the schools were irreligious schools seeing that they had not asserted their power to make them religious. But if they did use this 75 power they would then demonstrate the fact that the objection to the Cowper-Temple teaching was not nearly so deep-seated in the Church of England as it was made to appear by bishops, clergy, and such of the laity as sympathised with them in an extreme form of opposition to the Bill. It might be held by some sections of the House that this was interfering with the absolute discretion of the local education authority. He had every confidence in the local education authority in the matter of religious instruction, and he believed the overwhelming majority of local education authorities would continue to give that kind of religious instruction which was permissible on all days other than those earmarked for special facilities. But he was inclined to think that the local education authorities would be very willing to have the power to make this bargain; that it should no longer be a matter of discretion whether in these schools there should be religious instruction or not, but that if it could be done it should be a definite bargain between these schools and the local authority that for all time, so far as there could be permanency in these matters, simple Christian teaching such as was permitted under the Act of 1870 should be part and parcel of the agreement between them. The power which he desired to give by this Amendment was perfectly clear to the Committee, and therefore he need not labour the point. It did not impose anything in a statutory sense, but left the owners of voluntary schools and the local education authorities free to enter into a bargain one with the other not merely for facilities but for the continuation of simple Christian teaching under the Cowper-Temple clause. He believed those among whom he sat, who represented the large Nonconformist bodies in this country, would agree that those bodies did desire to continue Bible teaching in their schools. If they desired, therefore, to continue it in their present schools they would desire to continue it in the schools taken over by the local education authorities from the churches. The acceptance of the Amendment would strengthen the Bill from a national point of view. He believed the Cowper-Temple teaching in our large towns had been very largely the work of the deno- 76 minations themselves. He could speak certainly for Liverpool, where the representatives of the various denominations who fought hard for supremacy on the school board, when they found they could not carry out their own ideas, fell back in despair on their common Christianity with most excellent results. It was in order that there might be a continuation of this excellent policy that he now appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to say that an option should be given to the local education authorities and the owners of voluntary schools to enter into this bargain. He moved.
In page 2, line 6, at the end of the second sub-section, to add, 'And save so far as any stipulation which may he made for giving in the Schools such Christian teaching as may be given in the schools under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870.'
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ LORD R. CECIL
asked whether this Amendment was in order He pointed out that in the body of the sub section it said—Free from any trusts or conditions which are not consistent with the conduct and management of the school as a public elementary school.The Cowper-Temple clause was not inconsistent with the teaching of an elementary school.
said it was for that reason that he ruled this Amendment out of order at the previous point. But the sub-section went on to say, "or in any way restrict the full control of the school." He thought the additional stipulation now proposed might restrict the full control of the school. It was a fine point, but he thought the Amendment was in order.
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDY
Would it not be equally in order for the Minister for Education to move his proviso now?
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said he could not imagine any managers making that demand, because they did not believe in it. The local authority might make a demand, 77 but then they would have denominational teaching side by side with Cowper-Temple teaching, which was a perfectly impossible proposition. The proposal put down by the President of the Board of Education was a much more feasible one, because it did not lay down any compulsion. He thought the Amendment would be entirely unworkable, for they could not have Roman Catholic teaching, for instance, going on side by side with Cowper-Temple teaching.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said he hoped the hon. Member for East Toxteth would see his way to withdraw his Amendment, because the Government could not accept it, and his object would be met by the Government proposal.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he was in favour of the view expressed by the Minister for Education in his Amendment, which was that there should be freedom on the part of the owners of the schools to make arrangements with regard to religious education. He thought it was just one of those cases in which the phrases "Cowper-Templeism" and "simple Bible teaching" and the rest of it were liable to the greatest misuse and produced the gravest misunderstanding. If he were the owner—as he was not—of a school and if he had to make a bargain with a local authority, he would strive to get teaching consistent with Section 14 of the Act of 1870, but by no means in conformity with that rather jejune instruction which went by the name of Cowper-Templeism. If he were the owner of a voluntary school he should try to get some arrangement which would suit not only Churchmen but all bodies of Christians in the district and not confine it to what was sometimes called Cowper-Templeism, the fatal ambiguity of which phrase was always leading them astray both in this House and outside it. He thought it was most desirable that under such an arrangement full liberty should be given to the voluntary schools.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ The Chairman called upon Mr. Middlemore.78
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he desired on a point of order to remind the Chairman that Clauses 3 and 4 would be discussed under great difficulties by this Amendment.
§ MR. DILLON
asked if he might move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. †
That Amendment is not in order. It deals with the rights of children attending those schools, and therefore it is a matter of attendance and not schoolhouses.
§ MR. DILLON
said they had had a long discussion in which they had all agreed that this particular sub section did not deal with schoolhouses but with the conduct of the school, and in that respect he submitted that the marginal note was wrong, or at any rate open to correction.
Of course I cannot lay much stress upon the marginal note, but I do lay stress upon the general scope of the clause, which has nothing to do with the attendance of children. Although I should be glad to have the point discussed, I really cannot allow it here.
§ MR. MIDDLEMORE (Birmingham, N.)
said this sub-section proposed to invalidate trusts, or at any rate the religious part of them. The particular subsection which he moved to omit invited trustees to take part in invalidating trusts which it was their duty to protect, and therefore it invited them to do an act of great wickedness and treachery. These persons had accepted their trusteeship and had signed a document to say that they would maintain those trusts, and now they were being invited to do something in opposition to their written word. This was adding insult and almost infamy to what was little short of† The Amendment referred to was as follows:—"In Clause 2, page 2, line 6, at end, to insert, 'Provided that, after a school has been transferred, the children of parents belonging to a denomination in respect of which a trust existed affecting such school may continue as of right to attend same from any part of an urban or rural area,'"— (Mr. T. M. Healy.)79 robbery. John Stuart Mill laid down the principle that a trust should be maintained as long as the foresight of the person who founded it could be reasonably supposed to extend. Now they were proposing to ask trustees to be parties to this confiscation. He felt very strongly on this point, and he begged to move his Amendment.
In page 2, line 7, to leave out sub-section (2)."—Mr. Middlemore.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. BIRRELL
said that although the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Birmingham had been moved in a spirit of fairness, it was really inconsistent with the observations which had already been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who recognised that it was impossible to carry out the proposals made under the Act of 1902 if there was not a latitude allowed in regard to these trusts, so far as they related to the use which the local education authority might make of the schoolhouse and premises for the purpose of carrying on a public elementary school. If they could not vary these trusts there would be an end of all dealing with trust property for public purposes. The whole history of this country was full of instances in which for the public good Parliament had allowed an interference with trusts affecting particular pieces of property. If they were now to be told that they could not acquire for the purposes of public elementary education any building which had a trust deed attached to it there would be no course open to them but to disregard those buildings and leave the local authority free to build new schools, leaving those trust schools out in the cold altogether. That was not the proposal of the Government. Their proposal was that where an agreement could be come to, the persons should strike a bargain of their own, and he did not see any compulsion in that. He sympathised with hon. Members who felt so keenly on this point, but it was now too late in the day for anyone who supported the Bill of 1902 or the Charitable Trusts Act to say that these 80 trusts should not be varied. One hon. Member had assured the Committee that this interference with trusts would interfere in the future with benefactors, and that pious founders would not leave any of their property to trusts. He was afraid that personally he should never be a pious founder, but he could conceive nothing more likely to promote benefactions than the conviction that hundreds of years after the would-be benefactor was dead the public would by law utilise to the utmost the intention he had in his mind. He believed that if these pious founders could ever revisit the country the persons they would admire most would be the Charity Commissioners, because they would see the schools they had founded, instead of being kept going with only two or three boys, revived in consequence of these very breaches of trust and devoted to the main purposes which the pious founders had in view. He knew nothing more likely to encourage public benefactions than the fact that there was power from time to time to see to it that the trusts were not used as an instrument in opposition to the public good, but to divert them into channels of public usefulness. His belief was that the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Birmingham was entirely hostile to the general purposes of the Bill and would render this or any other measure dealing with private trusts altogether impossible. Therefore the Government could only offer a determined opposition to the Amendment.
§ MR. EVELYN CECIL (Aston Manor)
said the speech of the Minister for Education was entirely alien to anything he had heard before on this subject, and he could not understand his view. He said it would not damp the ardour of pious founders and benefactors, but he differed from the right hon. Gentleman on that point. Probably in many cases the opinions of pious founders as to what was for the public good might differ very much from the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman. The President of the Board of Education had just put before the Committee a very dangerous doctrine. He happened to be the happy possessor of a book written by the right hon. Gentleman upon the liabilities of trusts and trustees 81 in which it was laid down that the duty of a trustee was to adhere to the terms of his trust in all things great and small, important and seemingly unimportant—This was his very plainest duty; no trustee would ever deny it, or pretend to be ignorant of it, yet it was his hardest, unless from the very beginning he made up his mind to it, and then it was as easy as eating bread and butter. Non possumus (continued the right hon. Gentleman) was the one and only answer for badgered trustees. They should never argue or reply to arguments, but barricade themselves behind their will or their deed, and whilst profoundly regretting their inability to oblige, refuse to budge a foot.This was on pages 22 and 23.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said they were not now dealing with the obligations of trustees, because every trustee left to himself must carry out his trust. They were now considering a great measure of public interest.
§ MR. EVELYN CECIL
said there had never before been such a wide departure in so-called deference to the public good. He could not himself see any very great difference between a private trustee and one who was a trustee for the nation.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)
said that during the whole of the discussion upon the Act of 1902 he did not venture to say a word concerning education. He ventured this afternoon to address himself to this particular question of trusts because he did not think it was too late for him to enter his protest against what he believed to be an injustice on the part of the Government in dealing with trusts. The Minister for Education had said that the action of this or any Government which dealt with the alteration of trusts was to prevent abuses, to destroy what might be called the injury of obsoleteness which crept into trusts, and to keep down all that repressed what was for the public good. There was a time when a great many hon. Members opposite did not take the view that trusts were, as they had done their best to represent, oppressive to the public good. The whole body of opinion in this country forty years ago was that these religious and educational trusts were of immense benefit to the community at large. He quoted an extract from a Minute of the 82 Committee of the Council on Education o 1844, which stated that the trust deeds of voluntary schools would form a permanent record of the views and intentions of the founders of the schools. The Minute further stated that in the opinion of the Committee no plan of education ought to be encouraged in which intellectual instruction was not subordinated to religious instruction. At that time this country was practically dependent upon the Church of England for the education of its children. The example set by the Church of England in the formation of the National Society was followed by the British and Foreign Society, by the Roman Catholics, and by Nonconformists of every kind. The Church of England gave their support generally and specifically to every effort which was made then to build up the religious foundations which existed to-day. He did not think the Minister for Education had put quite fairly before the Committee and the country the position of the teaching in the voluntary schools as they existed in this country. Were the Government justified in dealing so rigorously with trust deeds at the present time? Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House believed that the treatment was too rigorous. They believed that the Government had taken from the voluntary schools that which was of most good in them, namely, religious instruction, the one thing for which those schools were valued. It was proposed to take away the full teaching which was provided under the old system and to give instead teaching on two days of the week. The instruction issued to the inspectors in former days was that they were to have regard less to the intellectual development of the children than to the foundation of character formed upon religious teching. The inspectors were told that no intellectual development was sound which had not its origin in moral and religious teaching through doctrinal methods. The people of this country had gone a long way since then, but he was not at all certain that they were on the right way. He did not think that those who represented nonconformity at present were really doing justice to themselves and their own history. There was not a single member of the community who had not benefited directly from the teaching given in the voluntary 83 schools. In the forties and fifties, when there was no other system of schools, the burden of educating the poor devolved upon the Church of England. The Government then not only encouraged but pressed benevolent people to give land and to give of their riches in order to give to the poor of the country the education which they had not previously. He urged that the trusts should have greater consideration at the hands of the Government. Nonconformity and the Liberal Party were not at present really representing the feelings of the classes from which they had drawn their political force and power. The clauses in the Bill were repressive; they did not give freedom; they did not represent the views of the vast body of the people of the country. The Minister for Education had been more moved by political opportunism than by what he himself honestly believed was for the best good of the country. If the right hon. Gentleman were only to embody in the Bill the statements he had made on public platforms they would have less quarrel with him. The right hon. Gentleman knew that he was not carrying out the policy which he and his leader and the Liberal Party presented to the country at the general election. He hit harder than probably he meant, and by the clause which practically defeated the intention of the founders of the trusts, he was retarding the development of the education of the country. They had come to the day of misappropriations, and these, although called by another name by the Minister for Education, would return upon the Party which they represented and would do it an injury which they did not desire; because he believed they really wished to do their best for the good of the children of the country. What he and those associated with him desired was that a spirit of benevolence and charity in regard to education should be kept alive; that the soul and the mind of the children should be cultivated, and that no education other than that was worthy of the name. They believed that the inculcation of morality was good, but that the upbringing of the children in religion was better. They believed that the same tests in regard to the religious development of the child should be applied as to 84 its intellectual development. It was in that regard that he hoped the intentions of the pious founders of trusts for the spiritual welfare of the children of England would be maintained intact.
§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,) South Shields
said that the speeches in support of this Amendment displayed a singular and unfortunate misconception of the nature of trusts. They had been spoken of as if they were self-supporting trusts and as if the Government were interfering with the will of some pious founder who had set apart a sufficient fund for a charitable purpose. There could be no greater misapprehension. The trusts they were dealing with were not self-supporting. They were trusts which came as petitioners to the national exchequer for money. Most of them were built upon the legislative understanding that 50 per cent, of the expenses should be contributed by the denomination, and that it should receive a grant of 50 per cent, from the State. The denominations found themselves unequal to that financial burden, and their friends strove by legislative action to lessen that burden. He did not complain of that, but it was idle for voluntary schools to put themselves into the position of private trusts and to say the State had no right to dictate or suggest terms on which it should give its money. On the one hand, the denominations were appealing to the State for financial aid and on the other hand the State was saying in this Bill on what terms it would give that aid. No parallel could be drawn between that case and the case of private trusts. The denominations complained of the intolerable strain upon them, and that being their position how preposterous it was for them to assail the Government with terms of abuse because in the strict fulfilment of their duty as public trustees they suggested that there were terms which ought to be imposed in common fairness to the community which had to pay.
§ Sir WILLIAM ANSON
said he objected to the language that had been used in respect to trustees and the sanctity of trusts. The President of the Board of Education had adduced the argument that because the Charity Commissioners had 85 altered the disposition of certain trusts to the advantage of education, the benefactors who had created those trusts would have been heartily grateful to the Legislature for empowering them to do so. But it should be remembered that in those cases the educational circumstances of the past were adapted to the needs of the present with as little change as possible and the rule of ci-près was observed. The right hon. Gentleman had also quoted the action of the late Government in the Bill of 1902 and had stated that his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition had invaded trusts and that, therefore, he was not in a position to criticise any one else who invaded trusts in any other direction. But what did the late Government do? In the first place they altered the schemes of management under the trust deed so as to conform to the provision of the Act; but the whole scheme of management was most carefully worked out to secure that the original intentions of the truster were carried on. He admitted that there was an invasion of the trusts under what was known as the Kenyon-Slaney clause of the Act of 1902. He quite agreed that when the late Government took the control of the religious instruction from the rector or vicar and deposited it in the hands of the managers that was a departure from the terms of the trust. But it was never contemplated to alter the character of the religious instruction given in the schools. Lastly, in regard to the teachers, it was a departure from the terms of the trust which enabled managers to appoint all the teachers, except the headmaster, from any religious denomination whatever. That was the whole case in regard to trusts as against the late Government. But what did the present Bill do? It altered the whole purpose for which the voluntary schools had been built. The Solicitor-General had said that these schools demanded payment from the State. But what were the circumstances of the case? Had not the State been content to use the buildings of the schools? Had not Parliament encouraged the denominations to build these schools, because Parliament did not want to put the expense either on the Exchequer or on the local rates? They were not mendicants for public money. 86 They were the inheritors of buildings for purposes which could not be carried out under this Bill. But as the Bill now stood schools might be rejected and put aside and not allowed to be used as public elementary schools unless they submitted to the requirements of the Bill in regard to the trusts. It was not fair to put the case in the way in which the Solicitor-General had done and say that they had clamoured to have their schools confiscated. The purport of the Amendment was that the schools whose managers desired they should remain as public elementary schools should be acquired as such with the least possible departure from their trust deeds. What he meant was that they should if they chose continue their useful mission and should not be thrown aside through the whim of the local authority. He quite admitted that the Amendment was one which the Government could not consistently admit, having regard to the scheme of Clause 2, but for himself, he was, he thought justified in protesting against the treatment to which trusts were subjected throughout the Bill. The language of the Bill indicated that the Government were only too ready to secure, as public property, schools which had been provided for the purposes of the State in order to secure religious education in conjunction with elementary education. Whatever happened under the clause, however, a breach of trust would have to be committed, and against that he entered his hearty protest.
§ MR. DILLON
said the course of the discussion appeared to him to be positively melancholy. They were discussing a provision which was entirely in the interest of the voluntary schools but which it was now proposed to omit. If the Government had proposed the Amendment the hon. Gentlemen who were now supporting it would not have dared to have voted for anything of the kind. The speeches of hon. Members against breaches of trust would come in very well upon Clause 8 and other clauses, but to discuss the question upon this clause was most lamentable, as all that the clause proposed was to put trustees in a position in which they could hand over their schools. The only effect of the Amendment, if adopted, would be to play 87 directly into the hands of the hon. Members who were the extreme opponents of Clauses 3 and 4, as it would give the local authorities a thoroughly valid excuse for refusing to take over voluntary schools. Such a proposal was not in his view reasonable.
§ MR. RAWLINSON
said he was not upon this Amendment going to make an appeal to the Government, as he knew that any such appeal in regard to it would be unfair, because he recognised that this clause was an essential part of the scheme of the Bill. He was prepared, however, to vote in favour of the Amendment, not in the hope that the Government would accept it, but because he recognised that it was against the basis of the measure. He believed that that basis was confiscation of trust property, and the object of the Amendment was to protest against that. The Bill was talked about as if it referred only to trusts created hundreds of years ago, but, as a matter of fact, it referred to trusts ten, fifteen, and twenty years old. The trustees under it were invited to disregard equally the wishes of new and of old benefactors. It was quite a mistake to represent trustees coming as mendicants and suppliants. Under Part II. of the Bill the plunder could not be justified by the plea that the man gave his money merely for educational purposes. There had always been enough money from these educational endowments to pay for the denominational instruction in the schools so endowed. The Minister for Education had scoffed at the idea that the policy of the Government would stop benefactions which would go towards the creation of trust funds in future, but in his experience it had had that effect.
§ SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)
wished to know whether it was proposed to put in the sub-section provisions imposing an obligation on the trustees to carry out the trust. It must be considerd that a trustee was bound to get the best possible terms. If when this Bill had passed the trustee of a voluntary school failed to secure such facilities as it was possible to secure would that trustee be guilty of a breach of trust? As he read the Bill, he did not think he would, but he thought he ought to be. Therefore 88 he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would accept an Amendment limiting the breaking of the trust.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said they had assumed that the trustees and owners of voluntary schools would always make it a condition that they should have the most extended facilities that the law under Clause 3 would permit. He could not suppose that they would do otherwise. However that might be, he would when they came to that part of the Bill, endeavour to put that question right. He only rose for the purpose of making an appeal to the Committee. Everybody had admitted that he could not possibly accept the Amendment now before the Committee; that to do so would be an act of cruelty to those trustees who wished to continue, their schools and who wished to have the Prayer Book in the schools twice a week, and a good system of religious education on the other days. This clause was in their favour. However, he did not rise to argue the matter but to ask the Committee, as he could not accept the Amendment, to come to a decision upon it.
§ MR. NIELD (Middlesex, Ealing)
said that they on the Opposition side of the House were being constantly told that the sanctity of trusts had been broken in upon and practically destroyed by the late Government by their Education Act of 1902 and by the Charitable Trusts Act, but that was not an accurate statement. The Act of 1902 had preserved the object which the founder had in view but had altered the number of trustees and given popular representation, while the Charitable Trusts Act had provided means for modernising trusts while keeping as far as possible to the object and scheme of the founder's bounty. The Minister for Education had also referred to the number of schools which had been surrendered or transferred under this Act of 1870. This was a subject upon which he himself had put a specific Question to the right hon. Gentleman. He asked him specifically to state the number of schools taken over since 1870; to give the number of school places affected, and to state how many of the schools taken over were Roman Catholic, how many were Church 89 of England, and how many belonged to the various Nonconformist bodies. But in the, Answer he received, with all the knowledge which he had of the English language, he utterly failed to find any information; at all. Throughout the debates upon the Act of 1870 the position of these voluntary schools was clearly defined and not only was their existence recognised but their great work acknowledged. Board schools were to supplement but not supplant them, and upon the faith of this statutory recognition further schools were put up beside them. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University made it abundantly clear that even so far as building grants were given they were given for secular education, and the conditions of those grants had been fulfilled. True, they had to come for larger grants from the Exchequer year by year, and for very good reason, since they were subjected to unfair competition. During the whole of the time that elementary education had been given under the school board system, oppressive and ever increasing rates were levied upon the people for the purpose of providing and equipping in the most complete manner, irrespective of cost, these public elementary and higher grade schools. How could they suppose that voluntary schools could exist side by side with those schools which had the illimitable purse of the ratepayers at their back? It was because of that that the voluntary schools of outlying and rural districts came to the House from time to time to ask for further assistance. It was not only unjust and unfair but departing from the common principles of honesty to say that these great denominations had not a substantial interest in the schools they had built and equipped at such great pecuniary sacrifice, merely because they had received these grants from the Imperial Exchequer, grants given for purposes and under conditions which had been amply, nay generously, fulfilled. If hon. Gentlemen opposite said they had a mandate to deal with any part of the public educational system, it was confined to two points, viz., increasing the number of managers for voluntary schools appointed by the local authority, and the appointment of the head teachers. He denied that they had a mandate to alter trust deeds and put an end to the wishes 90 of the pious founders of the last sixty ears, the raison d'être for which was the establishment and maintenance of the religious education to be given in the schools, of the character approved by and in accordance with the teaching of the Church of England. The Committee in his matter were taking a step which hey would soon regret because it would, open the door to interference with trust deeds of all kind.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite; therefore he would suggest that the Committee should bring this discussion to, an end, and that they should divide not on this Amendment but rather on the second Amendment, upon which there were some important Questions to ask.
§ MR. MIDDLEMORE
said before he withdrew his Amendment he would like; to reply to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education that the pious Founders would clap their hands and rejoice at the destruction of these trust deeds. What mysterious power had whispered in the ear of the right hon. Gentleman that he had been enabled to become the Parliamentary representative of the unseen and unknown? All he could say was that the trust deeds were just as much alive now as they were in the time of the pious founders, and he ventured to say that if the pious founders were still alive they would hold the same-views as they held when they entered into these trust deeds. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD BALCARRES
said he desired to move the Amendment standing in the name of his hon. friend the Member for the Oxford University—To insert in line 10, after the word 'section' the words 'as far as possible in accordance with the terms of the trust.His hon. friend had put those words on the Paper in order to invite the President of the Board of Education to say whether he could see his way to accept the Amendment not from the point of view of limiting the discretion of the local authority or the constituted rights and duties of trustees, but merely 91 to insert in the clause something in the nature of a safeguard.
In page 2, line 10, after the word 'section,' to insert the words 'as far as possible in accordance with the terms of the trust.'"—(Lord Balcarres.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. BIRRELL
said, after all, under this clause the owners were the people who had to carry out the arrangements, and they would make their proposals as far as possible consistent with their trust. But he did not like to accept any words which might prevent the local authority from obtaining control of the schools during the time for which they required them.
§ SIR E. CARSON
said the matter was of considerable importance, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to agree to the Amendment. The object was to prevent negligent trustees or people upon whom pressure might be put from abrogating more than was necessary their functions as trustees of denominational schools. Surely it was only fair that a trustee should be guilty of a breach of trust if he neglected to carry out all the arrangements allowed under the Bill for the purpose of securing special facilities for religious teaching. What was the use of saying that a trustee was to be absolved from a breach of trust if he got rid of a trust altogether? In the vast majority of cases there was no doubt the owner and trustee would make the best bargain they could with the local authority. But the trust might pass into the hands of persons who were absolutely careless in these matters, and care ought to be taken that they were not allowed in such cases to sacrifice what the right hon. Gentleman had given them in the Bill. They should be bound to exercise the ordinary prudence and duties of trustees.
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford)
asked the right hon. Gentleman to give further consideration to this matter. No harm could result from the Amendment, and it would provide that 92 the trusts should be varied as little as was consistent with the arrangements in carrying out the other parts of the clause. It was impossible in any way to limit the full effect of the control given by the previous subsection.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said the owners must know their own duties, and they knew perfectly well the limited purpose for which, they were allowed to put their trust on one side. The Amendment would throw doubt upon their action in every possible way. He thought they must leave it to the trustees and the other persons who represented them to look after the matter as far as possible.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had taken the line he had. The words proposed to be inserted in the clause had no other object than to make it quite clear that no unnecessary sacrifice should be made by the trustees. The right hon. Gentleman had not suggested a single inconvenience that would result. He had only suggested some minute difficulty which might arise, but he had not given even an imaginary case. He believed these words would be a valuable guide to the trustees and would help them in any legitimate discussion with the local authority. He did not want to hamper the local authority, and indeed they could not hamper it as the responsible authority in matters of education. If these words were not inserted it would seem to many trustees, as indeed it would seem to many in the Committee, that the Government desired to sweep away the trusts and to treat them as a matter of no moment, and being content that the local authorities should get all that they wanted for their part of the business and leaving the interest of the trust on one side.
§ LORD R. CECIL
very much hoped the Government would reconsider their decision. The Minister for Education seemed to regard it merely as a matter for the owners. He did not think it was. He thought it was mainly a matter for those who benefited under the trust, and he could see a very substantial reason why some such words as these should be inserted. The clause said that the owners 93 should have power to carry out any arrangements under this section. It might well be that two different arrangements might be possible under this section, both for the purpose of carrying on the public elementary school, but one might be more and the other less in accordance with the trust, and it seemed to him clearly desirable that in that case the one more in accordance with the trust should be selected by the trustee. But unless some such words as those of the Amendment were inserted the trustees would have absolute liberty to make the arrangement which was less in accordance with the trust. That was a very serious matter, and he could not help thinking that the Minister for Education had not really considered that aspect of the case. Even if the actual words of the Amendment were not those which the Government could accept he hoped they would insert some words which would make it clear that where it was possible to make an alternative arrangement the trustees should make that arrangement which was the more in accordance with the trust.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said it would be somewhat dangerous to introduce limitations of the power of the trustees to make such arrangements as they thought right with the local authorities. There was no reason to doubt that the trustees would consider themselves in a special sense the guardians of religious education wherever they could fulfil the object of their trusts, but if they were to introduce words of this kind it would certainly cast doubt on the power of trustees to make any arrangements. 'The words which it was proposed to introduce would leave every trustee and every local education authority in doubt as to the validity of the arrangement at which they had arrived, and that was a matter the Government desired to avoid.
§ MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants, Basingstoke)
confessed he had some difficulty in understanding the reluctance shown by the Government to accept this Amendment in substance. The clause they were dealing with was one which proposed to give to trustees a licence to 94 break a trust. He imagined all Members of the Committee would agree that that was a thing which, if it were done at all, ought to be done with the greatest care and circumspection. He should think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the only ground on which it could be suggested that it might be right to entitle trustees to break trusts was that of public interest, and did it not follow that licence to break trusts ought to be restricted so far as the public interest allowed? Was this restriction in any way in derogation of the supposed public interest on which the Government relied? Under the clause as it stood it would be competent for the trustees of a voluntary school to make an agreement which would completely destroy the hitherto existing religious character of the school. It might be that they were in a position, if they bargained with the local authority, to obtain certain terms. Under the clause as it stood they would be under no obligation to attempt to obtain the best terms available, and it would be open to the trustees, even though they could obtain facilities by bargaining, to make an agreement which would involve no facilities at all. But under the clause as proposed to be amended it would not be competent for the trustees of the school to make an agreement without stipulating for religious facilities, assuming such facilities could be obtained. He hoped the Minister for Education would consider whether, possibly by some alteration of the words, he could limit the licence here given to break trusts, so far as might be compatible with the public interest.
§ SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)
considered the proposal of his hon. friend a valuable one. He thought the trustees and owners were entitled to some instruction and guidance in the matter. There was no doubt that the tendency of these clauses was very unfavourable as they now stood to the maintenance of trusts, and if the Bill passed in its present form it would appear as if the intention of Parliament was to break up trusts. Some Amendment of the kind indicated would do something to remove that defect.
§ MR. HORRIDGE (Manchester, E.)
said it was exceedingly desirable in this matter that the hands of the local authority and of the trustees should be free. Speaking as a lawyer on this occasion it seemed to him if they put in the words of the Amendment they would at once raise the question whether or not the trustees had gone one iota beyond what was necessary for the purposes of the trust. The Amendment would involve the trustees in all sorts of law suits, and in many cases they might even have the authorities themselves brought in. It seemed to him that the people to be trusted were those who had to make the bargain, and the Committee ought not to limit their actions in any way, or to raise any suspicion. He hoped the Minister for Education would not accept any words of this character, because he believed they would create difficulties and be harmful while serving no useful purpose.
§ SIR E. CARSON
said the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that unless these words were inserted there might be the suggestion of a breach of trust if certain matters were not carried out, but
§ that was impossible for the reason that the words were "as far as possible in accordance with the terms of the trust." If the local authority said "we will never give you so and so," and the trustee had to accept it, he had done his duty because he had acted as far as possible in accordance with the trust. What they contended was that under the Bill at present the trustee was absolutely absolved, from doing anything to carry out his trust, and they wished to have it clear that it was his duty to carry out his trust as far as possible. Why should it not be put in the Bill? In every case he ought to obtain terms for religious liberty under the Bill, and if he tried to do that he was absolved from any idea of any breach of trust whatsoever, because it was covered by the words "as far as possible." This was the most reasonable Amendment that could possibly be suggested, and he could not conceive why any Government should wish to interfere with solemn and great trusts more than was absolutely necessary in the public interest.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 103; Noes, 414. (Division List No. 136.)101
|Acland-Hood. Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)||Kenyon-Slaney. Rt. Hn Col. W.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Keswick, William|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)|
|Arnold-Forster. Rt. HnHughO.||Courthope, G. Loyd||Lane-Fox, G. K.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Craik, Sir Henry||Lee, ArthurH. (Hants. Fareham|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Cross, Alexander||Liddell, Henry|
|Balcarres, Lord||Dairymple, Viscount||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A J. (CityLond)||Doughty, Sir George||Lyttleton, Rt Hon. Alfred|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||MacIver, David (Liverpool)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Du Cros, Harvey||Marks, H. H. (Kent)|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan||Mason, James F. (Windsor)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Fardell, Sir T. George||MiddlemoreJohn, Throgmorton|
|Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks||Fell, Arthur||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Fletcher, J. S.||Muntz, Sir Philip A.|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Forster, Henry William||Nicholson. Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||O'Neill, Hn. Robert Torrens|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington|
|Bull, Sir William James||Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'rHam.||Percy, Earl|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Haddock, George R.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Hamilton, Marquess of||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford||Rawlinson, John Frederick P.|
|Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Hervey F. W. F.(BuryS. Edm'ds||Remnant, James Farquharson.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield Ecclesall).|
|Cave, George||Hill, Henrv Staveley (Stafl'sh.)||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Cavendish.Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.||Hills, J. W.||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hornby, Sir William Henry||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Houston, Robert Paterson||Smith,F. E. (Liverpool, Walton|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone. E.)||Kennaway,Rt.Hn.Sir John H.||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand).|
|Starkey, John R.||Walrond, Hon. Lionel||Younger, George|
|Stone, Sir Benjamin||Warde, Col. C.E.(Kent, Mid.)|
|Thomson W. Mitchell-(Lanark||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Turnour, Viscount||Wilson, A. Stanley (York E.R.||Salter and Mr. Nield|
|Valentia, Viscount||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard||Wortley, Rt, Hn. C.B. Stuart-|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.||Causton,Rt. Hn. RichardKnight||Flynn, James Christopher|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Cawley, Frederick||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Chance, Frederick William||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Adkins, W. Ryland||Channing, Francis Allston||Fuller, John Michael F.|
|Agnew, George William||Cheetham, John Frederick||Fullerton, Hugh|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Furness, Sir Christopher|
|Alden, Percy||Churchill, Winston Spencer||Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch||Clancy, John Joseph||Gibb, James (Harrow)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Clarke, C. Goddard||Gill, A. H.|
|Ambrose, Robert||Cleland, J. W.||Ginnell, L.|
|Armitage, R.||Clough, W.||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Clynes, J. R.||Glendinning, R. G.|
|Ashton, Thomas Galr||Coats.Sir T.Glen (Renfrew, W.||Glover, Thomas|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Astbury, John Meir||Cogan,Denis J.||Gooch, George Peabody|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Grant, Corrie|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Collins,Sir Wm J.(S. Pancras, W||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury,E.||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Greenwood, Hamar (York)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Corbett,C H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward|
|Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Grove, Archibald|
|Barker, John||Cory, Clifford John||Gulland, John W.|
|Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somers't||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Cowan, W. H.||Hall, Frederick|
|Barnard, E. B.||Cremer, William Randal||Halpin, J.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Crombie, John William||Hammond, John|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Crooks, William||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Crossley, William J.||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil|
|Beale, W. P.||Dalziel, James Henry||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)|
|Beauchamp, E.||Davies, David (Montgomery Co.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r|
|Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Hart-Davies, T.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Davies, M.Vaughan- (Cardigan)||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Harvey A. G. C. (Rochdale)|
|Benn, John Williams(Dev'np't||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hardwood, George|
|Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets S. Geo||Delany, William||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Bennett, E. N.||Devlin, CharlesRamsay (Galway||Haworth, Arthur A.|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Bertram, Julius||Dewar, John A. (Inverness, S.)||Hazel, Dr. A. E.|
|Bethell J. H.(Esssex, Romford)||Dickinson, W. H.(S. Pancras, N||Hazleton, Richard|
|Bethell,T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Hedges, A. Paget|
|Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Blake Edward||Dillon, John||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Boland, John||Dolan, Charles Joseph||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.|
|Bolton,T. D.(Derbyshire, N. E.)||Donelan, Captain A.||Henry, Charles S.|
|Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)||Duckworth, James||Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.|
|Brace, William||Duffy, William J.||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)||Higham, John Sharp|
|Branch, James||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Hobart, Sir Robert|
|Brigg, John||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Hodge, John|
|Brocklehurst, W.D.||Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)||Hogan, Michael|
|Brooke, Stopford||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Holden, E. Hopkinson|
|Brunner,J. F. L.(Lancs., Leigh)||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)||Ellis, Rt. Hon John Edward||Hooper, A. G.|
|Bryce,Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen||Erskine, David C.||Hope, W. Bateman (Som'rs't, N.|
|Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)||Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Eve, Harry Trelawney||Hudson, Walter|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Everett, R. Lacey||Hutton, Alfred Eddison|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Hyde. Clarendon|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Fenwick, Charles||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Burnyeat, J. D. W.||Ffrench, Peter||Issac, Rufus Daniel|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Field, William||Jackson, R. S.|
|Byles, William Pollard||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Jacoby, James Alfred|
|Cairns, Thomas||Findlay, Alexander||Jenkins, J.|
|Cameron, Robert||Flavin, Micl.ael Joseph||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Murnaghan, George||Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester|
|Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea||Murphy, John||Scott, A. H. (AshtonunderLyne)|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Murray, James||Sears, J. E.|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.||Myer, Horatio||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Jowett, F. W.||Napier, T. B.||Seddon, J.|
|Joyce, Michael||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Seely, Major J. B.|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)||Shackleton, David James|
|Kekewich, Sir George||Nicholls, George||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Nicholson, CharlesN. (Donc' str.)||Shaw,Rt. Hn. T. (HawickB.)|
|Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Nolan, Joseph||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster||Nuttall, Harry||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mld||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Lambert, George||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Snowden, P.|
|Lamont, Norman||O'Connor, James (Wicklow. W.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Lawson, Sir Wilfrid||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)||O'Doherty, Philip||Stanley. Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Lehmann, R. C.||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Steadman, W. C.|
|Lever,A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||O'Dovd, John||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral||O'Hare, Patrick||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Levy, Maurice||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||O'Malley, William||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||O'Mara, James||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Lough, Thomas||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Lundon, W.||Partington, Oswald||Summerbell, T.|
|Lupton, Arnold||Paul, Herbert||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Paulton, James Mellor||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Lynch, H. B.||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk,Eye||Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury)|
|Macdonald.J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs||Philipps. Col. Ivor (S'th'mpt'n||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Mackarness, Frederic C.||Philipps,J. Wynford (Pembroke||Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)|
|Maclean, Donald||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan. E.)|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Power, Patrick Joseph||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Macpherson, J. T.||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central||Thompson, J. W. H.(Somerset, E|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.||Radford, G. H.||Thorne, William|
|MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal E.||Rainy, A. Rolland||Tomkinson, James|
|M'Arthur, William||Raphael, Herbert H.||Torrance, A. M.|
|M'Callum, John M.||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Toulmin, George|
|M'Crae, George||Ready, M.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford||Verney, F. W.|
|M'Kean, John||Redmond, William (Clare)||Villiers, Ernest Amherst|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Rees, J. D.||Vivian, Henry|
|M'Killop, W.||Rendall, Athelstan||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Renton, Major Leslie||Walsh, Stephen|
|M'Micking, Major G.||Richards.Thomas (W. Monm'th||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Maddison, Frederick||Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Mallet, Charles E.||Richardson, A.||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent|
|Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Rickett, J. Compton||Wardle, George J.|
|Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)||Ridsdale, E. A.||Wason, Eucene (Clackmannan)|
|Marks. G. Croydon (Launceston)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Wason, Jn Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Marnham, F. J.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Massie, J.||Robertson.Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Masterman, C. F. G.||Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradford||Weir, James Galloway|
|Meagher, Michael||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Whitbread, Howard|
|Meehan, Patrick A.||Robinson, S.||White, J. D.(Dumbartonshire)|
|Menzies, Walter||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Roe, Sir Thomas||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Mond, A.||Rose, Charles Day||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza-||Rowlands, J.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Montagu, E. S.||Runciman, Walter||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Mooney, J. J.||Russell, T. W.||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||William s, Llewellyn (Carm'rth'n|
|Morley, Rt. Hon. John||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Morse, L. L.||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.|
|Wilson, P. W.(St. Pancras, S.)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Wilson, W. T.(Westhoughton)||Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(H'dd'rs'f||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Winfrey, R.||Young, Samuel||Pease.|
§ LORD R. CECIL
moved the omission of the portion of Subsection 2 which provided that the owners of a schoolhouse of any existing voluntary school which was subject to charitable trusts should, when the local education authority had not the use of the schoolhouse, have power to use it for any purpose they thought fit, subject to any statutory provisions under which the use of the schoolhouse or any room therein might be required for public purposes. The words appeared to him to be indefensible. The purpose of the sub-section was to enable the local education authority to come to terms, in spite of the trust, for the use of the schoolhouse for the purpose of public elementary education, and if the trustees were to have the power which the clause proposed to confer on them, the trusts must to a certain extent be interfered with. The Government had spoken as if this were a matter of affecting principally the trustees, but that was not so. He took very little interest in the trustees, except in so far as they performed the duties of their trusts. From a Return which had been issued showing the trusts affecting schools in Kent it appeared that under the trusts the schoolhouses could be put to a variety of uses of a parochial character, and, generally speaking, for the good and the convenience of the districts in which they existed. These trusts ought to be care fully preserved, and the only purpose of the words which he proposed should be struck out would be to give the trustees liberty to disregard the trusts. He begged to move.
In page 2, lines 10 to 15, to leave out the words, 'and in the time during which the local education authority have not the use of the schoolhouse under any such arrangement, to use the schoolhouses for any purposes they think fit, subject nevertheless to any statutory provisions under which the use of the school- house or any room therein may be required;for public purposes.'"—(Lord R, Cecil.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. BIRRELL
admitted that the words were unnecessarily wide. They 102 were inserted in good nature, because the Education Office often received requests from trustees to be allowed to use the schoolrooms for social and public purposes, and the Board thought that the clause afforded a good opportunity for giving a general permission to trustees to use the schools for purposes other than educational. He should be sorry to see the words omitted altogether, but he agreed that they were extraneous to the purpose of the Bill. He did not wish in any way to insist on the words "for any purposes they think fit," and he was prepared to modify them. If hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that the whole of the words should go, he could not insist on them, because they were in no way necessary for his purpose.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said he fully understood and appreciated the motive of the right hon. Gentleman in putting in the words. He suggested that in modifying the clause the right hon. Gentleman might insert words authorising the trustees to use the schoolhouses for purposes not inconsistent with the purposes of the trusts.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said there was a difficulty about the use of the words "not inconsistent with." In certain cases it might be argued that the purposes for which trustees desired to use schoolhouses were inconsistent with the purposes of the trusts.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said he should prefer the omission of the words. It would not be too much trouble for trustees, desiring to go beyond the trust in the use of the premises, to apply for permission to the Education Office, who could decide each case according to its merits. Though he desired to meet the right hon. Gentleman, he should prefer the words to come out altogether.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)
said he wished to ask whether in the event of the words coming out, it would be possible to limit the use of the schools for public purposes.
§ MR. ROGERS (Wiltshire, Devizes)
said he wanted to ask what would be 103 done with the money which would be paid for the use of these buildings. He himself had had very frequently to pay his guinea for the use of a school in order to hold a meeting with his constituents; and he understood that these guineas were used for the up-keep of the building. But that would not be necessary now, and the revenue from such sources should be treated as part of the education fund.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said that all monies which owners or trustees of schools took as fees for the use of their premises were trust monies; they were bound to be devoted to the purposes of the trust, and the trustees must account for them. The money might be applicable to the maintenance of the furniture of the schools, but the owners or trustees could not apply it for political purposes or put it into their own pockets. He thought it was desirable to have some form of words of a wide character, such as "for any purposes they may think fit," so that the local authorities or the trustees might, without coming to the Board of Education, use the money derived from the letting of the schools for social purposes. He undertook to introduce at a later stage words which, while getting rid of too wide powers, would safeguard some of the objects which had been referred to.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDY
said he wished to move the omission of sub-section (3) of Clause 2 in order to ascertain from the Government what their intentions were as to the three different categories of voluntary schools mentioned in the Bill.
In page 2, line 16, to leave out Sub-section (3)."—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDY
said that what he wished to ascertain was why this, special provision was put in instead of being covered by a general definition clause.
§ Leave to withdraw Amendment refused.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said that the horn Member's suggestion was that the object to be obtained by this sub-section would be better obtained by a general interpretation clause; but the draftsmen thought otherwise, and they had made it plain in the substance and body of the Bill.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said he had put down,, in response to a point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford University, an Amendment which read, "Nothing in this section shall prevent the granting or requiring of facilities for special religious instruction in accordance with this Act, or prevent a local education authority, as a condition of an arrangement made under this section with respect to the use of the schoolhouse of an existing voluntary school, from giving an undertaking to give religious instruction which does not conflict with section fourteen of The Elementary Education Act, 1870, in the school." He thought that met the point.
§ SIR E. CARSON
said that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to him to be absolutely inconsistent with the previous part of the Bill.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 364; Noes, 77. (Division List, No. 137.)109
|Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.||Clarke, C. Goddard||Greenwood, Hamar (York)|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Cleland, J. W.||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Clough, W.||Gulland, John W.|
|Adkins, W. Ryland||Clynes, J. R||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.|
|Alden, Percy||Cogan, Denis J.||Hall, Frederick|
|Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Halpin, J.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Collins, Sir W. J.(S. Pancras, W.||Hammond, John|
|Ambrose, Robert||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis,|
|Armitage, R.||Corbett,C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r|
|Asquith,Rt. Hon. HerbertHenry||Cory, Clifford John||Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Harwood, George|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Cowan, W. H.||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Cremer, William Randall||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury. E.)||Crombie, John William||Hazel, Dr. A. E.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Crooks, William||Hazleton, Richard|
|Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)||Dalziel, James Henry||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Barker, John||Davies, David(Montgomery Co.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Barlow, John Emmott (Som's't||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion).||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Higham, John Sham|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hodge, John|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Delany, William||Hogan, Michael|
|Beale, W. P.||Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway||Holden, E. Hopkinson|
|Beauchamp, E.||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Hooper, A. G.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras N||Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, D)|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Benn, John Williams (D'v'np't||Dillon, John||Horridge, Thomas Gardner|
|Benn, W. (T'w'r H'ml'ts. S. Geo.||Dolan, Charles Joseph||Hudson, Walter|
|Bennett, E. N.||Donelan, Capt. A.||Hutton, Alfred Eddison|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Duckworth, James||Hyde, Clarendon|
|Billson, Alfred||Duffy, William J.||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Jackson, R. S.|
|Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.)||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Jenkins, J.|
|Blake, Edward||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Boland, John||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Bolton, T. D.(Derbyshire, N. E.)||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire|
|Brace, William||Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Jowett, F. W.|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Joyce, Michael|
|Branch, James||Essex, R. W.||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Brigg, John||Eve, Harry Trelawney||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Brocklehurst, W. D.||Everett, R. Lacey||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Brooke, Stopford||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Kincaid-Smith, Captain|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanca., Leigh)||Fenwick, Charles||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)||Ffrench, Peter||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen||Field, William||Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)|
|Bryce, J. A. (Inverness B'ghs)||Findlay, Alexander||Lamont, Norman|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Flynn, James Christopher||Lea, Hugh Cecil (S. Pancras, E.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Fuller, John Michael F.||Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)|
|Burnyeat, J. D. W.||Fullerton, Hugh||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Furness, Sir Christopher||Levy, Maurice|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney. Chas.||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Byles, William Pollard||Gill, A. H.||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hn. David|
|Cairns, Thomas||Ginnell, L.||Lough, Thomas|
|Causton. Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Glendinning, R. G.||Lundon, W.|
|Cawley, Frederick||Glover, Thomas||Lupton, Arnold|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Gooch, George Peabody||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Grant, Corrie||Lynch, H. B.|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs||Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Mackarness, Frederic C.||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Pearson, Sir W. D.(Colchester)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Macpherson, J. T.||Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Sullivan, Donal|
|MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)||Pollard, Dr.||Summerbell, T.|
|M'Arthur, William||Power, Patrick Joseph||Sutherland, J. E.|
|M'Callum, John M.||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|M'Crae, George||Radford, G. H.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Rainy, A. Holland||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|M'Kean, John||Raphael, Herbert H.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Reddy, M.||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)|
|M'Killop, W.||Redmond, John E.(Waterford)||Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E.|
|M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Redmond, William (Clare)||Torrance, A. M.|
|M'Micking, Major G.||Rees, J. D.||Toulmin, George|
|Maddison, Frederick||Rendall, Athelstan||Verney, F. W.|
|Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)||Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth.||Villiers, Ernest Amherst|
|Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Marnham, F. J.||Richardson, A.||Walsh, Stephen|
|Massie, J.||Rickett, J. Compton||Walters, John Tudor|
|Masterman, C. F. G.||Ridsdale, E. A.||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Meagher, Michael||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Meehan, Patrick A.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Ward, John(Stokeupon Trent)|
|Menzies, Walter||Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)||Wardle, George J.|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan))|
|Mond, A.||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney|
|Montagu, E. S.||Robinson, S.||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Mooney, J. J.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Weir, James Galloway|
|Morley, Rt. Hon. John||Rose, Charles Day||Whitbread, Howard|
|Morse, L. L.||Rowlands, J.||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Morton. Alphens Cleophas||Runciman, Walter||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Murnagban, George||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||White, Patrick (Meath, N.)|
|Murray, James||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Napier, T. B.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Newnes, F.(Notts, Bassetlaw)||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Nicholls, George||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Nolan Joseph||Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Scott, A.H.(Ashton and. Lyne)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan;|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Sears, J.E.||Williams, L. (Carmarthen)|
|Nuttall, Harry||Seddon, J.||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid||Seely, Major J. B.||Wilson. Henry J.(York, W.R.)|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Shackleton, David James||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.)|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|O'Doherty, Philip||Shipman, Dr. John G||Winfrey, R.|
|O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Sinclair, Rt. Hon-John||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|O'Dowd, John||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd|
|O'Hare, Patrick||Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)||Young Samuel|
|O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.||Snowden, P.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|O'Malley, William||Soamea, Arthur Wellesley|
|O'Mara, James||Soares, Ernest J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Stanger, H. Y.||Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.|
|Paul, Herbert||Stanley. Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)|
|Paulton, James Mellor||Steadman, W. C.|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Bull, Sir William James||Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Burdett-Ccutts, W.||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Butcher, Samuel Henry||Courthope, G. Lloyd|
|Ashley, W. W.||Carlile, E. Hildred||Craik, Sir Henry|
|Balcarres, Lord||Carson, Rt. Hn Sir Edward H.||Cross, Alexander|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Castlereagh, Viscount||Dairymple, Viscount|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.||Cave, George||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.||Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.||Du Cros, Harvey|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Faber, George Denison (York);|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.||Fletcher, J. S.|
|Forster, Henry William||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Turnour, Viscount|
|Haddock, George R.||Morpeth, Viscount||Valentia, Viscount|
|Hamilton, Marquess of||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Neild, Herbert||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. E'm'ds||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Hills, J. W.||Percy, Earl||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Rawlinson, John Frederick P.||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Keswick, William||Rutherford, W.W. (Liverpool)||Younger, George|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Liddell, Henry||Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S)||Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton||Clement Hill and Mr. Fell.|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
§ LORD R. CECIL
said the Amendment he desired to move was only to carry out what had already been done by the Government in another part of the Bill, in order to guard against the danger alluded to by the hon. Member who moved the last Amendment. He did not know whether the Government had any objection to this Amendment, which was only to make it quite plain that the local authority was not to get any interest in these schools other than for elementary education. He begged to move.
In page 2, line 17, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'in respect only of its conduct as a public elementary school by the local education authority, and to the extent only of such conduct.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. BUTCHER (Cambridge University)
said there was a section in the Act of 1870—Section 23—which corresponded with this Amendment—Every school so transferred shall, to such extent, and during such times as the school board have any control over the school, be deemed a school of the school board.Some such words should be put in here, so that if this Bill was read in conjunction with the Act of 1870 it might not be thought that they had been left out for a particular purpose. He suggested that in order to remove any ambiguity these words should be inserted.
§ MR. BIRRELL
agreed with the noble Lord that these words had already been accepted in other parts of the Bill, and he had no objection to them except they were tautological. He had been advised 110 that there was no danger of in any way creating the impression that the schools were in any sense under the control of the local education authorities except f the purposes of elementary education, and that therefore the words were unnecessary. But he would look into the matter, and if he found his views were in accordance with those of the noble Lord he would insert words to make the matter clear.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. RAWLINSON
thought there could be no objection to the Amendment standing in the name of his hon. friend the Member for Oxford University. If the words did no good, they could do no harm to the sub-section. They were to insure that a school should be deemed only during school hours to be a school of the local education authority. The Amendment was only for the purpose of clearing up any ambiguity there might be and it could do no possible harm. He begged to move.
In page 2, line 18, after the words 'deemed,' to insert the words 'during school hours.'"— (Mr. Rawlinson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
supported the Amendment. It was desirable that on the face of the clause the interest of the local authority should be restricted to the hours for which, for the purposes of elementary education, it had been given. The Government would agree that that was their policy. If that was so, let the policy be placed in the Bill in such a form that the most stupid or the most 111 cantankerous trustee or manager would have the true verities of the case staring him in the face. It would make it clear to the casual and cursory reader, and from a lawyer's point of view it could do no harm. In these circumstances he urged the right hon. Gentleman not to be too hasty in rejecting the Amendment.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said he was advised that they had already by the addition of the words "as a public elementary school" at the end of Sub-section 3, made the matter as plain as it could possibly be made. He could not accept the Amendment, but he would look into the matter again, as he had every desire to make every clause of the Bill as plain as possible, and see if he could so arrange words as to make the details and the verities of the Bill perfectly plain.
§ SIR E. CARSON
said it was quite impossible to understand this kind of controversial objection. The right hon. Gentleman had not said one word as to what really was his objection to the Amendment. Did it not carry out the object of the Bill that the school should only be a provided school during school hours? If that was so, why should not these words be put in? The right hon. Gentleman said the words appeared in other parts of the Bill and that those argued together would give the same result, but there was not a word in the Amendment which would not be in accordance with his own Bill.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said it was true that the right hon. Gentleman had accepted an Amendment that limited the use of a school by the local authority to the purposes of elementary education; but he still contended that the control by that body should be limited to the time necessary for carrying out its duties. The Amendment was that the actual duties were to be limited to the school hours. Therefore he thought that whatever ambiguity existed would, at all events, be removed by the acceptance of the Amendment.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said he was afraid the Leader of the Opposition had put the question rather too favourably for the Government. The Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for 112 Oxford University and accepted applied to paragraph (b). The operative part of the clause laid down what the general arrangement was to be, and provided for such use of the schoolhouse as was required for the purposes of carrying on a public elementary school. Nothing had been put into the clause to limit that phrase at all, and it might be extended a great deal beyond the use of the schools during school hours. It was a very wide provision, and it appeared to him that it contained nothing which definitely limited the local authority in the extent of the arrangement which they might come to. The matter was a little complicated in the drafting. Although the principle of the Amendment accepted earlier in the afternoon covered this Amendment, the actual enacting words did not do so, and if the Government thought the spirit of that Amendment was to be carried out some such words as those now proposed must be inserted.
§ MR. DILLON
pointed out that the effect of this Amendment might be to prevent the local authority from making necessary alterations or whitewashing the premises or even cleaning them. Such work could not be done in schools hours. If "school" and not "schoolhouse" was meant then there was no necessity to put in the words as they would be inoperative. In his opinion the Amendment had no effect whatever in one sense, and in the other sense it might be held to be taking away what was given in the earlier sub-section.
§ MR. A. J BALFOUR
said that such matters as those raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo would be settled by amicable arrangement. Did the hon. Gentleman desire that the local authority should have the right of entry at all hours? All local authorities and all trustees were not reasonable, and it was necessary that the operations to which the hon. Member had referred should be conducted with some limits. If friction arose it was manifest that these operations outside school hours must be conducted under some kind of regulations, and no regulations appeared to have been provided for. The Minister for Education agreed with the Amendment, but thought it was unnecessary, and for that reason he objected to putting it in the Bill. It was clear to him that there was 113 a point of substance here. He wished to know the view of the Government with regard to reciprocal rights between the trustees and the local authorities.
§ SIR FRANCIS POWELL
said that allusion had been made to the clause dealing with this subject in the Act of 1870. As a member of the National Society he had had a great deal to do with partial transfers of schools where the education authority were in occupation during school hours and the owners during the rest of the time. His experience was that they had to exercise very great care in drafting those transfer deeds, and that great vigilance was necessary in watching their operation. He urged the Government to pay good heed to this matter and to see that these arrangements were so made as not to act prejudicially to the interests of trustees or owners.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said that, as the hon. Member for East Mayo had pointed out, it would be impossible to whitewash a school during the hours, say, of religious instruction, or to clean it while the children were undergoing tuition. It would, therefore, be obviously unfair to insert the words "during school hours." They could only lead to a deadlock. He adhered to what he had said, that if he could introduce words which would make the meaning perfectly plain he would do so on Report.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Would the right hon. Gentleman give us his view as to the mutual arrangement of hours?
§ MR. BIRRELL
said the right hon. Gentleman must understand that, as a matter of business, schools could not be cleaned or prepared for use while school work was going on. Therefore, an arrangement would have to be made under the agreement whereby the local authority would have access for such purposes. He could not imagine the right hon. Gentleman was serious in putting this as a matter of real difficulty.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
doubted whether the provision made in the clause clearly confined the use of the schoolhouse to school hours.
§ MR. BIRRELL
We have no desire to obtain possession of these school premises otherwise than for the purpose of elementary schools at such times and seasons and those occasional additional periods as are absolutely necessary for us to carry on the work of education.
§ MR. BURDETT-COUTTS
asked what authority there was for the explanation that the words "public elementary school" really did confine the use or control of the schoolhouse to the school hours. Where was that definition of "public elementary school" to be found? Was it in the Bill?
§ MR. CHEETHAM (Stalybridge)
said that in many districts these schoolhouses were the only buildings in which evening continuation classes which gave secondary education could be held, and therefore it was very important that they should be safeguarded under the Bill. He was apprehensive of the effect of the Ministerial statement on the evening continuation classes.
§ MR. LOUGH
suggested that the Amendment might now be dropped and the pledge of the Minister in charge of the Bill accepted. The point put by the hon. Member for Westminster really arose upon the schedule to the Bill. The question dealt with by the hon. Member for Stalybridge could not be dealt with in this clause, and it was provided for in Part III of the Bill.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the hon. Member for Stalybridge need be under no apprehension that anything in the Bill would take away the privileges given by the Act of 1902, as affecting continuation schools. The Minister for Education had not completely cleared up the more substantial point put to him, but he did not wish to press the matter further.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. LOUGH,
for Mr. BIRRELL, moved the following new sub-section:—"(5) Nothing in this section shall prevent the granting or requiring of facilities for special religious instruction in accordance with this Act, or prevent a local education authority, as a condition of an arrangement made under this section with respect 115 to the use of the schoolhouse of an existing voluntary school, from giving an undertaking to give religious instruction, which does not conflict with Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, in the school." The object of this sub-section was, he said, to fulfil the pledge given at an earlier stage to the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool, and the right hon. Member for Oxford University.
In page 2, line 23, at end, to add the words '(5) Nothing in this section shall prevent the granting or requiring of facilities for special religious instruction in accordance with this Act, or prevent a local education authority, as a condition of an arrangement made under this section with respect to the use of the schoolhouse of an existing voluntary school, from giving an undertaking to give religious instruction which does not conflict with Section 14, of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, in the school.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
§ Question proposed "That those words be there added."
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
acknowledged that the new sub-section in substance carried out the intention of the Amendment which formerly stood in the name of his right hon. friend the Member for Dublin University; but in order to make it clearer, he moved to amend it so that it should refer not to "special religious instruction under this Act," but to "religious instruction under Sections 3 and 4 of this Act." He begged to move the omission of the word "special."
Amendment to the proposed Amendment proposed—
In line 2, to leave out the word 'special.'"—(Sir William Anson.)
§ Question proposed "That the word 'special' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said this subsection was a valuable concession and had been so received; but he pointed out that the word "special," which would be omitted by the Amendment, was the technical word which described the religious instruction for which facilities were given under Clauses 3 and 4; and that the numbering of the clauses might be altered hereafter and make the Amendment nonsense. It would be 116 better to accept the concession in the words proposed. He thought the words were better as they stood, because Sections 3 and 4 might deal with something else entirely. He suggested to the hon. Member that the best thing he could do was to leave the words as they stood, and accept from the Government the valuable concession made in the words proposed.
§ LORD E. CECIL
said he could not see why the words of the Amendment should be hostile to the intention of the clause. The objection of the hon. Member for North Camberwell was not serious, because the numbers of clauses might be corrected on report. The same class of argument might be used with much more effect against such an expression as "special" which was not yet defined. He had great doubt whether it was the proper word to use. He had felt all along that the expression "special religious instruction" was really one of a very unfortunate character, to say the least of it. Moreover it was not the language used in a later part of the Bill, and that, from the legal point of view, was a matter of some importance. The expression in a later part of the Bill was "religious instruction of a special character." "Special religious instruction" was a very vague phrase, and there was no definition of it in any part of the Bill. The words of the Amendment were very much superior to those proposed by the Government.
§ Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)
said he would not have obtruded himself on the attention of the Committee had it not been for some remarks which were made by the Solicitor-General in his speech. The hon. and learned Gentleman had described the voluntary schools as being in the position of mendicants, losing any rights they might have had for respect for their, trusts. 117 Was that the case with regard to these voluntary schools? At the behest of the State and in accordance with the requirements and conditions of former codes they had carried on the education of the country, and for many years religious education was an indispensable condition of receiving State grants. The Solicitor-General said they had not carried out their part of the stipulation. What was the stipulation which they had failed to carry out? There was, the Solicitor-General said, an understood condition that 50 per cent, of the expenses should be met from voluntary contributions. Did the hon. Member for North Camberwell assent to that description of the bargain between the voluntary schools and the State? The understanding which existed was not that 50 per cent, should be met by voluntary contributions, but that 50 per cent, should be met from "local sources," which included the fees paid by the parents and other sources of income. Of this portion of the local resources which was furnished by school fees, voluntary schools were deprived by the action of the State, while they were brought into competition with schools having far larger resources, and in many respects the standard of educational requirements was raised.
called the hon. Gentleman to order as travelling beyond the Motion before the Committee.
§ SIR HENRY CRAIK
said he wished to follow the ruling of the Deputy-Chairman, and he would have made his remarks very much shorter but for the criticism of the Solicitor-General, who he thought was unfair in regard to voluntary schools. He felt bound to vindicate the lights of the voluntary schools, and to point out the heavy debt which the nation owed to the managers of these voluntary schools. It was incumbent on the State to deal with them and with their obligations under their trusts and to their consciences in a considerate, just, and generous manner. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education had told them that no one would be more pleased at the action of the Charity Commissioners than the pious donors of the past. But many of these pious donors still survived and continued 118 to take an interest in the schools which they had founded; and he did not know that there was any change in their views. If pious founders felt that sincere gratitude for the complete alteration of their deeds which the right hon. Gentleman ascribed to them, nothing would have been easier than for them to make the terms of their wills so elastic as to permit of easy change. But they all knew that this was very rarely done. The-right hon. the President of the Board of Education had made a distinction between public and private trust. It was quite true that such a distinction might be made, but was there not a public morality as well as a private morality in dealing with trusts? Was it likely to have a good impression on the nation if Parliament was found to be treating carelessly, lightly, and without due consideration, the wishes of the trustees? Under the compact entered into in 1870, new schools, even down to the most recent years, had been established. They were now going to sweep away those schools, and the trusts connected with them, and flaunt this before the nation as the idea which Parliament entertained of its moral obligation to those with whom it had entered into a solemn compact. It was because he believed that this clause embodied an unjust and unnecessary interference with existing rights, and with a system of education which was in accordance with the wishes of the parents, and also because the word and the honour of Parliament was pledged to the managers of those schools, and to those who had carried on at a great sacrifice the education of the children of the country, that he looked upon the provisions of this clause as pernicious to education and injurious to the rights both of private individuals, and of corporate communities.
§ MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD (Leicester)
said that they on his side of the House had been listening with a great deal of amazement to the extraordinary lugubrious statement of the hon. Gentlemen above the gangway. He was bound to say that he could follow neither their reasoning nor their morals. It was difficult to find in the clause any justification for their allegations of confiscation, robbery, and similar expressions. As a matter of fact, the clause 119 was over-generous to the trustees of voluntary schools, because it provided that public money was to be spent for the improvement of private property. It was an undoubted fact that some of the voluntary schools were bad, some were indifferent, some were good, but some were altogether below the standard of educational efficiency, as had been pointed out in the report of the London County Council. What was going to happen now? The public were to put these schools into good order, and to take them over, and all that they got in return was the use of them during the hours required for elementary education. The point he wished to emphasise was that the Government had been over-generous in the bargain which they proposed to make in regard to the voluntary schools. He felt quite certain it would be a source of great gratification to educationists, both in the House and out of it, if the Government could give some assurance that on the report stage the clause would be supplemented by some sort of provision which would enable secondary education authorities to come compulsorily to an arrangement with the owners of these schools that had been kept in an efficient educational state at the public expense.
§ MR. BUTCHER
remarked that the local authority was left almost entire discretion on the great issues which came up under this Bill, and that it was given powers great almost beyond precedent and powers which were really also a menace to the religious liberty of large sections of the community. Clause 1 was mandatory, but Clause 2 laid down the principle of local option which was almost the basis of the remainder of the Bill. Yet the principle of compulsion was by no means absent from it. That principle was admitted in a very capricious and harsh way, and in a way which seriously imperilled the whole teaching of religion in the country. The compulsions and the options, the "mays" and the "musts" taken together in their relation one to another, and their various reappearances through the Bill, threw a strange light on the minds of the authors of the Bill. According to the Bill it was plain that, in their eyes, it was a matter of purely local concern whether any religious teaching, even undenominational teach- 120 ing, should be given in any school. On the other hand, it was a matter of national concern and a thing to be laid down by Parliament that all religious teaching should be prohibited within school hours, and that denominational teaching should be given by others than the members of the school staff. The hon. Member was proceeding to discuss the optional and compulsory provisions of other clauses of the Bill and the peculiarity of the local option given, when,
said the hon. Member must confine himself to the discussion of Clause 2 and not discuss other clauses of the Bill.
§ MR. BUTCHER
said that Clause 2 gave this keynote:—it made optional things which ought to be compulsory, and made compulsory things which ought to be optional. The Minister for Education had said he desired that there should be free bargaining, and no sort of compulsion on the owners of voluntary schools. But it was, surely, virtual compulsion of the cruellest kind under the guise of freedom to say, "Unless you accept these conditions you cease to exist; unless you accept conditions which you came into existence to avoid, you are extinguished as State schools." The right hon. Gentleman had said that what he meant was "business freedom." What they meant was religious freedom. It was there they misunderstood one another; they were talking about things which had no common term. They were not contending, mainly at least, for rent and cleaning, lighting and upkeep of fabrics. They were not so much concerned with the maintenance of the material structure. What they did want to maintain was the spiritual fabric, by which he meant the teaching given in the building, the teachers who gave it, the children who received it. In the last resort it was the welfare of the children for which they were driven to negotiate, and he protested against fighting this out over municipal elections. The bargain was not about coal and gas, but about the things by which men live—things which ought to be above all bargaining and bartering, those spiritual truths which it should be the right of parents to have transmitted to their children.
§ LORD MORPETH (Birmingham, S.)
said he had voted for the first clause of the Bill because he believed that so far as secular education was concerned it left the settlement of 1902 where it was. Under the settlement of 1902 there was complete control over provided schools. So far as the authority of the Council went with regard to secular education, staffing, building, attendance and teachers, the local authority had absolute control. They had absolute power over the managers, and the foundation managers existed simply and solely for the purpose of safeguarding the religious teaching in the school. Therefore he maintained that under the Bill, so far as secular education was concerned, the settlement of the Act of 1902 was left almost as it was. So far as the secular side of education was concerned it might be said that rather more generous terms had been given by the present Bill than by the Act of 1902. He was putting aside for the moment the consideration of religious education. What was the difference between the arrangements proposed by this Bill and the Bill of 1902? Under the Act of 1902 the local authority was able to call upon the voluntary owners to enlarge their schools, or to carry out necessary repairs, and to make such alterations as they, the local authority, desired. Moreover, they had the use of the school for all school purposes gratuitously; they were under no obligation to pay rent; they had the free and absolute use of the schools for all purposes of daily school teaching without payment of any rent or charge for upkeep or repairs, which was put upon the local managers. Under this Bill the local education authorities would have to pay rent for the schools, although it was true that more than the rent would be found, in all probability, by means of grants from the central government. In addition to that they would have to pay for such alterations as they demanded as being necessary and for the repairs. Therefore, looking at them from the financial point of view the terms offered by the right hon. Gentleman were not ungenerous, he might even say they were handsome. The local authority was in the future to pay rent for the school during the school hours, and the buildings for parochial and other purposes were to be in the hands of the trustees and managers. From the financial point of view the 122 terms were perhaps too generous. They were so generous that he could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman hoped by this generosity in money to ease the difficulty and to conceal the injustice he was doing in [other directions. The trustees, the men who built these schools, built them not in order to make rent; they were not companies. If they had been companies and this a winding up of the company it would be a satisfactory end for the shareholders. But the Party opposite knew very well that these men were not only unable to look at this question from that point of view, but that that, indeed, was the last consideration that affected their minds, and it was for that reason they opposed this clause. It was because when they came to Clauses 3 and 4 they found that the reasons for which these schools were built and maintained for more than a generation were violated, they were compelled to oppose this Bill, although they recognised that so far as the secular instruction was concerned, the conditions were generous. One consideration must not be lost sight of, and that was that these schools were built and maintained' to safeguard religious education. It was often asserted not with justice or complete truth that these schools were built to keep out the school board rates. That might have been a contributory reason in some cases, but it did not cover the whole field. The men who parted with these schools might have parted with them not with a light heart, but with some satisfaction if they felt that by that sacrifice they could secure teaching in accordance with the desires of the founders, not only in these schools, but in every school in the country. The whole basis of the Bill for the granting of religious education only in the transferred schools was wholly illogicial. Why should the parent who desired definite religious teaching for his child be debarred from that definite religious teaching because he lived in a parish where there was only a local education authority's school, while a parent who lived in the next parish where there was a transferred school could demand definite religious teaching. Many Members on the Opposition side of the House would have willingly acquiesced in the transfer of these schools, and would have even readily supported the Bill if in making that sacrifice and transferring those schools they could have obtained 123 these rights for the parents not only in the voluntary school districts, but throughout the whole of the schools of the country. But that settlement had been denied them by the Government. For his own part, desiring as he did that there should be a settlement of this question, that some final solution of it should be arrived at, that the constant quarrelling, more bitter in this House than in the country, but which raged throughout the parishes of the country, which was used for political purposes, should cease and that the whole controversy should be put an end to, he ventured to say that the only way in which it could be ended was by so legislating that no injustice should remain on the shoulders of any religious body or on any Party. His great regret was that the authors of this Bill, which did in a way provide a natural solution, had not had the courage to go still further and produce a final settlement. He was sure that there were many who desired to see the cause of education advanced. Men working in the country on local Boards of Education would have been ready to support the right hon. Gentleman if he had elected to take that course. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt despised the support of any one outside his big battalions, but he was mistaken in so doing, because it was only by means of that kind, it was only by satisfying all religious bodies, by satisfying not only one Church, but all the Churches, that he could hope to carry a Bill which would result in a permanent settlement. It was because Clause 2 did not carry out a broad and permanent policy, as it might have done if the right hon. Gentleman had only faced this question with a little more courage, that he was compelled to vote against it although he voted for Clause 1.
§ MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)
said every Member of the Committee would admit that the speech to which they had just listened was closely reasoned and able, but gave ground for the sad reflection that such a speech could be delivered and produce no effective result on those who sat opposite. The present misconception which underlay the debate was based on the fact that hon. Members opposite seemed to think that voluntary schools existed on air; that they could live without means, and that 124 they were now paying for a special indulgence which this House ought not to recognise at all. Two remarkable speeches had been delivered this evening —that by the hon. Member for Leicester, and that by the hon. Member for the Cambridge University. The first speaker, whose sincerity was apparent, held that in this Bill the Government, in Clause 1, exhibited undue generosity to all the voluntary schools. The hon. Member for Leicester was followed by the hon. Member for the Cambridge University, who pleaded that money did not enter into his mind in his consideration of the question. The hon. Member struck a spiritual note which found an echo in many of the hearts of those who listened to him. Hon. Members who listened to those two speeches must have felt that a chasm divided them. They had to bridge that chasm. The hon. Member for Leicester had argued that the Government had been too generous, because public money was to be spent on the improvement of private property. That was what nine out of ten of those who opposed the Opposition in this matter believed. They had got it into their heads that the public was giving its money for the purpose of benefiting private property. He would crave the indulgence of the Committee whilst he looked a little more closely into that phrase "private property." In what sense were the voluntary schools private property? What emolument was drawn from them? That was very important. When it was said that they were spending money on private property the suggestion was certainly conveyed that private individuals were profiting at the expense of taxpayers. Then it did not mean private property in that sense. How could it? These denominational schools placed themselves under public control rent free. The Act of 1902 handed them over to the county or town councils free of rent; all that was reserved was the control of the religious education and the appointment of one teacher, subject to the veto on educational grounds of the local authority. Thus private property was acquired for a public purpose for nothing. He would not charge the hon. Member for North Camber-well and those who agreed with him with deliberately wishing that the children in denominational schools should have a worse education and less sanitary surroundings than the children in board 125 schools. Would it be fair to charge them with wishing to squeeze out the denominational schools? They wanted to come to an understanding as to the point of view from which they should look at this matter. These schools were not private property in the sense that any individual derived profit from them, or in the sense that they did not subserve a public object. They subserved that object at a less cost than by any other means. Then it was said that public money was used for the improvement of these schools. Why were they improved? In order that the public object might be carried out at less cost than would otherwise be the case. If, as had been done in the first clause, they wiped these schools clean off, they were told it must not be called "confiscation." He would call it "commandeering." When they commandeered a man's horse for the public object of waging war they fed the horse, and when the war was over they gave the owner some small fee for its use; they did not contend that they had conferred an immense favour upon the owner by taking his horse to use it for a purpose which he never contemplated. That really again illustrated the impossibility of bridging the chasm between those who held the views so eloquently expressed by the hon. Member for Cambridge University and the hon. Member for Leicester, representing those who wished for religious instruction and those who desired merely secular. Clause 2 was to bridge the chasm dividing those who in their heart of hearts were in favour of secular education and those who in their hearts, souls, and consciences, believed that the children should have the kind of religious instruction which their parents desired, but a more futile bridge could not be designed for the purpose. The Government built their bridge by interfering with trusts and abolishing Church of England denominational teaching. Was the object adequate? He would look at the matter from the point of view of those who said that perhaps special arrangements ought to be made for the Roman Catholics, but that if the Church of England were not satisfied with Cowper-Temple instruction they ought to be. That was a view very widely held on the other side of the House. From that point of view was there any adequate reason for interfering in this drastic fashion with trusts? They would 126 get rid of the catechism for one half-hour a week in Church of England schools. Was it really worth while undertaking this drastic and wholesale interference with trusts, and to spend £ 1,000,000, and perhaps £ 3,000,000 a year in order to put an affront upon the Church and the religious convictions of millions of people to get rid of this half-hour? They had tried to carry the clause first by concession. Well, the concessions in substance were always carried over to a future date, and he did not attach much importance to concessions until he had heard them read from the Table. But the concessions amounted to very little indeed. Let them take the concession made to-night. What was asked for was that schools which had been dedicated to religious purposes should be free to have religious instruction given on any day in the week. What they had got was the liberty to bargain between the two Parties. The hon. Member for Leicester had attacked not only their reasons but their morals. It might seem wrong that any Member of this House should speak when their proceedings must come to an end at half, past ten o'clock; but they represented people in the country, and it was their duty to protest against that which they thought unjust and inexpedient, and would only lead to years of barren controversy. This clause was the proper occasion on which to protest against the whole framework and structure of the Bill. The Government seemed to regard denominational education as a foible to be at best tolerated, but to be made expensive—a thing which the rich man might pay for, but which was denied to the poor. Whatever might be the money balance shown in this or any other Bill, the parent who desired denominational instruction had as much right to have what he desired as had the parent who desired undenominational instruction. Their opponents ignored the essential fact that Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Jews all paid rates and taxes towards the education of which they did not approve. Until it was allowed that these different classes ought to stand upon an equality and that they all paid alike, they would never agree.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said he had to offer a few words in reply to the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman who had 127 just sat down. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that the Act of 1902 had handed over every denominational schools to full public control.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said the Act of 1902 undoubtedly put the denominational schools upon the rates and taxes. He made no complaint of that. But it violated the common agreement of 1870. Up to that time the denominational schools had been maintained by grants and voluntary contributions, and in that year it was laid down that by way of supplementing that system there should be a new class of school receiving rates and taxes. Everybody agreed. The late Mr. W. H. Smith was one of those who agreed that the moment they touched the public rates the school must be under full public control and if they gave any religious instruction at all it must not have any formulary distinctive of any particular religious denomination-That was why they were now bringing in a Bill to amend the Act of 1902. The right hon. Gentleman said the Act of 1902 put these schools under full public control free of rent. It gave six managers to each, the public having the appointment of two. Those managers appointed the teacher, and the authority that appointed the teacher controlled the school. Then the Act of 1902 gave the local authority the right to use the schools free of rental on five days a week and three nights a week, but the denominational managers had the right to use them two days and four nights a week for any purpose, and the public had to make good the wear and tear. This was full popular control and the free use of the schools! As for the sanctity of trust deeds, all the speeches on that subject were curiously belated. They ought to have been made four years ago. The model trust deed of the Church of England schools laid it down that the principal officiating minister of the parish for the time being should have the supervision of the religious and moral teaching, but the Leader of the Opposition gave this over to a Committee of six. Could there be a greater violation of the trust deeds? The model trust deed placed the appointment and the dismissal of teachers in the hands of a 128 committee, including a minister and his licensed curate. The Act of 1902 took it out of their hands. The model trust deed said there might be associated with the management of the school other persons who must subscribe 20s. a year, and be communicants of the Church of England. He wondered how many of the present managers subscribed 20s. a year. He would be very much surprised if they could find one. If they did not subscribe 20s., at any rate they must be communicants of the Church of England; the whole thing was perfectly grotesque. It was too late in the day to talk about the sanctity of trust deeds. The present Leader of the Opposition abrogated the trust deeds entirely by the Kenyon-Slaney Clause, and he hoped they would hear no more in this discussion about the sanctity of trust deeds.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that the hon. Member's speech made him feel four years younger—a happy and unusual effect of oratory. He really imagined, as he listened to the impassioned eloquence of the hon. Gentleman, that the House was still in the middle of the long-drawn debates of 1902, when unfortunately the Government of the day were innocent of the developments to which the closure had since been carried. He asserted that under the Act of 1902 popular control was conceded, except in those particulars that were necessary to preserve the denominational religious, character of schools established by voluntary action. It was true that the majority of the managers in the case of a voluntary school had to belong to the denomination of the school, but these managers had no control over the curriculum of the school, except with regard to religious education. Everything connected with secular education was handed over by the Act of 1902 to the local education authority. The only conceivable exception was that the initiative in the appointment of teachers lay in the managers. But the local authority had an absolute veto on any teacher who was not competent in their opinion to deal with secular education. How then could it be contended that popular control was not recognised by the Act of 1902? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech at Northampton the other day had declared that the Act of 1902 destroyed popular con- 129 trol. That was a profound error. In every particular in which the Act of 1902 modified the Act of 1870 the modification was in the direction of popular control. [An HON. MEMBER: What about the abolition of the school boards?] He had yet to learn that the handing over of education to the county councils in any sense militated against the true doctrine of popular control It was a gross misstatement to assert that the Act of 1902 diminished popular control. It increased it enormously. What was the second point of the hon. Gentleman? It was that the Opposition were debarred from even mentioning the words trust deed, because the trust deeds wore modified under the Act of 1902. Nobody denied it. But because of that were they not to be allowed to deal with the subject now? It was true that in view of the modified circumstances with which they had to deal trust deeds made in different circumstances had to be changed. Some of the supporters of the Government of that day viewed these provisions with regard to trust deeds with great distress and some dismay. He held now the view he then entertained that the best way in which to maintain the spirit of trust deeds was to adapt them to the changed circumstances of the time, with a view to the maintenance of the voluntary school. But there was a great difference between making modifications in order to carry out the original purposes of the trust compared with a change which was made in order to squeeze into the rigid formula of this Bill institutions which it was the main object of the Bill to destroy. They destroyed not only the external form of the trust, but its spirit as well. The Party to which he belonged had been charged all over the country with being too favourable to the voluntary schools. It was said also that they had done an injury to those who established the voluntary schools, because they modified the trust deeds so as to put them under the policy by which the voluntary schools were preserved. But anybody who could look behind the mere letter to the spirit would see that the manner in which the late Government dealt with trustees was profoundly different from that which had guided the policy of the present Government. So much for a subject which was in some respects belated. He certainly never contem- 130 plated when he came down to listen to this part of the debate that he should have to deal with these ancient controversies. Now he desired to say a few words by way of assisting rather than embarrassing the Government. There were two gaps in the Bill as compared with the plan announced by the Government. The first was that all the right hon. Gentleman's pledges to give facilities compulsorily must break down if the local authority was allowed to decide as to whether they should take over a school or not. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that gap, and he was going to try to remedy it. The second was that if they compelled a local authority to take over a school there was nothing in the Bill at present to compel it to take that school over on conditions that would ensure denominational facilities in the schools as promised. The right hon. Gentleman had promised an Amendment which would compel a local authority when it had taken over a school to give in that school, as promised, denominational facilities. Of course, he was not in a position to argue on an Amendment which was not before them, but he was bound to say something about the clause in which that Amendment was ultimately to appear. He thought it was due to the right hon. Gentleman to toll him quite fairly at this stage of the proceedings that in his judgment the right lion. Gentleman would be breaking a Parliamentary engagement if he brought forward the proposed Amendment to Clause 2 in the form he had adumbrated. Than the right hon. Gentleman there was not a more honourable Member in the House, but he had through inadvertence or forgetfulness allowed himself to slip into a Parliamentary position from which he would find it very difficult to extricate himself, his Government, or his Party with full credit if he intended to insist on bringing forward his Amendment to the clause named in the shape in which he had promised. In the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill, as well as in those of other loading members of the Government, there would be found stated beyond possibility of doubt two propositions. The first was that facilities were to be compulsory; the second that there was to be no interference with private owners of voluntary schools. He wished to know how the Government could possibly 131 now come down and make it a condition of granting the first of their promises that they should break the second. Yet the Minister for Education, with those pledges fresh in mind, had on more than one occasion argued that he was perfectly willing to carry out the first of these pledges provided gentlemen on the Opposition side would absolve him from carrying out the second. He thought it only fair, before the Amendment was placed on the Paper and before the Government were finally pledged to any course, to give them fair warning. He asserted that the announced policy of the Government was a clear breach of Parliamentary pledges—of the expectations held out by responsible Ministers. He begged the right hon. Gentleman to look back on his speeches and those of his colleagues, and see whether he had in any way perverted or exaggerated the statements that had been made. If the right hon. Gentleman found that he had not exaggerated those statements, he hoped that for the sake of his own credit and that of his Party he would not ask the House to accept from him the fulfilment of one thing he had promised at the price of something else which he had also promised. If he did not listen to these words of warning—he did not wish to use language too solemn for the occasion —if he refused to accept the suggestion he made in all sincerity, he would do himself the utmost injury. The right hon. Gentleman was a man in whom they were all disposed to place the utmost reliance, they knew how high was his sense of honour, how clear his head, how careful were his statements. If he deserved those eulogies, as he did, could he really come down to the House and throw over all that he and his colleagues had said, and, presenting a pistol at the head of the Committee, demand their acceptance of an arrangement which was wholly inconsistent with everything that had been said before? He would not press the matter further now, but he rejoiced that the opportunities of the debate had enabled him seriously to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a matter which deserved his most careful attention.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said he did not rise to prolong the discussion which in some respects he regretted. Being himself not a closure man at all, he was very 132 anxious that they should have full time for the consideration of the important clauses that lay immediately ahead of them; and he could not help thinking that if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had seen their way to finish this clause at nine o'clock, they might have spent two more hours on Clause 3, and thereby obviated some of the hardship of which the Opposition so loudly complained the other night; he did not know that they would have lost anything. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh."] He was sure the Leader of the Opposition was the last man to quarrel with the suggestion that even the time occupied by one of his speeches might not possibly have been better spent. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was obliged to him for his solemn and reiterated warning, and he appreciated the spirit in which it was given. The right hon. Gentleman evidently thought that he had, perhaps inadvertently and from inexperience, placed himself in a somewhat awkward position, that his honour was somewhat involved, and that unless he walked very warily he should find himself in an awkward Parliamentary predicament. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he meant to be faithful to all his pledges and promises as they had been made, and that if he found himself in a position which prevented him from carrying them out he should immediately place himself in a position of perfect freedom and less responsibility. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his warning. He made no claim to much Parliamentary experience, he found himself in a position of great pressure and very considerable difficulty, and he was obliged to anybody who gave him assistance, and he was bound to say their name was legion. It was an honour which he welcomed to find the late Prime Minister amongst their number. He had already recognised that there was a gap in Clause 2. No Bill that a Government proposed or suggested ever took shape in which that gap did not exist. They proceeded on the assumption that the local authority should have control in this matter, that it should lie with them to broach the question as to what schools they should take over. They assumed, and he thought their clauses were so framed as to make that assumption natural, that in the great 133 number of cases the owners and trustees of voluntary schools would make the arrangement contemplated under Clause 2. If they did, the Government said and meant that the facilities contemplated by Clause 3 should be compulsory. The second gap to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded seemed to him to be a somewhat small one. No doubt the Government did assume that they could safely leave it to the owners and trustees of voluntary schools to secure that these facilities should be made part of every bargain that was entered into. When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke of the facilities being compulsory he no doubt felt that he was safe in assuming that the owners and trustees would make them an absolute part of the bargain, and that in every case where the local authority had expressed its desire to take a school compulsory they would be. He himself had studiously avoided using the word except in the sense that he recognised in the Bill as introduced—in every draft that he had seen—that the gap existed. It was quite impossible for him to have used language, except by sheer clumsiness, tending to conceal from the House the fact that it lay with the local authority in the first instance to open negotiations and decide whether or not it would take over the schools. That gap was in all the drafts and in all their minds. He recognised when it was made the subject of argument that it was perhaps a fair matter for Parliamentary comment that the gap existed. Accordingly he felt still desirous of bridging that gap, if it could be done without interfering with the authority and responsibility of the local authority for the efficient and economical management of education within its area. As to Clause 3 he could only repeat that he genuinely regretted that so important a clause should have been curtailed unnecessarily of two hours of Parliamentary time. All the Committee had got for those two hours was the warning addressed to himself, for which in all sincerity he expressed his obligation to the right hon. Gentleman.
COLONEL WILLIAMS (Dorsetshire, W.)
said the hon. Member opposite 134 had been challenged by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to certain points, and he wanted the Committee to take note of the fact that the challenge of the Leader of the Opposition had not been responded to. For himself he happened to have been in the position of a school manager before 1902 and after 1902, and he knew that now the board of managers could not order a steel pen or a bottle of ink without the consent of the county council. The school managers could not appoint a teacher or a head teacher without the leave of the county council. They had tried it and failed. All the power the managers had was to say that the teacher was able to give the religious instruction they needed. They could select the teacher. They could send his name to the county council with their approval, but if the county council said that the teacher was not fit to give secular teaching, their recommendation went for nothing. This being the state of things, if it did not give absolute control to the county council he did not know what did. The last election was won upon a good many fallacies, and one of the biggest fallacies was that the county councils had not control of the schools. There was full popular control, as he had stated over and over again at his meetings, and as he now stated to the Committee. When they consented to the alteration of their trust deeds in 1902, it was for the purposes of obtaining an advantage for their schools. [Ironical MINISTERIAL cheers.] He was glad that hon. Members agreed with him, but he would point out that now they were being asked to alter their trust deeds for nothing or even less than nothing. The Government were taking away the purposes for which the trusts were established. The ratepayers as much controlled the education rate as they did the money raised for the roads, and no one contended that the roads were not popularly controlled.
And, it being half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of June 18th, to put forthwith the Question, "That the 135 clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided —Ayes, 424; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 138.)139
|Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)||Cawley, Frederick||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Chance, Frederick William||Fuller, J. M. F.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Channing, Frances Allston||Fullerton, Hugh|
|Agnew, George William||Cheetham, John Frederick||Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Gibb, James (Harrow)|
|Alden, Percy||Churchill, Winston Spencer||Gill, A. H.|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Clarke, C. Goddard||Ginnell, L.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Cleland, J. W.||Gladstone. Rt. Hn HerbertJohn|
|Ambrose, Robert||Clough, W.||Glendmning, R. G.|
|Armitage, R.||Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.)||Glover, Thomas|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Cogan, Denis J.||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Gooch, George Peabody|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Collins, Sir Wm J (S. Pancras, W||Grant, Corrie|
|Astbury, John Meir||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Cooper, G. J.||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Corbett.CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill|
|Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Cory, Clifford John||Hall, Frederick|
|Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Halpin, J.|
|Barker, John||Cowan, W. H.||Hammond, John.|
|Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset||Cremer, William Randal||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Crombie, John William||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil|
|Barnard, E. B.||Crooks, William||Hardy, George, A. (Suffolk)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Crosfield, A. H.||Harmsworth, Cecil B, (Wore'r)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Cross, Alexander||Hart-Davies, T.|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Crossley, William J.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)|
|Beale, W. P.||Dalziel, James Henry||Harwood, George|
|Beauchamp, E.||Davies, David (Montgomery Co.||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)|
|Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Haworth, Arthur A.|
|Beck, A. Cecil.||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Bell, Richard||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hazel, Dr. A. E.|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Delany, William||Hazleton, Richard|
|Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt)||Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)||Hedges, A. Paget|
|Benn, W.(Tow'r Hamlets, S. Geo.||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Bethell, J. H.(Essex, Romford)||Dickinson, W. H (St. Pancras, N||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Henry, Charles S.|
|Billson, Alfred||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Dillon, John||Herbert, T. Arnold(Wycombe)|
|Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire||Dobson, Thomas W.||Higham, John Sharp|
|Blake, Edward||Dolan, Charles Joseph||Hobart, Sir Robert|
|Boland, John||Donelan, Captain A.||Hodge, John|
|Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.)||Duckworth, James||Hogan, Michael|
|Bottomley, Horatio||Duffy, William J.||Holden, E. Hopkinson|
|Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Brace, William||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Hooper, A. G.|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N|
|Branch, James||Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Brigg, John||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Horridge, Thomas Gardner|
|Bright, J. A.||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Brocklehurst, W. D.||Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Hudson, Walter|
|Brooke, Stopford||Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Hyde, Clarendon|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Essex, R. W.||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)||Evans, Samuel T.||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel|
|Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen)||Eve, Harry Trelawney||Jackson R. S.|
|Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)||Everett, R. Lacey||Jacoby, James Alfred|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Jenkins, J.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Fenwick, Charles||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Burnyeat, J. D. W.||Ferens, T. R.||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Ffrench, Peter||Jones David Brynmor(Swansea|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles||Field, William||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Findlay, Alexander||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire|
|Cairns, Thomas||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Jowett, F. W.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Flynn, James Christopher||Joyce, Michael|
|Caustou, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Kekewich, Sir George||Norman, Henry||Seddon, J.|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Norton, Captain Cecil William||Seely, Major J. B.|
|Kilbride, Denis||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Shackleton, David James|
|Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Nuttall, Harry||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T.(Hawick, B.)|
|Laidlaw, Robert||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Lambert, George||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Lamont, Norman||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||O'Doherty, Philip||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Lawson, Sir Wilfrid||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Snowden, V.|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||O'Dowd, John||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.||O'Hare, Patrick||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)||O' Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)|
|Lehmann, R. C.||OMalley, William||Steadman, W. C.|
|Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich||O'ara, James||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Levy, Maurice||Parker, James (Halifax)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Partington, Oswald||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Paul, Herbert||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Lough, Thomas||Paulton, James Mellor||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Lundon, Thomas||Pearce Robert (Staffs. Leek)||Sullivan, Donal;|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Summerbell, T.|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Lynch, H. B.||Pearson. W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs.||Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Mackarnees, Frederic C.||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Pollard, Dr.||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E)|
|Macpherson, J. T.||Power, Patrick Joseph||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|MacVeagh, Charles (Donegal, E||Priestly, Arthur (Geantham)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|M'Arthur, William||Radford, G. H.||Thomasson, Franklin|
|M'Callum. John M.||Radford, G. H.||Thompson, J. W. H.(Somerset, E.|
|M'Crae George||Rainy, A. Rolland||Thorn, William|
|M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Raphael, Herbert H.||Tomkinson, James|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Torrance, A. M.|
|M'Killop, W.||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')||Toulmin, George|
|M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford,W.)||Reddy, M.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|M'Micking, Major G.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Verney, F. W.|
|Maddison, Frederick||Redmond, William (Clare)||Villiers, Ernest Amherst|
|Mallet, Charles E.||Rees, J. D.||Vivian, Henry|
|Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Rondall, Athelstan||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)||Renton, Major Leslie||Walsh, Stephen|
|Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th||Walters, John Tudor|
|Marnham, F. J.||Richards, T.F.(Wolverhampt'n||Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds, S.)|
|Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Richardson, A.||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Massie, J.||Rickett, J. Compton||Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Masterton, C. F. G.||Ridsdale, E. A.||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n|
|Meagher, Michael||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Wardle, George J.|
|Meehan, Patrick A.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Menzies, Walter||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Mond, A.||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Montagu, E. S.||Robinson, S.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Montgomery, H. H.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Weir, James Galloway|
|Mooney, J. J.||Roche, John (Galway, East)||Whitbread, Howard|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Roe, Sir Thomas||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)||Rogers, F. E. Newman||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Morley, Rt. Hon. John||Rose, Charles Day||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Morrell, Philip||Rowlands, J.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Runciman, Walter||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Murnaghan, George||Russell, T. W.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Murphy, John||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Murray, James||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Myer, Horatio||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Williams, Osmond(Merioneth|
|Napier, T. B.||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.||Williams, Llewelyn(C'r'arth'n.|
|Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)||Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Nicholls, George||Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncaster)||Sears, J. E.||Wilson,J. W. (Worcestersh., N.)|
|Nolan, Joseph||Seaverns, J. H.||Wilson, P. W. (S. Pancras, S.)|
|Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)||Woodhouse, Sir J. T. Huddersfi'd||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr|
|Winfrey, R.||Young, Samuel||Whiteley and Mr. J. A|
|Wood, T. M'Kinnon||Yoxall, James Henry||Pease.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Du Cros, Harvey||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Faber, George Dension (York)||Muntz, Sir Philip A.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Fardell, Sir T. George||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Fell, Arthur||Nield, Herbert|
|Balcarres, Lord||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Forster, Henry William||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lond.)||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Percy, Earl|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Haddock, George R.||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Hamilton, Marquess of||Rawlinson, John Frederick P.|
|Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hervey, F. W. F.(Bury S. Edm'ds||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hill, Sir Clement(Shrewsbury)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hills, J. W.||Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Hornby, Sir William Henry||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Houston, Robert Patorson||Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Starkey, John R.|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'dUniv.|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Keswick, William||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win.||Turnour, Viscount|
|Cave, George||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.||Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Liddell, Henry||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid).|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.]|
|Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Maclver, David (Liverpool)||Younger, George|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Magnus, Sir Philip||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Alexander Acland-Hood and|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Viscount Valentia.|
|Doughty, Sir George||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.