HC Deb 07 December 1908 vol 198 cc99-109

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. EMMOTT, (Oldham), in the Chair].

THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,) Fifeshire, E.

Sir, I rise for the purpose of moving that you do now leave the Chair. It is, I need not tell the House, with sincere and profound regret that I am about to make this Motion, and in the very few words with which I shall preface it I shall endeavour to refrain, I will not say from anything in the nature of recrimination, for which there is no occasion, but from anything that has even the colour or suggestion of controversy. Let me recall the circumstances under which this Bill was introduced. It was not put forward by the Government as an embodiment of their own views, as the best solution of the problem of national education, nor, again, was it submitted as one of those measures of social reform of which happily there are many instances under all administrations which deal with questions outside the disputed domain of Party controversy. It was peculiar, and, indeed, in my experience, unique in this respect, that while the subject matter was admittedly, and even acutely, contentious, the scheme proposed was one of which some features were naturally and necessarily repugnant to one side, and other features as naturally and as necessarily repugnant to the other. No Government is justified in proposing such a measure unless it is satisfied in advance of two things: First, that the public interest urgently, and even imperiously, calls for a settlement, and, next, that upon the lines suggested there is at least a reasonable probability that such a settlement can be reached. Upon the first point there is in the present case almost complete, if not complete, agreement. Upon the second, while we never pretended that there was a concluded bargain definitely arrived at between representatives authorised to bind the various interests concerned, we did believe that in regard to essential conditions there had been such an actual interchange of give and take, and, in regard to what still remained open, such a willingness to proceed upon the same lines, that we were not only entitled, but bound, to run the risk of failure, and of such discredit as failure may always bring in its train, on the chance and in the hope of securing a national settlement. These hopes, to our great regret, have been for the time being disappointed. I am careful not to trespass on controversial ground, and I make no attempt to apportion responsibility. No one who has read the correspondence which has passed within the last few days between the Archbishop of Canterbury and my right lion, friend the President of the Board of Education can fail to realise that the conditions of an agreed settlement do not at this moment exist. I say nothing—I purposely say nothing—as to the merits of the matters at issue. In regard to one very important point—what is called contracting-out—the Government have come, after very careful consideration, to the conclusion that any material addition to the provisions made in the Bill, must have the effect of largely increasing the number of schools which would take advantage of it—a contingency we feel ourselves bound to guard against, both in the interests of a national system of education, and in justice to those who have made such large concessions on the other side. If there had been a proposal to confine contracting-out to a particular number of schools and to a particular number of scholars the question might have assumed a very different complexion. There is another point emerging from the same correspondence. We here are not likely to exaggerate the representative character of what is called the Church Council. But it seemed to us, and it seems to me still, impossible to ignore the fact that in that council, as lately as Thursday last, the only amendment, moved and supported by the bishops, to a resolution of root and branch condemnation of the Bill was to the effect—I quote the exact words— That the Council could not recommend the Church to accept the Bill without serious amendment. Of course, we entirely accept the statement made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, although no one could have guessed it from the published report, that the specific amendments to the Bill particularised in the Bishop of Salisbury's resolution were not put to the meeting, and if they had been, what I am certain must have been the case, the Archbishop and many of his colleagues would have voted against some of them. How can we, the Government, ask Parliament to treat the Bill as agreed in the face of such a declaration—and of the fact that the only amendments actually suggested in the second branch of the same resolution are of a character—I need only refer by way of illustration to the proposal in regard to the head teachers—as completely to upset the balance of the whole scheme. I do not want to initiate or invite any discussion at this stage as to the merits of these different matters. The question which presented itself necessarily to us was this, not whether in regard to these points or any of them, we were right or wrong, but whether they were points of sufficient importance indicating for a moment at any rate so wide a divergence of opinion as to render the further prosecution of them a sure which in itself and by itself satisfies none of the interests concerned, which is put forward and accepted on the Second Reading as a compromise—to render the further prosecution of that measure a hopeful or even a practicable proceeding. I am afraid the answer must be in the negative. May I add, with the permission of the Committee, as I think it is an appropriate occasion for me to do so, some words of acknowledgment, which I believe will express an opinion widely prevalent on both sides and in all quarters of the House, to those men of different parties, different creeds, different shades of political and ecclesiastical opinion, who have laboured hard in this matter to bring about this compromise. First and foremost, I would venture to mention the name of my right hon. friend who sits by me, the President of the Board of Education. No one knows better than I do, and no one can know so well as I do who have been in daily, I might almost say hourly communication with him during many anxious and laborious weeks—no one can know so well how strenuous, how patient, how considerate, how indomitable his efforts have been. Sir, if ever there was a man who has earned a right to the blessing which is promised to those who seek peace and ensue it it is the right hon. Gentleman. A like tribute is due and ought to be paid to the great Archbishop, who in the face of obstacles and difficulties which would have daunted any man of less courage, has shown himself worthy of the title of Pastor Pastorum Ecclesiœ, and equally to those responsible leaders, both ministers and laymen, of the Free Churches who, for the sake of a national settlement in this matter, have shown themselves ready to lay aside and even to sacrifice greatly cherished ideas. Finally, may I add that the introduction of this measure will never be regretted or repented of by those who had any share in it for the sake of what it has accomplished in bringing into organised existence and articulate expression a vast body of opinion from men of all sections, creeds, and parties in this country in favour of conciliation and agreement? Having said that, nothing is left for me but to perform, which I do with infinite reluctance, the duty, the melancholy duty, of now bidding the Bill farewell. I am not ashamed to confess, if without undue egotism the House will permit me for a moment to refer to myself—I am not ashamed to confess that after a public life now prolonged for many years and spent for the most part, as many here will be ready to acknowledge, in acute and uncompromising controversy, with a fair share both of the smiles and of the frowns of fortune—I am not ashamed to confess that I have never experienced a more heavy and thorough disappointment. I say again I do not regret the attempt that has been made, and I would far rather have made that attempt, so far as my part is concerned, than for fear of failure not to have made the attempt at all.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Asquith.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)

I think everyone must have been impressed by the tone of obvious and pathetic sincerity which animated the whole speech, and especially the last part of the speech, of the right hon. Gentleman. I think he was well advised and had a clear sighted conception as to what is proper on an occasion like this, and on a subject like this, when he declared his intention not to drag in any unnecessary controversy, or indeed to dwell at all on the merits of the measure which he proposes shortly to withdraw from the further notice of the House. I shall follow his example. I shall not touch on the character of the measure or on the probability of its being that lasting settlement, which all those who were directly responsible for it, and all those who encouraged it in the various stages of its proceedings, so earnestly and sincerely desired that it should be. We are not now concerned with the character of the Bill, and, indeed, I am not quite sure that I fully understand what is the object of the right hon. Gentleman in the course he has pursued, in asking us on our side of the House to express our opinion on the transactions and negotiations in which this measure took its origin, and on the course which the Government, now during the Committee stage, are going to pursue. I am very unwilling to utter any note that might be considered of a jarring character on such an occasion. But I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman did desire that we should say something, not on the merits of the Bill, but on the negotiations connected with it. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that it almost seems to me as if the unhappy catastrophe that has occurred was almost-inevitable from the misunderstandings which arose at the very beginning of the negotiations between the Archbishop and the Government. If the Government look back over what has occurred during the last three or four weeks they will see it was scarcely possible that a more fortunate issue should attend these Parliamentary efforts than has in fact attended them, if we remember that the whole essence of this Bill, the whole prospect of its success in the House and the country arose out of its being an arranged Bill between the Government on the one side and the Archbishop and the great majority of the bishops on the other. It might be possible, and many thought it was possible, that a Bill under these auspices could become law and that the objectors on both sides might have found themselves to be false prophets, and that all sections of the community, however reluctantly, might have acquiesced in the settlement. But the one chance of such a settlement surely was that the Government, knowing that they did not carry with them, and indeed did not profess to carry with them, the convictions and ideals of the great mass of the party to which they belong, and knowing that their proposals would be violently resisted by a great section of the community which belong to other parties—the only chance was that there should be a real and thorough agreement at all stages with the Archbishop and the bishops. That, and that alone, it seems to me, could have justified the Government in rushing the Bill through the House. Nobody could defend that procedure on its Parliamentary merits. Everybody knows that to introduce a Bill on a Friday, print it on Saturday, read it a second time on Monday, begin the Committee stage on the Wednesday following with closure by compartments—everybody knows that that is so violent an infraction of the ordinary methods of Parliamentary procedure that the only justification could be that there was such an agreement between the Government and the great central body of opinion in this country that they could drive it through, and that the extremists on either side might be compelled to accept it as an accomplished fact too strong to disintegrate. I do not say that that is a justifiable argument, but it has something to be said for it by those who thought that no other means than unconstitutional or semi-constitutional violence could bring about the result they desired. I do not propose to criticise this Parliamentary action except from this point of view, that in order that it should be justified at all the Government should see that there was a very clear agreement on their part with those on whose co-operation they depended for the success of their proposals before they embarked on the measure. Is it not abundantly clear through the whole of this lengthy correspondence that has passed, the Archbishop over and over again pointed out that in his view the financial proposals and the adequacy of the financial proposals, both as regards contracting-out and the transfer of schools, were not matters of detail which could be left for settlement hereafter, but were of the essence of the settlement? Everything turns on what is meant by "reasonable." It is a phrase which recurs in different forms throughout the correspondence. The Archbishop is constantly bringing it before the Government, and constantly asking the President of the Board of Education: "Are the terms you are going to propose in the Bill terms such as I could accept on behalf of my episcopal colleagues and the Church at large?" Until agreement was arrived at upon that point it surely was very inexpedient to try and force the Bill through the House, and such an attempt could only lead to the unhappy disaster which the right hon. Gentleman has, in such feeling language, deplored this afternoon. Everybody who reads the correspondence will admit that the whole attitude of the Archbishop from the beginning was of a kind which led the Government to know that the financial arrangements which he thought absolutely necessary were at least as great as those which the Government now declare to be inadmissible. Nobody who reads the correspondence can doubt that. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh!"] Well, I have read it most carefully, and I am driven to that conclusion. Surely, the only hope of success was for the Government and the Archbishop, before the Bill was introduced, to examine into the condition of these schools, to agree upon the statistics, to make out a clear account of what was required for these denominational schools, and state what were the fair terms on which trustees of the schools would be required to part with their property. Unfortunately, most unfortunately, the Government chose to regard that as a detail, and each time put off the Archbishop with the suggestion that that was a matter which could be adjusted afterwards, and that he might be confident he would receive generous treatment. I am sure the Government thought the terms were generous, but I am equally sure that if at any stage in the negotiations the Government had told the Archbishop what that treatment was to be, the Archbishop would have at once said without hesitation: "This is not the generous treatment I was led to expect. This is not an arrangement which I think is possible for the schools, and until we can hammer out some different plan it is vain for me to say, on behalf of the Anglican Church, that I think there will be any acquiescence in the scheme of the Government." That seems to me so obvious that all that has occurred since comes from it by an irresistible process of practical logic. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken, and I think in terms none too strong and none too favourable, of the body of moderate opinion which desired to see a settlement. Who, of all others, may be said to represent that body of moderate opinion semi-officially? Why, the Committee of Conciliation. Who was Chairman of the Committee of Conciliation? The Bishop of London. Before the Second Reading of the Bill was carried through this House, the Bishop of London felt himself compelled to say that if the Bill remained, or if he had to vote on the Bill as it then stood, he would vote against it. That is a most unhappy position. The Bill cannot go forward as an agreed Bill under those auspices, and I do not see how it was possible to foresee any other fate than that which has overtaken it. May I say one word about denominationalists for whom the Archbishop has no title to speak—I mean the Roman Catholics? What are the facts? I do not understand that any negotiations ever took place with the Roman Catholics until just before the Bill was introduced. Conversations with the Archbishop apparently have been going on sporadically since May last, and it is certainly matter for regret that in all the months which have elapsed since May last there could not be an agreement between the Archbishop and the Department as to the actual facts connected with the voluntary schools, and that it could not have been seen whether, on the basis of those facts, an arrangement could be come to. But I do not understand that with the Roman Catholics there was any discussion at all. Was there any discussion?

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,) Dewsbury

Yes, certainly.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I was aware that just before the Bill was introduced there had been something said in relation to the Roman Catholic Church, and I certainly thought that they were presented at that late stage with something in the nature of a concluded arrangement, and that they had no opportunity of pointing out, before the Bill was introduced, how it would affect their interests. I must say that a Bill which is really unworkable from the Roman Catholic point of view is a Bill which does carry in itself the seeds of destruction. I think that any Government who really did endeavour to bring forward a Bill which absolutely prevented the Roman Catholics from carrying out that kind of religious training for their children which they conscientiously believe to be necessary, is a Bill which I feel confident would have to be revised, even if it were passed. I may be wrong in that matter, but I think so. But, however that may be, surely before these balanced settlements are gone into, so great an educational interest as that of the Roman Catholic people ought not to have been entirely put on one side, or at all events, consideration of it ought not to have been so late. These are the only observations which I think it necessary to make at this stage of the measure. I abstain from all commentary upon the measure itself, and from all criticisms of the many difficulties which might have arisen, and in the view of many of us were likely to have arisen had the Bill been passed; but I do say that we cannot contemplate those long negotiations between the official leaders of the English Church and the Government without regretting that the Bill was introduced at that critical moment when all that the Church was to give up was clearly ascertained and definitely put down in black and white, while all that the Church was to get was left to subsequent arrangement. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh"]. That is not denied by the authors of the Bill, and it is clearly apparent in the correspondence of the Archbishop; that is to say, up to the very last moment, the Archbishop said: "Everything turns out upon the figures, and you have not shown me any of the figures." I do not think that anybody who has the correspondence in mind can have any doubt about that. The Government, no doubt, sincerely believed that the terms they were giving were generous. It is at least equally certain that if those terms had been known to the Archbishop of Canterbury, he would have told them before the Bill was in print, that it was of no use bringing in that measure in the hope that he would be in a position to express on his own behalf and on behalf of the majority of his colleagues their adhesion to that particular plan. I think it is a very unfortunate state of things. That it is a waste of Parliamentary time is one of the smallest of the evils attendant upon it, but unfortunately it has led to all the evils which an unsuccessful attempt of this kind necessarily carries with it. While, for my own part, I accept in the fullest spirit of assent all that has fallen from the Prime Minister with regard to his keen and earnest personal desire, and that of his colleagues, to obtain a permanent and peaceful solution of this long controversy, I do feel that the actual steps by which they have endeavoured to attain that object, though admirably meant, though carried through in the best of tempers, were from the very nature of the diplomatic errors committed, almost foredoomed from the very beginning to wreck the Bill for which they made themselves responsible. I do not know what the future fate of the measure may be, but in any case it is certain that I can associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman in regretting that such a termination should have occurred to efforts so well meant on the part both of the Government and the authorities of the Anglican Church.

Question put, and agreed to.

[No Report.]