§ Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
§ MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.) moved to recommit the Bill in respect of Clause 15, which provides for the application of the Scottish Education Fund. He said that the Motion had stood on the 60 Notice Paper of the House ever since the beginning of the Autumn Session, and the Amendments which he had since put down had also stood on the Paper for a month, so that all the Scottish Members were perfectly cognisant of the object he had in view. He quite felt that his action in moving to recommit the Bill might not meet with the approval 61 of the Secretary for Scotland, and he would like to say at the outset, what he thought was the opinion of every Member of the Grand Committee on the Bill, that both he and his colleague the hon. Member for South Down, who represented the Irish Party on that Committee, supported the Government generally, and it was only because they did not succeed in getting a satisfactory solution of what they claimed, viz., that the Catholic schools of Scotland should be put on a fair and equitable basis, that he moved the recommittal of the Bill in respect of Clause 15. He was making no claim for any additional charge upon the Scottish Education Fund; his object was to make clear and definite what up to now was vague and indefinite. That was to say that after the interests of the various University, secondary, and board schools had been complied with under Clause 15, the only way in which the Catholic schools and the other voluntary schools of Scotland could benefit was by sharing in the residue of the grant which would then remain over, and it was because he hoped to get from the Secretary for Scotland something more definite as to the extent of that residue, that he had adopted this method of approaching the discussion. He would also like to point out in justification of his action that when Clause 15 was being discussed in Committee the question of the cumulative vote, which gave the Catholics positions on boards and enabled them to control to a certain extent the incidence of rates, was decided. It was true that the Government proposed to destroy the cumulative vote, but there was a general feeling that it might be left to the Committee to decide for itself, and as a matter of fact when the cumulative vote was discussed the numbers were extremely even, and he was not without hope that that vote might be restored, or that they might get proportional representation. The pension scheme of the Government was postponed from Clause 10 in order to be dealt with at the end of the Bill, and under the proposals of the Government in that pension scheme undoubtedly new charges were practically created upon the Scottish Education Fund, which were dealt with as a whole under Clause 15. He had, therefore, two main reasons in urging the recommittal of 62 the Bill in respect of that clause. After the various claims of the University, secondary, and board schools had been dealt with, a residue of the Scottish Education Fund was left, and it was out of that residue that the Catholic schools alone could be expected to benefit. He would like to agree, however, that under the main provisions of the Bill, in so far as the voluntary schools could share with the board schools in central grants, they were undoubtedly improved in position, but that was only to the extent that they were sharing in a general increase. Over and above that, the whole cost of education in Scotland had been rising, and under this Bill was bound to continue to rise, and the Catholic schools would be in the position of having to contribute a very large sum, amounting to 25s. per head of the children attending, in order to get up to the position occupied by the board schools. It was in order to remedy that injustice that he brought forward this proposal. He would further like to point out that his object in asking for a sum not exceeding 10s. was in no sense to put the Catholic schools on the same basis as the board schools. They would still be in receipt of 15s. per head less than the board schools. He put 10s. as the high water mark of their demand, but recognising that the Education Fund might not be able to give the whole amount he was willing to accept a lesser sum if the Secretary for Scotland said the fund could not bear that particular amount. He desired to show that they were making a reasonable claim. The Catholic schools in Scotland had been conducted for years on the free principle. They had been maintained by the Catholics out of voluntary contributions. That was the price of their freedom, and the Catholics were willing to go on paying a certain amount, but they could not face the indefinite future unless they knew that to some extent they would not be called upon to contribute impossible amounts. In that respect he thought from what they saw in that day's papers that there was some reason to hope that the Government would recognise the position of the voluntary schools. It looked as if there was going to be educational peace in England, and why should not educational peace also prevail in 63 Scotland? He thought it was recognised that the board schools in Scotland were practically denominational in the sense that the Presbyterian system was practically universal in the board schools, and if the claims of the voluntary schools were met he saw no reason why educational peace should not obtain In Scotland. At the same time, he was bound to say on behalf of the Catholic archbishop and bishops of Scotland, and the school managers, that their future action was absolutely dependent on the reply of the Secretary for Scotland. The circular which had been issued by the Catholic archbishop and bishops of Scotland showed that whereas the board schools, per head of the children in average attendance, received 65s. 11½d., the Catholic schools received only 40s. 5¾d., or a difference in favour of the board schools of no less than 25s. 5¾d. If his claim was met, that would be reduced to 15s., and that he did not consider an unreasonable claim to make. It was utterly impossible for the Catholic schools to obtain the full earning grant of their pupils, because they were unable, with the limited funds at their disposal, to keep their schools up to the same high standard as the board schools. The earning grant was enormously dependent, not only upon equipment, but upon the salaries which could be given to teachers, and under the present system in no sense would the Catholic schools as a whole be able to compete in earning power with the board schools. He laid great stress upon that fact because, as the cost of education grew, so much more would the Catholics of Scotland find it difficult to pay the high salaries necessary to maintain the same standard of efficiency as the board schools, with their power of drawing upon the rates, to which the Catholics had to contribute. The other point to which he desired to allude was the question of the teachers' pensions. To a certain extent that also came under Clause 15. As that scheme eventually left the Committee, the managers of the schools were called upon to contribute very largely to the teachers' superannuation. While they were all desirous of seeing a proper scheme of superannuation for the teachers carried out, that additional contribution put upon the managers must be borne in mind in looking 64 to the future. If the Catholics had not only to contribute to the keeping up of the schools, but to obtain funds to cope with the teachers' superannuation scheme, it was evident that a greater burden was put upon the capacity of the managers. For these and other reasons, he urged most strongly upon the Government, if they could not see their way at this stage to agree to the recommittal of the Bill in order to safeguard the interests of the Catholic schools, and to see that these schools obtained a definite share out of the Scottish Education Fund rather than a vague and indefinite one, with which they could not be expected to be satisfied, that at least before they went to a division the Secretary for Scotland would indicate to what extent he could see his way to meet their case on the Report stage.
§ MR. J. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)said that, in seconding the Motion, he desired to make a few points absolutely clear. The first was that he and his colleagues had no opposition to offer to the Bill as a whole. He thought the Secretary for Scotland would do them the justice to admit that at no stage had they offered anything in the nature of factious opposition. The second point he wished to make was that their action that day was not inspired either by any feeling of resentment at the manner in which the Catholics in Scotland had been treated in the past, or by any fears as to the manner in which they would be treated in the future. He thought nothing could redound more to the credit of the Scottish people than the fact that, although they held strong political and religious opinions, and clung tenaciously to them, they gladly accorded to those who worshipped the same God at different shrines the same freedom that they claimed for themselves. If he had any lingering doubts in his own mind on that point, they would have disappeared after his experience in Grand Committee on this Bill. He and his hon. friend experienced nothing but the greatest toleration and consideration from all those who differed from them. There was an atmosphere of peace throughout the whole proceedings of that Committee. From the beginning to the end of the rather prolonged sittings, he thought 65 he might say he never once heard mentioned the name of Cowper-Temple, nor the Westminster Catechism, nor the right of entry. They were a harmonious and happy family until, as might perhaps be naturally expected in the case of a Scottish Bill, they came to the question of the division of the bawbees, and then they had to part company. While the board schools of Scotland received from public sources 65s. 11d. a head for the children attending, the Catholic schools only received 40s. 5d., although they were doing the same work and satisfying the same tests as the board schools. He did not think they would be making an extravagant demand if they said that the Catholic schools should be treated on an absolute equality with the board schools. He had been told by some of his Scottish friends that they had got their remedy, that they were penalised financially because they did not go into the national system, and that they could not have it both ways. But what was the fact? In Scotland they had one of the most denominational systems of education in the world. The board school system in Scotland was essentially a Presbyterian system, and the Catholics of Scotland were the Nonconformists to the Establishment. In the Catholic schools there were about 100,000 children, with 73,215 in average attendance. These schools had been maintained in the past against tremennous odds. They had been supported by pennies and sixpennies contributed ungrudingly and freely by the Catholic working men, mainly Irishmen resident in Scotland. In addition to that they had saved the public since 1875 no less than £1,000,000 in buildings and sites alone, besides saving the taxpayers and ratepayers no less than £93,000 a year by the education of their own children. He submitted that that was penalising the Catholic ratepayers of Scotland in a most unjust manner. They were quite willing to make sacrifices for their conscience, and to pay a ransom for the liberty of educating their children in their own way, but they submitted that the Presbyterian children in Scotland were educated at the public cost, and it was not an extravagance that the Catholics should say that the public should pay also the whole cost 66 of education by the system that satisfied the parents of Catholic children. The Motion did not go so far as that. It did not ask them to be generous or even to be just; it made the modest appeal that the Government should increase the grant per head by 10s., which would still leave them 15s. worse off than the children attending the board schools. He was not without hope that the Secretary for Scotland would give them some reason to believe that in the immediate future something would be done to redress the inequality under which the Catholics of Scotland laboured.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills in respect of Clause 15."—(Mr. Boland.)
§ * SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)said he was rather surprised that since the hon. Member who had just spoken had such complete faith in the best of all possible Governments, he and his friends had found it necessary to put down this Motion. He was not certain that those of his countrymen who belonged to the creed of those hon. Members would be quite satisfied that the case had been put with all the firmness and determination to which it was entitled. He himself belonged by tradition and custom to the Established Church of Scotland. He looked with detachment, but all the same with a friendly detachment, upon the Nonconformist bodies in Scotland, the Roman Catholic and the Episcopalian communities. He had had a long and close connection with those communities, and he had had no better experience than he had had of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church of Scotland in dealing with educational questions. He knew how deeply they felt and how ready they were to make sacrifices, and he was not disposed to think, knowing them as intimately as he did, that they were quite so satisfied to trust their future to the tender mercies of the Government as the two hon. Members who had spoken seemed to think. The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic and the Episcopalian Churches had made heavy sacrifices and were always ready—he said it from an experience of twenty 67 years, during which he had been in close connection with them—to listen to any reasonable terms, to make things easy for the Department, and often to accept what was admitted to be unjust in principle as fairly satisfactory. They had in this Bill taken away from those churches that representation on the school boards which they had hitherto had, which always secured in the largest school boards of Scotland a strong element of Roman Catholic and Episcopalian representation. He knew by experience how strongly that had helped the administration of the Education Act, how liberal-minded these Roman Catholic priests and others were who sat upon those boards, how ready they were to help the work of the school boards, and how constantly they set the education of the children as the foremost plank in their platform. The Government had done away with that. They were also adding enormously to the cost of education. They were now opening ranges of education which had not been opened before. What had been their experience in England with regard to this extension? Had they not heard of rates that now had to deal in England with every sort of school, and had they not heard how vastly those rates were increased? Was it not clear that the Roman Catholics of of Scotland were in real danger, and that that danger was near at hand? These schools would increase in cost and would necessarily have to keep up the competition; the burden would become heavier and heavier every day. It had been pointed out that the difference in the grants made to the board schools and the Roman Catholic schools was something like 25s. per head, and in the Episcopalian schools, it was something like 24s. He admitted the injustice, but it was not a thing which had merely to be stated and then left entirely to the mercy of the Government. He was prepared to say that he thought the Roman Catholic schools of Scotland expected them to make a fight for their rights in this respect. What were the facts? The Roman Catholics provided places for about a hundred thousand children, or about an eighth of all the children in Scotland, and they had an average attendance of between seventy 68 and eighty thousand. They got the annual grant, the fee grant, and so on, but the hon. Member had forgotten to state what was their chief grievance, viz., that they actually contributed about £40,000 a year, or nearly 10s. a head, out of their own pockets to the Roman Catholic schools. What right had the Government to demand of these voluntary managers, paying rates as they did, contributing to the upkeep of the schools they did not use, that they should further pay out of their own pockets 10s. a head for their own children? When they had provided the 10s. they were still left with a deficit, and this meant the starvation of the schools. He knew that many of the teachers in the Roman Catholic schools were content to work for a miserable pittance, in the way of salary, but beyond all that they must necessarily starve the schools. They had no resources and no power of borrowing money as the board schools had for their buildings. Their buildings must be paid for entirely out of their own pockets, and their schools would have to be starved, and that in spite of the fact that they were paying this 10s. out of their own pockets. Hon. Members below the gangway were quite entitled to ask whether, when the Unionists were in office, they had ever shown any desire in the direction of decreasing the burden. His answer was that they had, and that his party in its Education Bills of 1903 and 1904 provided for helping these voluntary schools, which were to be made eligible for aid from school boards if the latter chose to give it them. There was no compulsion about it. He would ask the attention of the House to one or two passages in the debate which were not without interest. Although the Bills did not pass, they had many friends on the other side, especially in those now on the Treasury Bench. The Secretary of State for War, who alluded to the generous treatment of the Bills of 1903 and 1904 of the Roman Catholic schools, said he thought the Secretary for Scotland was to be congratulated on the way in which the religious difficulty had been met. The right hon. Gentleman had more sympathy, he was bound to say, than an hon. friend of his for the denominations of Scotland. The hon. Member to whom he referred was 69 now the Lord Advocate, who was at first inclined to turn a deaf ear to the proposal, but said at that time he was glad to hear that before grants were made to these elementary institutions conditions laid down by a representative body must be complied with. They were ready to do that. But there was a more interesting quotation to which he had to allude, from a right hon. Gentleman who sat upon the Treasury bench, with regard to their proposal in reference to voluntary schools. The right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer intervened in this Scottish debate, and said that he understood that under the Bill the treatment of the voluntary schools in Scotland was to be different from that of the voluntary schools in England, as an option to give rate-aid would be left with the local authority. When, the right hon. Gentleman added, the people of England claimed a similar right they were told they were to go to gaol. The right hon. Gentleman welcomed the expedient which they proposed to the Scottish people, and did not grudge what his colleagues had not the courage to introduce in this Bill, and yet this was the Government to which the Members below the gangway were ready to trust these Roman Catholic schools.
§ MR. J. MACVEAGHWe will trust nobody; we will paddle our own canoe.
§ * SIR HENRY CRAIKhoped that that paddling would be effective. The present Lord Advocate, was not so strong a supporter of the measure as his colleague the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman saw difficulties about it, and his difficulties were increased as he made a further acquaintance with it. Was it possible that there might have been some "rift in the lute" of Cabinet harmony over this Bill, and in consequence of a slight difference of opinion that useful, courageous, generous, and just clause was dropped out of it? But the right hon. Gentleman had a colleague, whom he was sorry not to see present when a debate of this interest for Scotland was being carried on. He referred to the hon. and learned Member the Solicitor-General. There was no doubt as to what his opinion on this treatment of voluntary schools was. The Lord 70 Advocate had thrown slight doubts upon the Bill; he was not so enthusiastic as the Secretary of State for War; but the Solicitor-General said that the manner in which the Bill dealt with voluntary and denominational schools was—
as sagacious as it was tactful.There was, he said—no disposition whatever on the part of school boards to refuse grants of public money to such schools as were giving efficient education, but they would only do so provided there was a modicum of local controlSo far as he could judge, he added—from the Roman Catholics in his own constituency, that modicum of local control would not be refused, provided it was confined to secular instruction.They only said on this occasion, therefore, what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who were now occupying the Treasury bench said when they were in opposition. Why, when that Bill failed to pass from no lack of aid on their part, were they not bold enough to put this clause of it in the Bill to take away what was a serious grievance? The hon. Member who last spoke seemed to be under some hallucination, for he said that he was quite certain that no hon. Member from Scotland would state there or from a platform, although he might say it privately, that the system of education in Scotland was practically denominational. If the hon. Member desired such an announcement on the platform or in the House from him, he was perfectly ready to make it. There was no question whatever that, for all practical purposes, the education of Scotland was a denominational system, and that in nine-tenths of the schools Presbyterianism was taught to the satisfaction of the great mass of the people. There was no question as to the fact, and he was not arguing against its justice. For himself, he thought it was perfectly right that the majority of the inhabitants of a district should have a right to choose the religion to be taught in their schools, always provided that this further condition was duly observed, that the minority had their rights preserved and were not crushed down under the tyranny of grants in aid or taxation in the benefits of which they did not share. He would ask the Secretary for Scotland to pause before 71 he refused to listen to this fair and just demand. They had had no difficulty of denominationalism in Scotland, as he knew from the experience of twenty years. They had been able to reconcile Roman Catholics to measures and administration which were in certain points of principle unjust, by constantly watching that the pressure should not be too heavy, constantly listening to every reasonable demand, constantly trying to case off the pressure of the money hearing hardly upon them. But that would no longer be the case, if with the increasing expenditure to which the Bill would lead, they steadily left these Roman Catholics, these denomiratioralists—he spoke of them generally—without the just remedy which they had the right to demand, and which the Secretary of State for War was himself determined to demand for them. If they allowed this opportunity to pass he warned the right hon. Gentleman with absolute confidence that they would be laying up for Scotland a resuscitation of the denominational and sectarian difficulty based upon the absolute justice and rectitude of the claims which would be put forward. Until they dealt with those claims with some form of justice, they could not rest satisfied in their conscience as a Government, or as Presbyterian Members responsible to their constituencies. The Government thought that because in the past they had moved along easily and smoothly they would continue to do so. They had always been proud to see how little was the religious difficulty in Scotland as compared with England, but if the Government refused this principle of justice and aggravated the injustice and the burden, not many years, he was convinced, would pass before they would see Scotland again plunged into the sectarian difficulty.
§ THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,) ForfarshirePerhaps, Sir, as I am the only Member on the Treasury bench who has escaped the thunderbolts of my hon. friend, I may be allowed to reply to him; and let me say, before I pass to the question before the House, that we have nothing whatever to do with the Bills of the hon. Gentleman opposite and his friends. This Bill is founded on an entirely 72 different principle. It is a different scheme, and our withers are quite unwrung by his denunciations on that score. The hon. Member who moved the recommittal of the Bill has done so in the first place because of his apprehension that the Catholic schools in Scotland will be worse off and less able to meet their responsibilities than at present if this Bill passes into law. I prefer to speak on this topic of the voluntary schools as a whole. It is not a question of Roman Catholic schools as against any other schools. We know no difference in Scotland, and we make no difference in the administration and legislation between the schools of one denomination and another. There is educational peace in Scotland, and I can I assure hon. Members nothing is more likely to disturb that peace than the acceptance of this proposal which the hon. Member wishes to be considered on recommittal. With regard to his fears as to the effect of the distribution of the balance under Clause 15 the Government have made careful calculations as to how those schools will be placed when this fund is distributed. I say confidently that not only is there not a denomination, but there is not a school belonging to a denomination in Scotland which will not be better off under this Bill when passed, and more able to meet its responsibilities, than it is at present. I make that definite and categorical statement. I gave this assurance in Committee, and I repeat it in this House. The hon. Gentleman need have no fear that the schools in which he is interested, even taking into account their increased responsibilities, will be less able to meet them than now.
§ MR. BOLANDWill the right hon. Gentleman give the figures?
§ MR. SINCLAIRIt is impossible to give the figures, but the hon. Member may take my assurance on that point, which is founded on the most careful calculations. I understand it is the view of the hon. Member and those who agree with him that this Bill does not go far enough to satisfy them, and they wish to review the whole position of the voluntary schools under the national system of Scotland. In a 73 sense, it is true that the system is denominational, but that does not prevent its being national. The majority of the Scottish people are of the Presbyterian denomination, and the majority give a religious complexion to the school. That system, whether you call it denominational or not, is receptive of the opinions of any religious denomination and can be adapted and controlled by any denomination which finds itself in a majority in any particular locality. Let us take, first of all, the position of voluntary schools, so far as aid from taxes is concerned. A circular has been issued by the authority of the Catholic bishops, in which they criticise the distribution of the grants. There are three columns in the circular, namely, board schools, voluntary schools and Catholic schools. While the bishops who issued this circular are perfectly correct in saying that as an actual fact certain Catholic schools receive 22s. 4d. whereas other voluntary schools receive 23s., in respect of the average annual grant, and with regard to the aid grant Catholic schools receive 3s. 2d. instead of 3s. 6d., it must be remembered that that is not because it is not open to Catholic schools to earn as much money under these grants as other voluntary schools. It happens that some Catholic schools do not earn as much as other schools. In the first place, they have a larger proportion of younger children, and therefore the grants for higher grades are not so frequently earned. But there are Catholic schools in Scotland which earn large grants, and are more efficient than many board schools, and it is only in this way that these figures can be described as accurate. In fact the Catholic schools have an advantage, "because the third aid grant is a grant that is specially distributed to voluntary schools, and in which board schools have no share. The net effect of the distribution of grants to Catholic schools in Scotland is very remarkable. So generous is the system that, in eighty-seven out of a total of 359 voluntary schools in Scotland, the Treasury grants exceed the whole expenditure of the school other than rent, and there are voluntary schools in Scotland in which the Treasury grants exceed the whole expenditure of the school including rent, and there is 74 actually a small margin of money that cannot be said to go to any educational expense at all. These figures show that in respect of the distribution of money coming from Parliamentary grants the system of education in Scotland is, in fact, generous to the voluntary schools. As to the distribution of rates, the demand put forward by hon. Members opposite is that they should practically be given a share of the rates and be placed on the same footing as public schools in regard to rate aid, but they have never said that they are willing to comply with the only condition on which I hope this House will ever consent to give rate aid, namely, that the schools shall be publicly controlled. Short of that it is impossible for us to go so far as hon. Members opposite wish in recognising that claim. Let me point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite how exceedingly generous and elastic the Scottish system of education and administration is. A school board can take the religious complexion of the community which elected it. It is in the power of any school board to prescribe the form of religious instruction to be given in its school. The consequence is that in one district of Scotland the majority of school boards are Catholic. The school board supplies the wants of a Catholic population in a, particular district with a Protestant minority with perfect peace and harmony. Provision is made for the religious instruction of both Catholic and Protestant within the administration of the school board. It is perfectly possible for a school board which is not Catholic or voluntary to make such arrangements as it chooses for any section of the people and provide educational facilities for the particular religious belief of the minority. We have a case of that kind under the administration of the Glasgow School Board. In Glasgow there is a school for the education of defective and crippled children. That school supplies the wants of a Catholic population. That school is staffed and organised to meet the wishes of the Catholic minority. Whether you wish to go the whole length of establishing a school board which shall represent the Catholic majority, or whether you wish a Protestant school board to supply the education desired voluntarily by a Catholic 75 minority in its district, the Scottish system meets both eventualities. I have little doubt that in Scotland where you have large communities including considerable minorities of voluntary persuasions, the door being so wide open for arrangements of this kind, it will be perfectly possible in future to develop and make this elasticity and adaptability meet the reasonable needs of the voluntary denominations. The difficulty is not with the system but with the denominations which have not complied with the condition which is necessary, namely, that with rate aid must go public control. In my opinion the Scottish system does meet all reasonable needs and certainly promotes educational peace. There is no feeling of friction or hardship as between the denominations with regard to the treatment they receive in the administration of education in Scotland. I, therefore, cannot accept the Motion of the hon. Gentleman and must ask the House after this discussion to come to a speedy conclusion and let us proceed with the Bill.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)said he must protest against the statement by which the right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech in reference to the Motion to recommit the Bill, that it would be the signal for the break-up of the educational peace which had hitherto existed in Scotland. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman was justified in making a statement of that kind. After the two speeches they had heard from those benches, he thought everyone would agree that none were more anxious for a continuance of good feeling and peace in these matters in Scotland than were the Catholic representatives, and nobody would be more sorry to see any interference with the existing friendly relations than the Catholic citizens of Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland seemed to find fault with the figures supplied to his hon. friends by the Catholic bishops in Scotland. It could not be made a cause of complaint against them if they preferred to take those figures rather than the figures presented to them either by the right hon. Gentleman himself or from any other quarter of the House. He did not deny for a single moment that 76 the right hon. Gentleman had given careful consideration to all these matters, but he would be ready to admit that those responsible for the education of Catholics in Scotland, particularly the bishops, had given at least as much-careful consideration to the matter as the right hon. Gentleman himself or anybody else concerned in the question. The right hon. Gentleman had entirely failed to meet the case presented to the House. What was that case? They had a number of voluntary schools conducted by the Catholic Church in Scotland which, from the point of view of education, gave as much satisfaction and as much value in every way as any of the board schools, and yet they were penalised by their not receiving anything like the same amount of public money for their up-keep as the board schools got. The right hon. Gentleman had dragged into his speech the old contention as to rate-aid going hand in hand with popular control. A good deal could be said on that question, but he did not think it was one which, ought to be discussed that afternoon at all, because the Catholics of Scotland were not asking for rate-aid at all; they were simply asking for an increase per head to enable them to keep their schools up to the level at which everybody desired to see them kept. The right hon. Gentleman had entirely failed to appreciate the peculiar circumstances which attached to the Catholic schools in Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland said that he desired to make no difference whatever between denominational schools of any complexion, and that he dealt with voluntary schools as a whole. He did not complain of the right hon. Gentleman's doing that, but he thought that the Catholic schools of Scotland required a certain amount of consideration which perhaps many other schools in Scotland would not care to claim. The Catholic schools were supported by the very poorest class of the population It had been a heavy strain upon the Catholics to maintain their schools in the state of efficiency in which they were kept. Above and beyond all he hoped that the House in dealing with the matter would remember that these were the schools of children of the working classes. He did not quarrel with the references of the hon. 77 Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities to the schools of other denominations besides the Catholics in Scotland, but he thought the hon. Gentleman would be ready to admit that there was a difference between them. The whole of the Catholic schools had been maintained and kept up by the poorer sections of the population more than by any other, and if that were true—and it was absolutely true, he ventured to say—then it was a really good reason why some special consideration should be given to them. The hon. Gentleman apparently found fault with the Members who submitted this Motion because they had not done so in a sufficiently violent manner, or made a wholesale attack upon the Government. It would have been bad tactics to fire off the heavy guns or bring all their forces into line before they knew what they had to expect. He could assure the hon. Gentleman above the gangway, who had shown his new-born zeal for the Catholic citizens in Scotland, that their interests had been looked after and safeguarded by Members on the Irish benches long before they had the pleasure and advantage of his presence in the House. In his view it would be better for the interests of the cause which the hon. Gentleman so eloquently pleaded if he could manage to plead it in a way which would less convince the House that he was thinking of Tory and Liberal, and party interests all the time. The Catholics in Scotland and in this country had very wisely come to the conclusion that their interests rested with themselves; that it was only by relying on their own influence and the justice of their cause that they could bring conviction to the mind of the House; and that it was not by attaching themselves first to this Party and then to that in order to promote particular interests that anything special was likely to be done to improve the condition of their schools. He did not think it would be possible to put a case more moderately and reasonably than the way in which the present case had been put by his two hon. friends. He cordially endorsed everything his hon. friends had said with regard to the good feeling which existed between the different denominations 78 in Scotland. He did not know of anything more pleasing, certainly to a Catholic Member of Parliament like himself, than to visit Scotland and to find there the greatest friendship, consideration, and good will displayed by people of all denominations. One would wish that the same spirit were more widely diffused in England. It was really because the Catholics of Scotland valued that good feeling that they were anxious that in making their present claim nothing should be done to break in upon the peace of Scotland as the happy land where people did not fight about religion. It was easy for the right hon. Gentleman to quote statistics and to burke the whole question by giving isolated cases here and there, which proved nothing, save that they were exceptions to the general rule. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the Catholic schools might, if they were only able, earn a great deal more money than they did—more than the voluntary schools, if not more than the board schools themselves. Dealing with case3 of that kind, moreover, did not meet the central point, which was this. Here were, roughly speaking, 100,000 children of the poorest and most hardworking of the population of Scotland. Their parents were proud of their faith, in which they were anxious that their children should be educated. Out of their poverty, out of their poor resources, even out of their hunger and privation they had managed to build schools, and to maintain them, though very much handicapped; at the same time they had borne their full share of the general school rate, and had not received a penny in return. All the Catholics asked was that their schools should be allowed to exist in a state of efficiency, and be given the same opportunity as board schools and the schools of other denominations, to teach their children in an up-to-date way so that they could meet the requirements of the standard of education in Scotland. And what did it all come to in the matter of pounds, shillings, and pence? It was not a question of Catholic schools being better than Protestant schools; it was not a question of denominationalism at all. Everyone admitted that the Catholic 79 schools had done good work; that was proved beyond doubt. They were conducted in accordance with belief in a certain religion, and because they were so conducted were they to be penalised and rendered incapable of coming up to the standard of education required? Were they to be told, simply because their schools were conducted under Catholic auspices, that they were to receive 25s. a year less per head for the maintenance of their scholars than the board schools of the country? The right hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that the case which had been made out was one which could not be allowed to rest. He must know that if the peace which had happily hitherto prevailed was to continue, there must be some re-arrangement. After all, if it was a question of money why should not the House ask what the amount of money was? He was not in a position to say what the amount would be in the school rate of the various schools other than the Presbyterian schools in Scotland, but the very modest proposal of his hon. friends could not possibly exceed more than £35,000 or £40,000 a year. Was it worth while to leave a sense of injustice amongst a large section of citizens in Scotland because of some £30,000, £35,000, or £40,000 a year? If this matter could be settled, the most perfect satisfaction would prevail, and the education work of Scotland would go on in all schools—board schools and the schools of various denominations—without any sense of injustice or check. He asked the right hon. Gentleman therefore, not entirely to close the door, as he seemed to have done in his speech, and to obviate the necessity which Members of the House must have to make strong and prolonged protests if necessary, by telling them that some further consideration could be given to the matter, and that the demand which had been put forward would be to some extent, at any rate, granted. The right hon. Gentleman had not held out the slightest hope that any advance would be made to meet the claim which was so reasonably and so justly put forward. He had said that the effect of the Bill would be that denominational schools in Scotland would be in an improved condition. 80 He did not think the Catholic bishops themselves denied that in certain respects the Bill would be an improvement, and that was why there was no desire or intention on the part of Catholic representatives to block or interfere with the measure, but they wanted to make it complete and satisfactory. The Secretary for Scotland was a fair-minded man who, he believed, was really anxious to do what was fair. Twenty years ago he travelled for three weeks with him in Dumbartonshire. They were very close political friends at the time, and he formed the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman would undoubtedly seek to do what was fair by his (Mr. Redmond's) fellow-countrymen and coreligionists. He would be sorry to change that opinion, but the right hon. Gentleman's speech lacked entirely that sympathy which he was led to expect from him. There had been trouble and friction enough in England in reference to the education question, and they had had trouble and dissatisfaction in Ireland from time to time. Hitherto Scotland seemed to have been, in educational matters, the most peaceful and satisfied country of all. He was perfectly satisfied that it could and would remain so if in this fresh departure the Government recognised facts which could not be gainsaid, and met the legitimate claims of these schools, and did not fail to do justice for what, after all, in reference to an educational matter was at best a paltry sum. He was certain, as matters stood at present, there would be not only deep disappointment, but much dissatisfaction wherever these schools existed in Scotland. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, not to mar the work to which he had set his hand. It must be some satisfaction to a Minister to have a part in the passage into law of a measure of this kind, but such satisfaction would be entirely marred if when he returned to Scotland he found that a large section of the people, representing the hardest working people of the country, had a sense of injustice. He could understand perfectly the attitude of the Government if they were prepared to allege that these schools for which they pleaded did not come up to the required standard, and that the education given there was 81 not satisfactory, but nothing of the kind could be alleged. Not the slightest reflection could be cast upon their good order, up-to-dateness, or efficiency, and it was unjust, unwise, and unstatesmanlike to penalise them. When the adherents of these schools asked why they were penalised, they never would take as the answer this talk of public control and rate aid, because they were not asking for the rates which even they paid. They were only asking for such an increase in the principle of State aid, which was already conceded, as would enable them to keep their schools in the future as they had been in the past, a credit to their denomination and generally to the educational development of Scotland.
§ MR. ANNAN BRYCE (Inverness Burghs)said he wished to add a word of appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in corroboration of what had been said by those who had spoken from the Irish benches and by the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities. He did not put it as the hon. Member for the Universities did in solemn tones upon the principle of abstract justice, but solely on the principle of expediency. They knew perfectly well that Catholics would not go to Protestant schools, and at the same time they recognised that it was absolutely necessary in the interests of the country that all the children should be kept up to a high standard. If the Catholics did not get some additional consideration from the Government it was certain that they must fall behind in the race. The right hon. Gentleman said he was perfectly convinced from very accurate calculations that he had made that voluntary schools in Scotland would be in a better position under the Bill than they were at present. If he had made those calculations with such remarkable accuracy, why could he not tell them what the figures were which would result from them? Hon. Gentlemen opposite were quite justified in asking for the figures. Even if the figure was less than 10s. he should be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman could show that to some reasonable and fair extent he was going to enable Catholic schools to continue the efficiency which they at present possessed. He trusted, 82 therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider this matter and give some kind of assurance, with which hon. Members opposite would be satisfied, that the position of their schools would be really better under the new system than they were at present.
§ MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Central)did not think the hon. Member for the Universities deserved the reproach that he had discussed the question from a party point of view. He did not intend to do that. He had been occupied in work of that kind in connection with another Bill, and was glad to get a holiday in the atmosphere of this Bill. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had fairly met the case put to him. Judging from the speeches of his colleagues they recognised that there was a great gap between the treatment of the voluntary and the board schools of Scotland, and it was one which ought to be met. In the former Bill it was proposed to give a purely optional power to school boards to meet that gap by means of rates, and he should have thought hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been willing to trust local authorities in a matter like that. He was certain that all the denominational schools of Scotland would be willing to accept a modicum of control in exact proportion to the modicum of rate aid which they might receive. This proposal dealt with the matter in a different way. There was no request for rate aid or for any new grant from the Imperial Exchequer. The only request made was that, of the funds already set apart for the purpose of education in Scotland, a small proportion should be given to helping these denominational schools, which were educacating from one-eighth to one-ninth of the people of Scotland, and thereby fulfilling a public work in exactly the same manner as the other schools. How was this met or sought to be met? They had the greatest vagueness in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. If it was to be met at all it could only be by the last provision at the end of Clause 16. Clause 14 dealt with the way in which the Scottish Education Fund was made up. In Clause 15 they had a statement as to how it was to be distributed, and after six other purposes had been specified it said the balance might be made over to 83 the district education fund. When they came to Clause 16 there were a number of specified purposes to which that district education fund might be applied, and at the very end of all it said any balance which might remain should be given over to the managers or to the school boards. Therefore, any chance that the managers might have of getting money must depend, first of all, on how much was over for the district fund from the Scottish Education Fund generally, and, in the second place, on the various purposes for which the district fund might be applied, and which would have to be satisfied before the managers could get anything at all. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give some indication as to how he had arrived at the conclusion that there would be any money left at all. On the face of it there was nothing to show that, after all this immense number of other charges had been satisfied, there would be any balance available as specified at the end of Clause 16. If there was no balance available obviously the schools would not be better off, and inasmuch as the cost of education was steadily rising, and as there would be new charges under the Bill in respect of teachers and the rest, they might be very much worse off. The right hon. Gentleman had challenged the figures given with regard to the position of Scottish voluntary schools. With regard to earning power, he had argued in a vicious circle. They might earn less, but they did so because they had not the means of getting a sufficient staff, which was necessarily dependent on its earning power. Let him take it on rates alone. It could not be gainsaid that, putting the earning power aside altogether, there was an average amount per head of children in Scottish board schools of 22s. 5d., none of which went to voluntary schools at all, and as against that there was merely a sum of 3s. aid grant. Therefore, putting it at the very lowest there was a balance of 19s. 5d. to be made up. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman could quote here and there the case of a minority of schools in which the grant sufficed for the whole of their expenses. If so, it ought not to suffice. There ought to be more expanse in connection with salaries in these schools. But, after all, they were a minority, and 84 taking it as a whole they had this tax of 19s. 5d. on sections of the Scottish people who, at the same time, paid their full amount for the general educational purposes of the country. There was a particular circumstance whereby the case for a further grant was made stronger. In the year 1890, after the English Local Taxation Acts had been passed, an equivalent grant was made to Scotland, and some £40,000 was to be devoted to education under the Education Act of 1890. After the fee grant of 1891 had been passed a sum of £265,000 was paid to Scotland for her share of the fee grant, and under a section of the Education and Local Taxation Account a certain balance was to be pail over as an extra fee grant, by means of which balance the schools got an extra grant of 2s. When the Voluntary Schools Act for England was passed in 1897 an equivalent sum had to be paid to Scotland, which on the face of it ought to have been 5s., but when the debate came on the Lord-Advocate, now Lord Dunedin, told the House that it was not intended to pay more than 3s. because the other 2s. had already been paid. Of course, that statement was canvassed by the present Deputy-Chairman of Committees, who never would allow a point of that kind relating to Scottish finance to escape him, and he challenged the Government, and the Government replied: "Well, we are really not defrauding you in any way; you have got this 2s. already," and they went on to say that Scotland would not have got that 2s. if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not promised to make it up, because the balance of the former fund would soon be exhausted. That was Scottish money to start with. But the balance was not exhausted, and it was not likely to be exhausted, because it was derived from the probate duty, which increased faster than the expenditure, and therefore there had never been any need for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make up the balance of 2s. The original position remained as it was before. There was that 2s. paid out of purely Scottish money which was devoted to the fee grant. No call had been made upon the Exchequer as was promised by Lord Dunedin, and all the same, 3s. only continued to be paid. Quite apart from the denominational poi it of view, there 85 was an absolute case for an extra 2s. of fee grant following upon the English precedent of 1897 to make that sum up to 5s., and he believed this fund, so far from being exhausted, had actually been tapped and used for other purposes. He would like the Lord-Advocate to say whether that was not so, and on what ground he justified the continual withdrawal of 5s. whish would have been the equivalent under the Voluntary Schools Act of 1897. He would conclude with one further appeal, which was not in a party sense at all. Here they found a number of schools doing work acknowledged to be good, on means acknowledged to be inadequate. They were educating a large section of the people of Scotland, and those representing the schools came, not to make any demand to be put on an equal footing with their neighbours, but that out of the money already assigned to Scotland some fraction should be given to those Schools to enable them to continue their good work without a sense of cruel harshness and injustice.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)said he wished to say a few words upon this question. He did not think the Government or the House quite realised how limited and moderate was the request they were now making. He would pass by the taunt of the hon. Member who regretted that they had not fallen upon this Bill with the intention of tearing it to pieces. That would no doubt be the hon. Member's desire, but it was not their desire. All they wanted was to put forward a moderate and reasonable request, and he asked the representatives of Scotland sitting on and the Treasury bench particularly the Secretary of State for War, to listen to him for two or three moments while he put this point. The Secretary for Scotland in his speech had stated that he had dealt with the issues raised. He respectfully submitted to the right hon. Gentleman that three-fourths of his speech was not devoted to the real issue, because he dealt mainly with the question of no rates going to voluntary schools. That, however, was not the point he and those who thought with him had raised. They had their own views upon that point as to the injustice of the present system, 86 but they had not raised the point in this debate. Their point was disposed of by the right hon. Gentleman in a very few words, and he respectfully submitted to him that it deserved a more serious consideration. This new Scottish Education Fund was to be allocated under Clause 15 in a particular way. There were three or four subsections stating how the money was to be spent, and the clause went on in subsection (2) to provide that after those payments the balance was to be distributed in a certain way in accordance with a scheme of allocation prepared by the Department, What they asked for was that the admitted deficiency in the amount which went to voluntary schools should be met, as far as possible, out of the surplus under Clause 15. The right hon. Gentleman said that that surplus would to some extent have the effect which they desired. He also said that careful calculations made by him enabled him to give the House an assurance that every class of schools, and every individual school would derive benefit from the allocation of this surplus. Was it an unreasonable thing for them to ask the right hon. Gentleman to let them see his calculations in order that they might form some independent judgment of their own as to what the effect of the distribution of that surplus would be? The right hon. Gentleman said he could not give the figure. He knew he could not give an absolute figure, because nobody could tell the precise amount, but surely he could take the House of Commons into his confidence and allow them to form a judgment upon his own calculation, and if it showed that a substantial increase of the amount received by the denominational schools would result it would very largely meet the point they had made. If the right hon. Gentleman could show the House that this would be a genuine surplus, and that out of it an appreciable improvement in the position of voluntary schools would arise, it would meet their point to a very large extent, even if the Government were not able to put into the Bill, which he thought they ought to, a statement that out of that surplus a certain definite sum should be given in aid of the voluntary schools. On the 87 justice of the matter alone, without going Into the question of rates, it was not fair that voluntary schools should receive 25s. a year per head of the scholars less than other schools. On the face of it, it was an unfair state of things which it would be right to remedy at once. They were not making that large claim which the hon. Gentleman combated in his speech, but they were simply making the most limited and reasonable demand. The right hon. Gentleman ought to show his calculations to the House, and put something into the Bill which would satisfy them that the voluntary schools were going to get some increased grant which would remove some of the injustice which they at present suffered. He put that point as a reasonable request. They did not want to embark on a bitter controversy over this matter. Those sitting on the Irish benches had experienced unpleasantness and bitterness in connection with the English education discussions, and they did not want to introduce them into Scotland. They were dealing there with a state of peace, and the Government ought to allow this small recognition of the justice of their claim to be made. Although it might not satisfy the full demands of justice, he thought that at any rate it would prevent a still greater sense of injustice rankling in the mind of the Catholic people of Scotland. In fairness to the interests they represented, and in fairness to the House of Commons, he appealed to the Government to give them this further concession.
§ MR. C. J. O'DONNELL (Newington, Walworth)said he approached this question entirely from an educational standpoint. It had been admitted that the grant to the special schools in Scotland, including the Catholic and Episcopalian, was less than two-thirds of the grant given to other schools. The only result of that must be to starve the teachers, because it was impossible to expect young men to devote themselves to teaching when they would only receive two-thirds of the salaries paid to their brother teachers in other schools. It had been stated by hon. Members from Ireland that Catholic schools generally were as good as board schools and similar institutions. [A NATIONALIST 88 MEMBER: Yes, in proportion to their means.] Nothing had been more painful to him, representing as he did a working men's constituency, than to see the way in which poor Catholic children went out into the world uneducated and were driven down to the ranks of the daily labourer. He was convinced that a large portion of the unemployed of to-day were poor Irish Catholics. That was the reason he made a special and urgent appeal to those representing Scotland on the front bench to remember that by this measure they were doing an injury to the poorest of the poor. Those poor men belonged to a religion which did not possess a wealthy class in a position to contribute funds to make up the difference between the 40s. and the 65s. grant, and they had to depend entirely on the pence of the poorest of the poor. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that if the salaries of teachers were so greatly reduced as they necessarily would be under this Bill they could not expect good education to be given to the Catholic poor of Scotland.
§ * MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)said the hon. Member for Waterford had stated that his hon. friend the Member for the Glasgow University entertained some hostile feeling towards this Bill. His hon. friend had been a Member of the Grand Committee upstairs which dealt with the Bill, and he felt sure that he was expressing the feelings of all those who sat on that Committee when he said that those representing the Opposition side of the House had shown every desire to facilitate the passage of the Bill and had not indulged in any unnecessary or discursive talk calculated to hinder its passage. On the contrary, they had always pronounced themselves favourable to the general principles of the Bill. In some given particulars they differed and would like to see them altered. His hon. friend had stated that some of the previous speakers did not appear to have urged their case with the necessary vigour to move the Front Government Bench. Speaking with some knowledge and experience he could assure the hon. Member for Waterford that he would get nothing out of the 89 front bench whatever unless he displayed some vigour in attack. The Roman Catholic question had been dealt with fully and admirably in previous speeches, and in what he had to say he did not propose to deal with one creed more than another. The voluntary? schools of Scotland were not composed entirely of Roman Catholics; they were composed largely of children of very different creeds indeed, but they all suffered from the injustice that they were called upon to contribute to the rates and did not get an adequate return for their own system of education. He did not deny that the Roman Catholic case was a very clamant one. There were 100,000 children in their schools, and while the parents had to contribute largely to the rates they had to provide their own school buildings. The House had had a revelation from the hon. Member for East Clare, when he stated that he and the Secretary for Scotland arcades ambo spent three weeks on the moors of Dumbartonshire whispering soft nothings to one another. Knowing the persuasive manner of the hon. Member for Clare and knowing also the facility with which Members of the Front Bench made election-pledges, which might or might not be carried into effect, he had not so much fear for the Roman Catholic schools in Scotland as for the general religious liberties of that country. It was with respect to the other schools that he was concerned. He wished to plead for justice and efficiency. Could they have efficient education in Scotland in cases where there was not sufficient money? Were the board schools extravagantly managed? The Government said they were not. They were allowed a certain sum of money that was necessary for providing efficient education. The voluntary schools were asked to provide the same education with about 25s. per child less. If they were to do so they must economise by paying smaller salaries to the teachers and by starving the educational service in other ways. The right hon. Gentleman had tried to console the House by stating that the voluntary schools would be better off in the future than in the past. He said he had given the whole matter his careful consideration. What 90 did he mean by that? He presumed that he would be furnished with a rough estimate from those who were capable of giving information on the subject. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman give an outline of the information to which he had given his careful consideration? He was prepared to take the right hon. Gentleman's careful consideration for what it was worth, but he wished to know what had led the right hon. Gentleman to the conclusion at which he had arrived. It was true that there would be increased grants, but the greater obligations were greater than the increased grants. He quite agreed that they could not give rate aid without popular control, but if the educational efficiency of a large section, about one-ninth, of the Scottish population was to suffer for the want of the small additional sum of money which was asked he urged that, whether the schools were Roman Catholic or those of other creeds, the Government should give the matter further consideration. This was a question which excited considerable feeling in Scotland, and the Government should take some steps to provide further money with a view to the efficiency of the education given in the voluntary schools.
§ * MR. STEWART (Greenock)supported the appeal to the Government made from the front Opposition Bench, stating that he did so without any party prejudice or feeling in the matter. He did not look at this question from the Catholic or the Episcopalian point of view. He could not support the contention that in the fullest sense of the term these were voluntary schools, but from pubic moneys they received 25s. per child in attendance less than the board schools. His point was this. An Act must be supposed to presume and to intend the incidence of that Act. He would not challenge the statement of the Secretary for Scotland that the Act establishing the school system was in itself undenominational. But the effect of the Act was to give localities a system which ensured that a denominational school board might have control of the schools, and the result was that in 99 cases out of 100 the boards were denominational. They were in effect Presbyterian boards 91 giving Presbyterian teaching to Presbyterian children. That being the case it must be assumed that the Act was meant to give facilities to Presbyterian education. He cared not whether the money had come out of the rates or taxes, the salient fact was that the whole of the religious teaching in the board schools had been paid for at the expense of the community as a whole, including Catholics. Was that just? In his judgment it was not just, and he joined hon. Members below the gangway in urging the Government to give the matter further consideration. He could not see that there was any principle involved in the question whether the voluntary schools should contribute 25s., 20s., or 15s. He did not think that the additional grant of 10s. which was asked for was excessive under the circumstances. They would still be laying on the very poorest members of the community—he cared not what their religion was—the burden of conscience to maintain the public schools as well as their own teachers and their own schools. An attempt was made to raise this question in Committee, but it was ruled out of order. He believed that a promise was given that it would be considered at a later stage of the proceedings. He asked the Government not to draw too rigid a line on this point.
§ MR. ALEXANDER CROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie)supported the appeal which had been made from both sides of the House that the Government should reconsider this point. He asked the Government to keep carefully before them two points. The first was the plea of justice. What was the answer to that plea? By setting up school boards, which provided a system which was no doubt denominational, they said to the ratepayers generally: "You must pay rates, you must endow our religion, and if you do not wish to have that we shall give you a small sum in aid of your own schools." The Government did not take up the position of saying that if the Roman Catholics did not avail themselves of the national schools they would not get any grants for their own schools. They said: "Go on with your own schools and comply with a certain standard." How 92 did they enable them to do that? He supposed that the Secretary for Scotland was correct in saying that the voluntary schools would be better off than before and that the grants would be more generous. But that would not enable him to go before his constituents and justify his action if he were to vote for giving 25s. per child more to schools of his own denomination than to schools of other denominations. The right hon Gentleman had not shown on what principle he had acted in giving a few shillings more to the board schools than to the voluntary schools while insisting in both cases on equally efficient education. He defied any Scot ish Member on the front bench opposite to defend that on the plea of justice. The next point was that of the inefficiency of the education. How could Scottish Members opposite justify themselves on that point? Efficiency must suffer unless this concession were made, and that would affect 100,000 children, or an eighth part of the children in Scotland. Were they to be told that the Government were going to allow this last opportunity to pass of improving the educational efficiency of those children? Yet the decision of the Government must mean want of efficiency in the education of those children, and that must call for the most earnest consideration of every man interested in education. He appealed to the Secretary for Scotland to respond to the reasonable plea made to him. It must be remembered that these were the children of the poorest of the poor in Scotland, of parents who were paying rates for the working of the schools by which the whole population of Scotland was benefited, and who had done more than their fair share in maintaining educational efficiency in their own schools. It might be said that these Catholic parents might send their children to the national schools, but he would ask whether any hon. Member opposite would send his children to a Catholic school? If the Government could not find the £20,000 or £30,000 to secure the efficiency of an eighth part of the children in Scotland they would incur a moral opprobrium that they had now no idea of.
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid that the particular question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford introduced a subject which had ranged rather wide. But as a matter of fact the point they were discussing was very limited. It was really as to whether within the limits of the Education (Scotland) Fund they could carry out what the hon. and learned Member wished, viz., to give a grant of 10s. per head to the children in average attendance at Catholic schools and so secure what, in his opinion, would be a more equitable distribution of that fund. He hoped that hon. Members who had not been through the discussions on the Bill in Committee would realise that that sum was limited. The last paragraph of Clause 15 of the Bill relating to the distribution of the Residue Grant, laid down the principle on which was distributed the residue of the Education (Scotland) Fund, and that residue was arrived at by the subtraction, in the first place, of the national charges, and, in the second place, of the district charges from the fund. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed that from that residue, before the ultimate distribution, a sum of 10s. per head should be taken and distributed to the voluntary schools. Taking 100,000 children as the right calculation of the children in the voluntary schools, that meant that they were to take £50,000 from the present distribution of the Education (Scotland) Fund to the board schools and distribute it to the voluntary schools. The result would be that they would leave all the board schools in a considerably worse position than at the present time. It was not possible for the Government to accept the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. What he wished again to point out to the House was that the voluntary schools would be better able, after the Bill was passed, to discharge all their increased responsibilities than they were at present. The hon. and learned Gentleman would remember that on many points they had placed the voluntary schools of Scotland at an advantage in the Bill, in respect to the supply of books and medical inspection.
§ MR. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs)Was not that in the option of the school boards?
§ MR. SINCLAIRThey are exactly on the same footing as the board school.
§ MR. ALEXANDER CROSSWhere is the advantage?
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid the advantage was that the school boards had at the present time no power whatever to supply books or medical inspection to the voluntary schools. That was a most distinct advance in the position in which this Bill placed the voluntary schools of Scotland. From one end of the Bill to the other no desire had been manifested but to treat the children of the voluntary schools fairly. But when they came to the distribution of this fund it was not possible for the Government, according to the Scottish system of education, to grant the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the balance of the fund to be distributed according to the last part of Clause 15 would considerably increase—by at least one-half—the distribution now made to the voluntary schools under the heading of Aid Grant, and that every school in Scotland would find itself better equipped than it was at present.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give an approximate figure. The right hon. Gentleman said that this residue grant would increase by half the particular grant, which he believed was 3s. 6d. per head.
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid he put it at 4s. He did not want to pin himself to any particular figure less than that. He believed it would be more.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he wanted to understand. Did the right hon. Gentleman say that the position of the voluntary schools would be improved by the distribution of the residue grant to the extent of 4s. or 6s.?
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid his statement was that it was impossible for the Government, in accordance with the Scottish system of education, to do anything by way of preference to the voluntary schools. What he anticipated was that the voluntary schools and the board schools would be placed in a better position to the extent he had mentioned. Within the limits he had stated, not by way of preference but by way of equal treatment, every school in Scotland would receive, instead of the aid grant per head of 4s. at the present time, an aid grant of 6s. per head, which would place them in a considerably more substantial position to meet the increased charges that would have to be met. He gave that to the House as the nearest approximation that they could arrive at at the present time. He would again point out to the critics of the Bill that the sum that would be left of the Residue Grant must be subjected to the subtraction for national and district charges, and that therefore it was impossible to give more out of that sum than he had stated. However, he would give an undertaking that if the sum he had mentioned was not reached it should be made up to it.
§ SIR HENRY CRAIKasked, if the aid grant went in a much larger proportion to the board schools than to the voluntary schools, would a similar advantage not still accrue to the board schools?
§ MR. SINCLAIRNo; there will be no preference in this matter.
§ MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St, Albans)said he did not know whether he ought not to apologise for rising to take part in a Scottish debate, but as some of his co-religionists were interested involuntary schools in Scotland he would like to know what was really the position in regard to them. One had a feeling that notwithstanding the kind expressions which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland had used on this subject, little or nothing was to be done for the voluntary schools in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that he could do nothing in the way of preferential treatment for voluntary schools in Scotland. They did not 96 ask that there should be preferential treatment of voluntary schools; they were a very long way off getting anything like preferential treatment, or even equal treatment, and it was because they recognised that that they asked that something more should be done than had been done to make it possible for these schools to carry on their work. The hon. Members below the gangway had admirably put the case before the House, and his hon. friend in from of him had argued very strongly and ably on behalf of something approaching equality of treatment under this clause. It was all the more to his credit that his hon. friend had done this, because those who were specially interested in the voluntary schools were not co-religionists of his own, and therefore there was nothing selfish on his part. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that he was giving, and would give, sympathetic treatment, and, apparently, sympathy was the only thing they could get, but they wanted something more. It was not enough to say he would consider this subject or would continue to consider it, because, in the meantime, those who were responsible for the continuance of these schools were under very great disabilities in maintaining the inalienable right of children to be brought up in the religion of their parents. At the present moment the disadvantage under which these schools laboured constituted more or less starvation, and they had only to consider the figures which had been placed before them that afternoon to realise what the sense of the burden must be upon the managers of these schools, when they had to meet an expense of 23s. or 24s. per head of the children in average attendance, year by year, in order that the education which they valued, and rightly valued, for their children should continue to be given. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that if this subject was efficiently dealt with from their standpoint in Scotland, the result would be to break up the educational peace which so admirably obtained in the country. He did not think that that was a very strong argument, when it was realised that it was those who laboured under a disadvantage who 97 were mainly responsible for that peace. It did not appear that a great deal of credit attached to the Scottish Office and their official administration of educational affairs in Scotland. He thought it was extremely likely that the peace would be broken. He could not see that a large number of persons who at present paid twice over should for ever be content to labour under these disadvantages attaching immediately and closely to their religious beliefs and conscientious views. They came to the right hon. Gentleman merely asking for reasonable consideration and he said they were not entitled to ask for the rates on behalf of the voluntary schools of Scotland. They did not ask for the rates, but for some consideration towards these men who contributed to the rates, and that 10s. per head should be placed at the disposal of the managers of these schools. They did not ask for their share of the rates, although the voluntary school managers and parents of all the children paid the rates; but they asked that some sympathy should be shown for the double sacrifice which they were at present making and that some small contribution not exceeding 10s. a head should be made. Reference had been made to the position of school boards with regard to this subject. Hitherto minorities had had a chance of having a voice in the management of these things, and he supposed also a voice in the distribution of the residue, after the payment of certain charges upon the schools, but now that was to be taken away from them. They had heard that afternoon of a school board consisting almost entirely of Roman Catholics, and some Presbyterians, and apparently upon that board presently they would have no cumulative vote to secure the presence of Presbyterians. That power was to be taken away; and in the other case, where the majority was vastly Presbyterian, Baptists, or Roman Catholics, or Episcopalians, would be handed over to the tender mercies of the majorities of the school boards. Their representation on the board was taken away from them, and no equivalent was given to them. In Scotland, at such a moment, it seemed doubly necessary that some 98 step should be taken to qualify this sense of wrong. That there would be a sense of wrong there was no doubt where the minorities failed to find seats upon the boards. It was his privilege to be a member of a school board, and he remembered very well that they had a Roman Catholic on that board and how excellently they got on together. It was an extremely difficult board to work, on account of the religious differences which prevailed, but they worked well together. Would the right hon. Gentleman add to that sense of wrong, which was a great step towards the breaking of the educational peace in Scotland, without in any sense granting any practical expression of sympathy, in the form of an additional grant towards these schools? There was no charge of inefficiency brought against these schools. They had had hitherto to meet this danger, difficulty, and cost, and they would have to go on doing it, he supposed, although it was extremely doubtful if they could. It was hardly the policy of the Education Board of Scotland to starve these schools, but if they did, there could be no doubt that the educational peace upon which the right hon. Gentleman congratulated the House was not likely long to be maintained. Then the school managers would now doubtless have to provide their books. He knew the right hon. Gentleman said that that had been done by the board schools. Yes, but if they lost the representation on the school boards who was to say whether the claims of the voluntary schools for the free grant of these books would be allowed or not? He thought it extremely likely that when their representatives were not present they would not only be absent in body but out of mind, and the boards would not see the necessity for providing funds in order that the free grant of books might be made, so that the children and the managers of these voluntary schools would have that little modicum of assistance taken away. There was also this consideration, that while these voluntary schools had to provide for the pensions of their teachers, they were also called upon 99 to provide for the pensions of teachers in the board schools. No contribution was made by the school boards towards the pensions of the teachers in the voluntary schools, but the managers of the voluntary schools had to pay for the pensions in the board schools. There, again, was the gravest injustice to the voluntary schools of Scotland. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to give them something more than a sympathetic treatment of the proposal made by his hon. friend below the gangway, and that something really might be done in order to avoid the starvation out of existence of many of these schools. They knew quite well that the Roman Catholics did not give up their schools. All credit to them for the way in which they had kept their schools since 1870 in England and Scotland. They had never parted with a single school, although his own co-religionists had done so from time to time, worse luck. But the pertinacity and generosity which Roman Catholics had manifested in regard to their schools constituted a very great claim upon the Secretary for Scotland, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not ignore that claim from a practical point of view, or hold over their heads as an apparent threat that there would be some breaking of the educational peace, if they endeavoured to force his hands in connection with this work.
§ MR. KETTLE (Tyrone, E.)wished in a very few words to express on behalf of Members on those Benches their profound dissatisfaction with the second statement of the Secretary for Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman's case was sufficiently bad so long as he refused his calculations as to what the voluntary schools would obtain under the section, but now it was worse. An hon. friend who sat on the Grand Committee told him that during the whole time this clause was under discussion, the Secretary for Scotland was either unable or refused to give any calculations whatever. There was one feature of the debate which must have impressed any fair-minded man, viz., that not a single speaker who had 100 intervened in it, from whatever quarter of the House he had come, had given any support to the proposals of the Government. Perhaps if the right hon. Gentleman did not put on the Party whips he might not be able to get a majority, as there was a unanimous condemnation of the niggardly policy by which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be endeavouring to spoil what might be a good Bill. The Secretary for Scotland had said that the voluntary schools were going to gain many advantages. A Memorandum circulated by the Catholic bishops contained a tabulated statement of the advantages which the voluntary schools were going to gain. The grievance that existed before this Bill, as between the voluntary and the board schools, was the gap of 25s. per head which the parents of the children in the voluntary schools had to pay in order to bring those schools up to the level of efficiency of the board schools. If the argument of the Scottish Secretary proved anything, it proved that these schools were still to be starved, and if that was so it was no defence to the attitude of the Government. The hon. Member who moved the Motion asked for a definite statement from the Government that there should be an increased grant and a consequent diminution of the gap between the voluntary and the board schools. His hon. friend asked for 10s., and the Secretary for Scotland said he was going to get 2s. That was put forward as a concession. It was nothing of the kind. It was the suggestion that had been discussed when the Bill was in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had been uninfluenced by the discussion that day, and had ignored the views of every unofficial Member of the House who had spoken. In many respects the Bill was a good one, and he hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland would read it and take it to heart, and introduce a Bill with similar provisions for the feeding and medical inspection of the children of Ireland. So far as the financial provision was concerned it was a niggardly Bill, and if they wanted to test the feeling of the House with regard to it, let the Government leave the decision to the House and not put up the Government Whips to tell.
§ MR. SINCLAIRrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 211; Noes, 106. (Division List No. 364.)
59| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Erskine, David C. |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Esslemont, George Birnie |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Evans, Sir Samuel T. |
| Agnew, George William | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Aiden, Percy | Clough, William | Fenwick, Charles |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Clynes, J. R. | Ferens, T. R. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Findlay, Alexander |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Fuller, John Michael F. |
| Barker, John | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Fullerton, Hugh |
| Barnard, E. B. | Cooper, G. J. | Gibb, James (Harrow) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Gill, A. H. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John |
| Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Crossley, William J. | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Cullinan, J. | Glendinning, R. G. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Glover, Thomas |
| Black, Arthur W. | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Boland, John | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Gulland, John W. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius |
| Brace, William | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Halpin, J. |
| Brigg, John | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Donelan, Captain A. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Hart-Davies, T. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Maddison, Frederick | Scwhann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Hazleton, Richard | Marnham, F. J. | Sears, J. E. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Menzies, Walter | Seddon, J. |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Seely, Colonel |
| Higham, John Sharp | Mond, A. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Mooney, J. J. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Hodge, John | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Hogan, Michael | Morrell, Philip | Snowden, P. |
| Hooper, A. G. | Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Myer, Horatio | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Idris, T. H. W. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Napier, T. B. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | Nicholls, George | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Jowett, F. W. | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doneast'r | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Kearley, Sir Hudson E. | O'Brien, William (Cork) | Tomkinson, James |
| Kekewich, Sir George | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Kettle, Thomas Michael | O'Grady, J. | Ure, Alexander |
| Kincaid-Smith, Captain | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. | Walton, Joseph |
| Laidlaw, Robert | O'Malley, William | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
| Lambert, George | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Lamont, Norman | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Whit bread, Howard |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh. |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Lupton, Arnold | Pullar, Sir Robert | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Rainy, A. Rolland | Williamson, A. |
| Lynch, H. B. | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) | Redmond, William (Clare) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Rendall, Athelstan | Young, Samuel |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | |
| MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| M'Cullum, John M. | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | |
| M'Crae, Sir George | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | |
| M'Killop, W. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Ashley, W. W. | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Scwhann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hill, Sir Clement | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Magnus, Sir Philip | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Valentia, Viscount |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm | Morpeth, Viscount | Watt, Henry A. |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Oddy, John James | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | Younger, George |
| Cross, Alexander | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington | |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Pirie, Duncan V. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Adand-Hood and Mr. Forster. |
| Doughty, Sir George | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Remnant, James Farquharson | |
| Fell, Arthur | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Massie, J. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Findlay, Alexander | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Agnew, George William | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Menzies, Walter |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Fuller, John Michael F. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Alden, Percy | Fullerton, Hugh | Mond, A. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W. | Morrell, Philip |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Morse, L. L. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Barker, John | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Gulland, John W. | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Myer, Horatio |
| Beale, W. P. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Napier, T. B. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Hall, Frederick | Nicholls, George |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Norton, Captain Cecil William |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh | Nuttall, Harry |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Hart-Davies, T. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Pollard, Dr. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) |
| Brace, William | Haworth, Arthur A. | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Pullar, Sir Robert |
| Brigg, John | Hemmerde, Edward George | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Bright, J. A. | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Henry, Charles S. | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Higham, John Sharp | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hobart, Sir Robert | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd |
| Byles, William Pollard | Holland, Sir William Henry | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Cameron, Robert | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | Rose, Charles Day |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Horniman, Emslie John | Rowlands, J. |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Idris, T. H. W. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Clough, William | Jackson, R. S. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Kearley, Sir Hudson E. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Kekewich, Sir George | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Cox, Harold | Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Crossley, William J. | Laidlaw, Robert | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co | Lambert, George | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Lamont, Norman | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. | Lehmann, R. C. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | Lewis, John Herbert | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury |
| Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lynch, H. B. | Tomkinson, James |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Erskine, David C. | M'Callum, John M. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | M'Crae, Sir George | Ure, Alexander |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Verney, F. W. |
| Everett, R. Lacey | M'Micking, Major G. | Vivian, Henry |
| Fenwick, Charles | Maddison, Frederick | Walton, Joseph |
| Ferens, T. R. | Mallet, Charles E. | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Marnham, F. J. | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
103§ Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be re-committed to the Standing
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 103; Noes, 207. (Division List No. 365.)
| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Massie, J. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Findlay, Alexander | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Agnew, George William | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Menzies, Walter |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Fuller, John Michael F. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Alden, Percy | Fullerton, Hugh | Mond, A. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W. | Morrell, Philip |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Morse, L. L. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Barker, John | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Gulland, John W. | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Myer, Horatio |
| Beale, W. P. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Napier, T. B. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Hall, Frederick | Nicholls, George |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Norton, Captain Cecil William |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh | Nuttall, Harry |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Hart-Davies, T. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Pollard, Dr. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) |
| Brace, William | Haworth, Arthur A. | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Pullar, Sir Robert |
| Brigg, John | Hemmerde, Edward George | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Bright, J. A. | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Henry, Charles S. | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Higham, John Sharp | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hobart, Sir Robert | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd |
| Byles, William Pollard | Holland, Sir William Henry | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Cameron, Robert | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | Rose, Charles Day |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Horniman, Emslie John | Rowlands, J. |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Idris, T. H. W. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Clough, William | Jackson, R. S. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Kearley, Sir Hudson E. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Kekewich, Sir George | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Cox, Harold | Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Crossley, William J. | Laidlaw, Robert | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co | Lambert, George | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Lamont, Norman | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. | Lehmann, R. C. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | Lewis, John Herbert | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury |
| Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lynch, H. B. | Tomkinson, James |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Erskine, David C. | M'Callum, John M. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | M'Crae, Sir George | Ure, Alexander |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Verney, F. W. |
| Everett, R. Lacey | M'Micking, Major G. | Vivian, Henry |
| Fenwick, Charles | Maddison, Frederick | Walton, Joseph |
| Ferens, T. R. | Mallet, Charles E. | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Marnham, F. J. | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
| Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) | Winfrey, R. |
| Waterlow, D. S. | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Wiles, Thomas | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Whitbread, Howard | Williamson, A. | |
| White, Sir George (Norfolk) | Wills, Arthur Walters | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| White, J. Dundas (Pumbart'nsh | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) | |
| White, Luke (York, E. R.) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) | |
| Whitehead, Rowland | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Hazleton, Richard | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Hodge, John | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Hogan, Michael | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Renwick, George |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hudson, Walter | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Jowett, F. W. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Joyce, Michael | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Kerry, Earl of | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kettle, Thomas Michael | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Cave, George | Kimber, Sir Henry | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Seddon, J. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S) | Shackleton, David James |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Lundon, W. | Smith F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Snowden, P. |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Cross, Alexander | M'Arthur, Charles | Summerbell, T. |
| Cullinan, J. | M'Kean, John | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | M'Killop, W. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Magnus, Sir Philip | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Mooney, J. J. | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount | Valentia, Viscount |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Waldron, Laurence Ambrose |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Wardle, George J. |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Nield, Herbert | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Fell, Arthur | Nolan, Joseph | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Fletcher, J. S. | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Forster, Henry William | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Young, Samuel |
| Glover, Thomas | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Younger, George |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham | O'Grady, J. | |
| Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Boland and Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh. |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | |
| Halpin, J. | Parker, James (Halifax) | |
| Harris, Frederick Leverton | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington |
| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Clynes, J. R. | Fletcher, J. S. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Forster, Henry William |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm | Gilhooly, James |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. | Cox, Harold | Glover, Thomas |
| Balcarres, Lord | Craik, Sir Henry | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peekham) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Cross, Alexander | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Cullinan, J. | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Dalrymple, Viscount | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Halpin, J. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Donelan, Captain A. | Harris, Frederick Leverton |
| Byles, William Pollard | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hay, Hon. Claude George |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Hazleton, Richard |
| Cave, George | Faber, George Denison (York) | Hogan, Michael |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Fell, Arthur | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Jowett, F. W. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Summerbell, T. |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ |
| Kerry, Earl of | O'Grady, J. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Kettle, Thomas Michael | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Kimber, Sir Henry | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington | Valentia, Viscount |
| Lamont, Norman | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Waldron, Laurence Ambrose |
| Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S) | Pirie, Duncan V. | Wardle, George J. |
| Lundon, W. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Watt, Henry A. |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh. |
| MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Redmond, William (Clare) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| M'Kean, John | Renwick, George | Wilkie, Alexander |
| M'Killop, W. | Ronaldshay, Earl of | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Mooney, J. J. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Young, Samuel |
| Morpeth, Viscount | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Younger, George |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Seddon, J. | |
| Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Smeation, Donald Mackenzie | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Boland and Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh. |
| Nield, Herbert | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) | |
| Nolan, Joseph | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.) | |
| O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Hutton, Alfred Eddison |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Idris, T. H. W. |
| Agnew, George William | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Jackson, R. S. |
| Alden, Percy | Erskine, David C. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Esslemont, George Birnie | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Kearley, Sir Hudson E. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Everett, R. Lacey | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Fenwick, Charles | Kincaid-Smith, Captain |
| Barker, John | Ferens, T. R. | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Barnard, E. B. | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Lambert, George |
| Beauchamp, E. | Findlay, Alexander | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lchmann, R. C. |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Fullerton, Hugh | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Black, Arthur W. | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Glendinning, R. G. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Brace, William | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Lynch, H. B. |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Brigg, John | Gulland, John W. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs |
| Bright, J. A. | Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | M'Callum, John M. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | M'Crae, Sir George |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Hall, Frederick | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Maddison, Frederick |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Cameron, Robert | Hart-Davies, T. | Marnham, F. J. |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Massie, J. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Monzies, Walter |
| Clough, William | Haworth, Arthur A. | Molteno, Percy Alpor; |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Mond, A. |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. S. (Pancras, W. | Hemmerde, Edward George | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Crossley, William J. | Henry, Charles S. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Morrell, Philip |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Higham, John Sharp | Morse, L. L. |
| Davies David (Montgomery Co. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Davies, Ellis, William (Eifion) | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hodge, John | Myer, Horatio |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. | Holland, Sir William Henry | Napier, T. B. |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Hooper, A. G. | Nicholls, George |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Horniman, Emslie John | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Nuttall, Harry | Shackleton, David James | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Pollard, Dr. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Snowden, P. | Whitbread, Howard |
| Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Soares, Ernest J. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Spicer, Sir Albert | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Pullar, Sir Robert | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Steadman, W. C. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Strachey, Sir Edward | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. |
| Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Sutherland, J. E. | Williamson, A. |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) | Thorne, William (West Ham) | Winfrey, R. |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Tomkinson, James | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Rose, Charles Day | Torrance, Sir A. M. | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Rowlands, J. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | |
| Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Ure, Alexander | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Verney, F. W. | |
| Scarisbrick, T. T. L. | Vivian, Henry | |
| Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Walton, Joseph | |
| Seaverns, J. H. | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
§ Committee on Scottish Bills in respect of Clause 15."
107§ Bill, as amended, considered.
§ MR. SINCLAIRmoved a clause providing for the establishment of hostels for junior students, bursars, or other pupils attending intermediate or secondary schools. This clause, he hoped, was practically agreed. It was designed to help the provision of lodgings for pupils, and it would be very useful in the Highland and country districts generally. The question has been discussed in Grand Committee, though not at very great length, and he had undertaken to consider the point and put down a clause. He begged to move.
§
New clause—
A committee on secondary education, or a school board having the management of an intermediate or secondary school, may, with the consent of, and subject to any conditions prescribed by, the Department establish, maintain, and manage or combine with another or other committees, school boards, or other bodies in establishing, maintaining, and managing a hostel or hostels for junior students, bursars, or other pupils attending intermediate or secondary schools. The scale of charges for residence and otherwise in connection with any such hostel shall from time to time be so adjusted as to defray as nearly as may be the expenditure in connection therewith not otherwise provided for, provided that a deficit occurring in any year, notwithstanding such adjustment, may, with the approval of the Department, be paid out of the district education fund or funds. Any committee, school board, or other body as aforesaid may, with the consent of the Department, accept and hold any gifts of property for the purposes of this section.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)—
§ Brought up and read a first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
§ * MR. COCHRANEsaid it was somewhat inconvenient that this clause should appear on the Paper for the first time that day. Through some mistake he had not received his Papers until midday, and he had only an opportunity of glancing at the clause. In the circumstances he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give them some further explanation of what was exactly meant by "hostel." Did it mean practically a boarding-house for students of both sexes? Would it be under the supervision of the schoolmaster and schoolmistress, or matron, or supervisor, and what arrangements were contemplated for the accommodation of the pupils? These were pertinent questions relating to points which he thought should have been fully discussed in Grand Committee. He did not say that he was opposed to the idea, but they could not point to any existing hostel maintained in a manner similar to that now proposed in any part of the United Kingdom. There was one example, as the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire could point out, where a benefactor had provided accommodation at his own expense, very generously and very properly; but to say that the 109 school board was to set up a hostel seemed to him to be a very strong order, and deserved more full consideration than the Grand Committee had been able to give to it. He invited attention to the concluding part of the clause, which said—
The scale of charges for residence and otherwise in connection with any such hostel shall, from time to time, be so adjusted as to defray as nearly as may be the expenditure in connection therewith not otherwise provided for, provided that a deficit occurring in any year, notwithstanding such adjustment, may, with the approval of the Department, be paid out of the district education fund or funds.
§ * MR. SPEAKERI have already pointed out that the proviso cannot form part of the clause. It would mean an increased grant, according to the adjustment of the funds, from the existing education rates. That can be dealt with in Committee, but not on the Report stage. I understand that the Minister in charge does not propose to include that proviso.
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid he proposed the clause without the proviso.
§ * MR. COCHRANEsaid he was really most grateful to Mr. Speaker for pointing out to him whore they had gone wrong. No one could have told from anything the right hon. Gentleman had said that he proposed to move the clause in any other form than that in which it appeared on the Paper. Under the circumstances, he would really ask the Government to deal with this matter in a separate Bill at some future time. The right hon. Gentleman had brought before them a proposal which was absolutely unconsidered, though he said he had given it careful consideration, but that careful consideration had not even brought the clause within the Orders of the House. The Secretary for Scotland was supposed to keep them on the right lines; yet at the very last moment, on the Report stage, he came forward with a proposal a most important part of which had to be cut out. How did the right hon. Gentleman propose to make up the deficit? If he could not make it up surely the clause would be rather inoperative. While he was not prepared to deny that there might be something in the general 110 idea of hostels, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that that was not the proper opportunity for considering this particular scheme, and that it should be withdrawn and brought up in some other form.
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid he thought this a very harmless clause. In the form in which it was now moved, in which it imposed no charge on public funds, he thought the House might be disposed to consider whether it would not be well to add it to the Bill at this stage.
§ SIR HENRY CRAIKOn a point of order, may I ask if the omission of the proviso does not leave it as a necessary result that this clause will involve a charge on the rates? Is it therefore in order at this point that such a clause should be introduced?
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe insertion of the proviso certainly would leave the clause making a charge on the rates.
§ SIR PHILIP MAGNUS (London University)May I refer to the preceding words—
So as to defray as nearly as may be the expenditure.It does not propose, therefore, that the hostel shall cover its own expenses. Are not these words also out of order?
§ * MR. SPEAKERCertainly. As I understand certain duties are imposed on the committees on secondary education. They have certain funds placed at their disposal by the Bill. This clause, without the proviso, would enable them to employ these funds for the purpose of establishing hostels. That, of course, they can do. But the proviso goes on to say in the event of those funds being insufficient the deficit will be made up out of a public charge. That cannot be done on Report. The other part can be done on Report.
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid he would continue his observations on the light of what the Speaker had said. This was merely to meet the convenience of parents who had to send their children some distance to attend secondary schools. That was a common thing in the country districts 111 of Scotland, and in the Highlands and other parts it was found very difficult for parents to arrange for the proper and convenient lodging of their children. By this clause they wished to give power to the secondary education committee, or as the case might be to the school board, which provided the secondary school, to see to it that the lodging of these children was conducted and maintained and managed under proper regulations with due regard to every interest of the children. That was all that was implied by the clause. It gave power where they could to make suitable arrangements, and establish lodgings under supervision, to which parents would be in no sense reluctant to send their children. It would be convenient for ordinary pupils attending secondary schools and junior student centres where young people were trained for going through their preliminary education for the profession of teaching. This was a provision which was much desired and would be of great convenience in many districts in Scotland. The question remained whether or not it would be carried out on business principles. It was for the committee, or the school board concerned, to decide. There was no difficulty in Scotland in adding up pounds, shillings, and pence and balancing one account against another and considering whether or not such an enterprise would be financially sound or not, but it would be left to the committee or school board to consider whether or not it would be a sound business undertaking to establish a hostel of this kind. He hoped the House would be good enough to allow the clause to pass.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)said the proposal might have many merits which they had not yet had time to discern. But unless it was to be absolutely nugatory they ought to have some clear idea as to where the money was to come from by which these hostels were to be provided and maintained. The hostels must first of all be built, and that would cost money. The children when they were brought there, he presumed, at their parent's expense, would have to be boarded, and that again was an item; they could not be left there without some supervision, and that was a matter which the school board 112 would have carefully to consider and for which it would have to make adequate provision in money. Where was this money to come from? Was it to come from the pockets of the parents? Was there any reasonable probability that they would be able to meet all the items of expenditure which he had enumerated? If it did not come out of the pockets of the parents from what source was it to come? Was it to come from the fund placed at the disposal of the school board or from the rate which they must levy? If from the rate they could not but consider that the Bill as it stood laid very heavy additional charges upon the ratepayer. If it was to come from the fund the question was what other educational interests might have to go short of money because of this adventure in hostels. The whole proposal was one of great novelty. He was not aware that the experiment had ever been tried in England, although from time to time it had been recognised that establishments of this sort might be of considerable usefulness and value. But the difficulty had always been the provision of the cost. The parents were not usually able to maintain their children at a distance and to pay in addition a fair share of the cost of building and supervision, and the ratepayer would be unwilling to embark on a new experiment and at the same time to incur this charge. In the first place, the Committee upstairs ought to have had some opportunity of considering this new educational departure, and, in the second place, they ought to have some clearer understanding from the right hon. Gentleman, if these hostels were not to be a hopeless failure from the beginning, where the money was to come from to build and maintain them and provide the necessary supervision for the children.
§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith Burghs)said the clause at first sight looked of a somewhat ambitious description. He did not know whether it was the word "hosier" which was foreign to his cars, or whether it was the length of the clause. But this was a comparatively simple matter, and as it was becoming a subject of some urgency now to come to the real matter of the Bill he would endeavour to remove some of 113 the difficulties which had been raised, which he did not think were really pertinent to the clause. What this really meant, as he understood, was that the school board having higher schools to which pupils could go from a distance, should organise lodgings for the pupils. There was no doubt that the boarding-out of the children attending the schools was a very anxious and expensive matter for the parents. If the school boards were to organise these lodgings it could be done cheaper and better. A hostel would mean a new establishment for girls and another for boys, and he did not think that would be a good arrangement or an economical one. He would dismiss that altogether from his mind. The children would be far better lodging with families, and he thought the scheme ought to be self-supporting. It was very simple and it might very well be adopted, and he did not know if they discussed it upstairs that they could throw much more light on it.
§ SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid the right hon. Gentleman said the question had been discussed fully in Committee. He found from the report that it was moved at the end of a very long sitting, on the last day, when about half-a-dozen new clauses were discussed, and the result was that after it had been moved the clause was withdrawn. He had no recollection of its being discussed at all. It must have been discussed in one or two minutes, and withdrawn at the request of the right hon. Gentleman himself. Now, without any notice, they had this very important clause introduced for the first time. What proposal did the right hon. Gentleman make to remedy any error that might be committed? He said there might be other opportunities in the course of the Bill. The Third Reading was to be taken that night. Were they at four or five o'clock to be discussing corrections of things that they had done in haste and unwisely at seven? Or was it that the right hon. Gentleman had again referred to another place? It was all very well to say that this was an innocuous and innocent clause. Had it ever been laid on the school boards that they should be turned into hotel-keepers and establish boarding-houses? 114 The hon. Member for Leith Burghs was in favour of its being self-supporting, but were any of these things self-supporting for long? Was it not more than likely that there would be extravagance and that they would have to come upon the rates after all? The only funds in the hands of school boards were those derived from rates, and if there was a deficit it must come out of the rates. Was it wise or reasonable at one swoop to introduce this new power? No doubt hostels were very useful, but they ought not to allow a public benefaction to be made an indirect cause of throwing a burden upon the rates. By all means let them make full use of these benefactions and endowments, but they ought not to make them an excuse for throwing an additional burden upon the rates. A change of this kind ought to be done calmly and after due deliberation, because it was the most dangerous of all legislation to alter an Act of Parliament extending the powers put upon local authorities to meet a single case in Dumfriesshire. Was it reasonable or proper simply to meet a case of this kind that they should be asked in a hurry to change fundamentally the functions of local bodies spread over the whole of Scotland? Why should they be asked in this way to accept a clause which was laid aside at the request of the right hon. Gentleman himself and which would most probably impose a heavy burden upon the ratepayers?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,) Haddingtoninvited the House to come to a conclusion upon this very small point. The hon. Member opposite had addressed the House at considerable length although the question before them was a very short one indeed. This clause imposed no financial responsibility or liability on the rates in the form in which it stood. It dealt with the school boards, which were statutory bodies, and without such a clause it would not be proper for them to enter even into a voluntary arrangement, It might be that voluntary arrangements would be entered into by private co-operation which would involve no charge and yet make these institutions work perfectly well. The case was safeguarded from every point of view because it could 115 not be done without the consent of the Education Department. It was absurd to suggest that there was any danger in passing this clause. To deprive those bodies of a provision of this kind would be to deprive them of powers which might be found useful to meet a case which was well-known, and which they were all desirous of meeting if they could. It was a very small point, simply intended to give those statutory bodies power to enter into voluntary arrangements of this kind, and he invited the House to come to a conclusion upon this matter.
§ MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid he was surprised the right hon. Gentleman had made that speech. Certain powers were wise and necessary in some cases, but in this case public bodies were to be allowed to embark in this business and yet they were not to be permitted to charge the rates with any loss that might be incurred. How could anybody tell whether a hostel was going to result in a loss or not? The right hon. Gentleman was offering those public bodies powers upon conditions under which they could not possibly use them. They ought to allow the erection of hostels or lodging-houses upon one condition only, and that was that the school board should be entitled to charge upon the rates any deficiency or loss caused by running them. Without such power no hostel would ever be erected. One benefactor had left £1,000 to work a hostel, but why should they ask that school board to take over that lodging-house without giving them the power to use the rates for the purppose? He thought that was perfectly absurd. If the Government wished to meet the demands of Dumfriesshire, they must empower the school board to run the hostel. The Government were proposing a clause under which hostels might be taken over, but the school boards would have no power to pay the deficiency unless they did so out of their own pockets. The right hon. Gentleman was not helping them at all in this matter, because under the guise of assisting the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire he was bringing forward an ill-considered clause. There was nothing whatever to recommend this clause to the House, and if carried the people of Dumfriesshire would be no further forward.
§ * MR. GULLAND (Dumfries Burghs)said that a clause on this subject was moved in Committee, and at the request of the Secretary for Scotland, who gave a promise that he would reconsider it, he withdrew. His right hon. friend was now keeping his promise, and he thanked him most heartily for doing so. A house had been given in Dumfries, and £1,000 had been left to keep up that house, and the school board could not assume responsibility for its management without this clause. Under their present system, children were coming in from the country districts, and were being encouraged to do so by the Education Department in order to obtain the best possible education. Many of them were junior students, young people of both sexes, who, by the new regulations, were forced to come into Dumfries. Others were the holders of bursaries under the encouragement of the Department, and this clause would empower the county committees of Dumfriesshire and Kircudbrightshire, with the co-operation of the school board of Dumfries, to take over this building and run it as a hostel for these young people. He put it to the House whether it was not better that these pupils should live together under proper supervision than go to lodgings all over the town. The power contained in the clause was necessary in order to carry that scheme out. He was sorry a provision to meet the deficit was not possible, but even short of that the committee would probably be able to run this hostel on its own legs. Many parents had already expressed their willingness to add something to the bursaries in order that their children might be properly housed, and he appealed to hon. Members from Scotland to meet this special case of Dumfries, and encourage the generosity of other benefactors. He appealed to the House to allow this clause to go through.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)said the speech made by the Secretary of State for War was most unfair and uncalled for, and one which he was sure in his moments of reflection he would regret. No one was entitled to speak with more authority on this subject than his hon. friend sitting near him. Not only were his hon. friend's remarks not at undue 117 length, but they were necessitated by the fact that the Government had adopted a procedure which had landed the House in the circumstances in which they now found themselves. The Secretary for Scotland had moved a new clause which was not on the Paper, and it was somewhat difficult for the House to judge how the removal of the proviso had affected the rest of the clause. He asked the serious attention of the House to this matter. He was just as anxious as the hon. Member for Dumfries that the munificent liberality of the gentleman who had been named should be taken full advantage of, but that was no argument for rushing through a clause which involved their embarking upon a financial path which might be very dangerous. He asked the Secretary for Scotland who in the event of a deficit was going to pay? Under the clause, the school board or the education committee were to take charge, but were the Government going to make any other provision? If so, they could not do it in this House, and he did not think it could be done in the other House. He submitted that, anxious as they all were to give effect to the wishes of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, it was not right that it should be done at a possible cost to the Exchequer which had not been sanctioned by Parliament. If the Secretary for Scotland could give them some explanation of the provision he was going to make and the source from which he proposed to draw the amount required to meet any possible deficit, their proceedings would be very much simplified and shortened.
§ SIR GEORGE MCCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)thought it would be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to alter his Amendment somewhat, because he was providing for the authority creating a deficit year by year. It would be found necessary to strike out the words "as nearly as may be," otherwise the clause was nonsense. He commended that point to his right hon. friend.
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid the omission of the proviso had put upon them the necessity of omitting the words referred to by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh. That included his answer to the question put 118 by the hon. member for North West Lanarkshire. As the clause now stood these institutions would be self-supporting, and in that form he, on behalf of the Government, asked the House to accept the clause.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he accepted the explanation. If the right hon. Gentleman had given it before he should not have thought it necessary to ask the question.
§ SIR E. BANBURY (City of London)said they were told that when the proper time came some Amendments would be moved. After that announcement they were informed by the Secretary of State for War that the clause would not mean any charge upon anybody, and that right hon. Gentleman advised the House to pass it without discussion. Then the hon. Member for East Edinburgh informed the House that unless certain words were omitted the clause would be nonsense, whereupon the Secretary for Scotland got up and moved another Amendment, which not a single Member of the House had the slightest idea was going to be moved. They were entitled to ask how many more Amendments were going to be moved. At present they did not know what they were going to vote upon. They had been told that there would be two substantial Amendments and there might be others. He did not understand the Secretary for Scotland when he said that no charge was going to be imposed in view of the words in the proposed clause—
Provided that a deficit occurring in any year, notwithstanding such adjustment, may, with the approval of the Department, be paid out of the district education fund or funds.The right hon. Gentleman had made a mistake, and he presumed he would now advise the House not to vote for the clause. He asked the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs to reconsider his position. The hon. Member said he did not know the meaning of the word "hostel." It was an old English word which meant "hotel." He said that the result would be that the education committee or school board would arrange lodgings in the town.
§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that what he stated was that he did not understand the word "hostel" so far as this 119 clause was concerned. He said that what was really wanted was that the education committees should keep a register of suitable lodgings where several children might lodge. He thought the clause ought to be recast with that object.
§ SIR F. BANBURYasked the hon. Member to vote against the clause in order to carry out his meaning. As it stood at present it would not carry out what he desired. It gave power to these people to build houses in order that certain pupils might be lodged. He understood that the reason for the introduction of the clause was that some generous person in Dumfriesshire had given a house and £1,000. That house had to be maintained with the £1,000 and whatever other money could be found out of the rates or elsewhere. Was it not rather an extraordinary thing that because one man had been generous enough to give a house in one district the House of Commons should be asked to pass a clause which nobody fully understood, but which, so tar as one could understand it, would have the effect of enabling education authorities in Scotland to start hotel keeping? He did not believe it was possible for popularly constituted bodies to run hotels economically or profitably, and he was afraid that if this clause was passed the system would be extended to England. If anyone who wished to make a name for himself established a hostel somewhere in England and a similar clause was introduced in a future Bill, they would be unable to oppose it because they would be told that it was exactly on the lines of what was going on in Scotland. The new clause said—
The scale of charges for residence and otherwise, in connection with any such hostel shall from time to time be so adjusted as to defray as nearly as may be the expenditure in connection therewith not otherwise provided for.What was meant by "not otherwise provided for?" Did that moan benefactions? [An HON. MEMBER: Yes.] Neither the hon. Member for Dumfries nor the Secretary for Scotland said anything, and therefore he presumed they did not know what it meant. Under the circumstances he would vote against the clause.
§ * MR. MOLTENO (Dumfriesshire), speaking, as the Member for a constituency 120 very much interested in this question, thanked the Secretary for Scotland for having proposed the clause. It would really enable use to be made of a very patriotic benefaction. The two counties and one borough concerned in this matter were working amicably. The difficulty referred to by the hon. Member for Oxford University had been met, because in this case the hostel had been provided and a certain sum of money had been provided.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSONI was not alluding to one particular hostel, but to the general power proposed to be given by the clause.
§ * MR. MOLTENOsaid when he was a student at Cambridge if there was no room in the actual college buildings lodgings outside were to be had. An arrangement was made that those lodgings should be kept by persons properly qualified and a certain charge was arranged by the college authorities. The charge was paid by the student and no charge fell on the University. Under this clause similar arrangements could be made in Scotland and no expenditure would fall on the school board. He begged the House not to put any technical difficulty in the way of this gift being availed of.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)said that he and his friends felt great sympathy with the two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken from the back benches on the merits of the question. He would say to some of the Ministers that the progress of the Bill would be made smoother in future if they were able to keep down the Secretary of State for War. It was most unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman did not follow his own precepts. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had addressed the House in his capacity as Secretary for War, the Member for East Lothian, or as the temporary Leader of the House. It was most unfortunate that he should have intervened and advised them to be as short as possible. They were discussing a Bill which took fifteen days upstairs, and that time had been taken not by the wicked Opposition, but chiefly by hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House. They were discussing 121 a clause which might have been put down weeks ago, but it had been put down as an afterthought at the last minute. If passed, it would establish a precedent for that part of Great Britain called England. In the course of the discussion it had been found that it had been introduced under the most unfavourable of all circumstances for establishing a new general principle, for it had leaked out that it was for the purpose of meeting a particular hard case. He could not congratulate the Government on the course they had taken.
§ * MR. R. DUNCAN (Lanarkshire, Govan)said he wished to complain that the House of Commons were too apt to think that Scottish education was a matter of small moment, and that one day only was quite enough for its discussion. This clause alone was admitted to be a new departure of great moment and importance, yet it had been introduced without a single school board in Scotland having had an opportunity of considering it. Many thought that there were too few business men on the front bench opposite. Their conduct in this matter strongly confirmed that opinion. The words "establishing and maintaining and managing" in the clause involved cash, but he thought it was quite possible to take advantage of these benevolent institutions, and yet not to become responsible for cash. It would be quite competent for a school board to appoint some trusted and
§ respected members of their own body and delegate to them the power to look after and manage these hostels. Later on there was a drastic clause—Clause 31—which involved surcharges, and which put a very serious responsibility on those who had been acting in good faith and who, up till now, had had immunity from such surcharges.
§ SIR J. DEWAR (Inverness)said that it was a mistake to believe that Dumfries was the only district in the country where hostels were required. There were many places all over the country where hostels would be established if they could get suitable sites. He knew of one case where the chairman of a school board, had had the greatest difficulty in obtaining land for the purpose. It seemed to him that if there was no power to make up the deficit the clause would not amount to much. There was nothing to prevent a school board running a hostel if they ran it at a profit, but, according to the clause as now proposed, if they ran it at a loss the members would be personally responsible. If this proviso was struck out it would not matter whether the clause was passed at all. He would like to see it passed in its original form.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 211; Noes, 41. (Division List No. 306.)
123| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Bramsdon, T. A. | Dalziel, James Henry |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Brigg, John | Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Bryce, J. Annan | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) |
| Alden, Percy | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Dobson, Thomas W. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Byles, William Pollard | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Cameron, Robert | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Erskine, David C. |
| Beale, W. P. | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Esslemont, George Birnie |
| Beauchamp, E. | Clough, William | Evans, Sir Samuel T. |
| Bell, Richard | Clynes, J. R. | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Fenwick, Charles |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Ferguson, R. C. Munro |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd) | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace |
| Black, Arthur W. | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Findlay, Alexander |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Cox, Harold | Fuller, John Michael F. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Crossley, William J. | Fullerton, Hugh |
| Brace, William | Dalmeny, Lord | Gill, A. H. |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Lewis, John Herbert | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. |
| Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Glendinning, R. G. | Lupton, Arnold | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Glover, Thomas | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Sears, J. E. |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Lyell, Charles Henry | Seddon, J. |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Lynch, H. B. | Shackleton, David James |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.) |
| Gulland, John W. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | M'Callum, John M. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | M'Crae, Sir George | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Hall, Frederick | M'Laren, H. D. (Stadord, W.) | Snowden, P. |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | M'Micking, Major G. | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Maddison, Frederick | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithnoss-sh | Mallet, Charles E. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Marnham, F. J. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Menzies, Walter | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Molteno, Percy Alport | Summerbell, T. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Henry, Charles S. | Morrell, Philip | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Morse, L. L. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Tomkinson, James |
| Hodge, John | Myer, Horatio | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Nicholls, George | Trevelyan, Charles Philip |
| Hooper, A. G. | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | Verney, F. W. |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Horniman, Emslie John | O'Grady, J. | Wardle, George J. |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orhney) |
| Hudson, Walter | Pirie, Duncan V. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Idris, T. H. W. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Price, C. E. (Kdinb'gh, Central) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Jardine, Sir J. | Radford, G. H. | Whitely, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Rainy, A. Rolland | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rendall, Athelstan | Williamson, A. |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Wills, Arthur, Walters |
| Jowett, F. W. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Ridsdale, E. A. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhougrhton) |
| Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Winfrey, R. |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Lambert, Georgo | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | |
| Lamont, Norman | Roe, Sir Thomas | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E. | Rowlands, J. | |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F. | Cross, Alexander | Renwick, George |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Dalrymple, Viscount | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Ashlev, W. W. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Fell, Arthur | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Fletcher, J. S. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Forster, Henry William | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart- |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone. E.) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Nield, Herbert | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Henry Craik and Mr. Robert Duncan. |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | |
| Crag, Captain James (Down, E.) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
Question put, and agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause—
In line 9, after the word 'defray,' to omit the words 'as nearly as may be.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)asked how, if these words were omitted, the lodging-house keeper was to adjust his accounts at the beginning of the year so as to be able to tell his total expenditure for "residence and otherwise in connection with the hostel," and whether there would be no loss on the transaction of the year.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member cannot go back on the discussion on the former part of the clause.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he was going to ask how "as nearly as may be" would affect the case brought forward. Could the right hon. Gentleman explain how it was possible for a manager of a hostel to gauge his expenses in such a way that there should be no legal disqualification at the end of the financial year supposing there was a deficit?
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid he should be very glad to explain. Mr. Speaker had ruled that certain words containing a proviso must be omitted as proposing a charge which could not be brought forward on Report, and to complete the omission of the proviso which those lines contained, he proposed to omit the words in line 9. Otherwise the omission of the proviso would not have its full effect. The result of the omission of these words would be to make it perfectly clear that in maintaining these hostels there must be no charge upon public funds. There might be a balance "Cr." but not a balance "Dr."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved to the proposed new clause—
In line 11, to omit the words 'provided that a deficit occurring in any year notwithstanding such adjustment, may, with the approval of the department, be paid out of the district education fund or funds.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
126§ Clause, as amended, added to the ill.
§ *MR. GULLAND moved a new clause requiring the parents of physically and mentally defective children to provide efficient education for them up to the age of sixteen years, at the instance of a school board who made special provision for the education of such children. At present, there was no distinction in Scotland on this point between defective children and other children, and fourteen was the age up to which the school board might require attendance. In England, under the Act of 1899, these defective children must stay at school till they were sixteen. The Report of the Commission on the Feeble-minded recognised that the board should have charge of these feebleminded children till the age of twenty-one, and as to Scotland it recognised that it should be the duty of the parent to provide elementary education, which should include the duty of causing the child to attend a class or school, up to such an age as in the interest of the child might be necessary on the report of the medical officer. This clause only gave power to make provision for these defective children up to the age of sixteen, and the boards who had furnished special facilities for the education of this class asked for it because they found that in the administration of these schools there were many defective children who were taken away at the age of fourteen who had not received the education they might have received if they had stayed another two years. The parents did not always appreciate the advantage of education, and sought to take away the children at the earliest possible moment. It seemed hard that a board like that, say, of Glasgow, who had spent so much money on defective children, should not have the full advantage of what they had done.
§
New clause—
It shall be lawful for a school board which makes special provision for the education of physically and mentally defective children to require the parents of such children to provide efficient education for such children up to the ago of sixteen years.'"—(Mr. Gulland.)
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
127§ Motion made, and question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
§ SIR HENRY CRAIKmost cordially sympathised with the object of this clause, but would like to have the opinion of the Secretary for Scotland upon the proposal. There was one serious objection to it, that it transferred to a school board what ought to be the duty of Parliament. Under it in future a new compulsion was to be laid upon parents. It might be very right that it should be laid upon them, and that they should be compelled to make some educational provision for these defective children up to the age of sixteen, but Parliament should have the courage of its opinions, and say so itself; it was a most unfair, unwise, and impolitic course that they should leave it to each particular school board to say what was to be the limit of a parental responsibility of this sort. Up to the present time the only authority which had imposed any duty on the parent had been that of Parliament. Were they now going to change that, and make it the function of every petty school board out of the 900 odd school boards in Scotland to say to what extent it was the duty of a parent of a child where such mental deficiency prevailed to provide education, and to extend it from fourteen to sixteen years of age.
§ MR. JOHN WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)inquired whether the words "provide efficient education" meant that even in the case of the poor parent the fees should be found out of the pockets of the parents.
§ MR. SINCLAIRreplied in the negative. It meant that parents should send the children to school. He did not think this point was of very wide interest, but it was an important point so far as it went. There were certain school boards in Scotland which provided special education for children who were mentally defective, and it had been put forward by these bodies that they would be able to do much more for the children if they were able to continue their education up to the age of sixteen. These children were not to be compared with 128 ordinary children, as they were defective and backward, and at the age an ordinary child was fit to leave school these children were not fit to do so. The clause gave power to such school boards as gave special education of this kind to require the attendance, and what was meant by the parent providing education meant that he was to cause the attendance of these children at school. He did not think the operation of the clause would be attended with anything but benefit, both to the children and to the authorities. It was only an enabling power, and therefore he suggested that the clause deserved consideration. It would bring to children who suffered from great disabilities in the battle of life a chance of better equipment, and on the whole he should advise its acceptance.
§ SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid his point had not been dealt with. It was whether, if this was to be laid upon the parent, it should not be done universally by Parliament, and not by the school board.
§ MR. SINCLAIRwas sorry he had not answered the point. He thought the time was hardly ripe for a general power of compulsion of this kind. In the first place there were very few school boards who had provided special schools of this kind, and he thought they would do well not to lay this burden upon other school boards who had less wealthy resources at their command than those who had made this step forward. He thought it better that they should let the matter stand as the clause provided in an experimental stage, and at a later time they might usefully advance.
§ MR. CARLILEsaid the clause laid down that the parent should provide efficient education, but there might be such children in parts of the country where such schools were not available. Were the parents to be then called upon to provide efficient education? The right hon. Gentleman said "No," but the clause said "Yes," and they wanted the clause to be made to correspond with the right hon. Gentleman's view. The right hon. Gentleman said 129 that it meant that the parents were only to see that their children went to such schools, but that was not what the clause said, and he thought it ought to be reconstructed in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's statement.
§ MR. RAINY (Kilmarnock Burghs)said the clause was a humane one. These children learned much more slowly than ordinary children, and this represented the minimum amount of instruction that these children should have. They should be helped as much as possible. As to the objection of the hon. Member who had just sat down, it was only those children who were born or lived under a school board which could provide such education that the clause would touch. He urged the House to give these unfortunate fellow creatures all the help they could.
§ Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSON, in moving a new clause (Constitution of School Board districts), said the Amendment represented very much the line which was taken on the Bill introduced by the late Government, and supported by some on the Ministerial side of the House. The question had been debated in Committee and also in Scotland, where educational opinion had been united in favour of a change of the areas. The Secretary of the Department of Education of Scotland ought to have power to consolidate educational areas without having to wait for the initiative to be taken by the local authorities. He hoped this question of areas would be dealt with, because without recasting the educational areas they were left with the Department as the controlling authority. The Bill debased the local authority, whilst it exalted the Department. Ever since the union of the Crowns, Scotland had been cursed with boards and commissions. This Bill added enormously to the force of that complaint, because confusion of authorities was perpetuated under it. Without giving greatly increased 130 powers to the Department (and the increased powers given to the Department were the main feature of this Bill) the Bill would be absolutely unworkable. This plague of boards and commissions had risen to a mania under the present Administration, which relied on absolute bureaucracy to deal with everything, from land to education. In England the exactly opposite policy had been pursued. In England education had been co-ordinated, and the local authority had been relied on and the power of the central authority diminished. They heard protests that the policy for Scotland was no different from that of England. But they knew the voice of Jacob, and felt the hairy hand and the sandalled foot of Esau, and they knew that Esau had arrived at his present state of development because he was located in London. If he had not been located in London he would have been subjected to the living force of the opinion of Scotland. The veiled prophet of Dover House was pre-eminent among the oligarchy of eminent public servants which dominated Scottish affairs. There was no niche for that sort of autocrat in the fabric of the British constitution. He was set up because the Government perpetuated the obsolete parish areas which prevented them from co-ordinating education in Scotland. Those areas were as obsolete for the purposes of education as they were for the purposes of Poor Law, and it was because that fact was not realised by the Government that this Bill was and before very long would be proved to be a failure. It was the bogey that had been conjured up out of the last Amendment that was ruled out of order that had made the Department the more resolute to maintain its close grasp of educational matters in Scotland until one wondered that in order to carry out their views the Department had not been removed to the Scilly Isles, where it would be even more independent of the local authority. The local authority under this Bill could get no direct access to the Department. It was absolutely under the heel of the Department, and the need for recasting the areas was never more apparent than it was to-day. The Amendment explained itself, and he had no desire to 131 take up unduly the time of the House, but believing as he did that the Department was practically free from Parliamentary control, that the little finger of the Department was thicker than the loins of any Minister, as regarded the control of education, he felt that the matter was serious. Under this Bill the post of Secretary to the Scottish Education Department would be such as had never been seen since the mayor of the palace governed the weak Merovingian King. The only way was to trust the local authority, and to restrain the heavy hand of the Department. It was idle to suppose that it could be done in any other way than by dealing with the question of areas. It was necessary to raise this question now, because it would be many years before it could again be raised. It was thirty-six years since Scotland had had an Education Bill. How long would it be before she had another? From what the Lord-Advocate expected from this Bill it might not be necessary to have another Bill for fifty years, and the local authority and the Government would be strangled upon the poles of the organisation set up in Dover House. That was the worst feature of the Bill. They were selling their birthright of free institutions for a mess of pottage.
§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that some thought they had got it, because a most remarkable circular had been issued by the school janitors of Glasgow, who said that now that they would get their pensions no further opposition ought to be offered to any clause in this Bill. The Bill had many provisions which were urgently required by the school boards, but the House ought to take the Bill with their eyes open. They would be responsible for the effect of the measure. He had no hesitation in saying that the Bill made for the degradation of the school boards. It degraded the school boards, and exalted the department into an oligarchy of which they had no record in the past and which he hoped would be destroyed in the future.
§ * SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he had put down a similar Amendment to that 132 moved by the hon. Gentleman, whose proposal he would second, though he confessed he did not quite appreciate the relevancy of the observations in which the hon. Member had submitted it to the House. The question of areas raised by the Amendment was one of the most important connected with education, though it was much more an administrative than an educational provision. He had not for his own part very much faith in the regulations which they introduced into the clauses of an Education Bill. The real education of the children must depend on the hands into which they put the schools. If they placed them in the hands of a number of small bodies scattered over a countless number of areas they inevitably lowered the scale of education given in the schools. It the schools were to be raised to their proper position it must be by putting them into the hands of a body of representatives with a constituency extending over an adequate part of the country, and with enough variety of interests to attract the best men of the district to the board. With this administrative provision of the Bill, it became ten times more necessary than even it was before that there should be an increase in the size of the areas of the country. The Bill placed in the hands of the school boards an immense amount of work that never belonged to them before. It extended enormously the range of secondary education; it extended at once the compulsory attendance from fourteen to sixteen or seventeen, and all this was put in the Bill without in the least improving and extending the character of the bodies intended to deal with the work. Not only had they failed to take the necessary step forward from the Act of 1872, but the changes which they were introducing made the areas established by that Act ten times more unsuitable than at present. Did the Government think that they were going to have the schools under the best possible arrangements by dividing them up into a number of petty atomic districts all over the country? This was the way to create a beadledom and not a sound educational system. What were the real views of those who were promoting the Bill? He was not going to reiterate 133 that necessarily oft-repeated tale of inconsistency between former professions and later acts. He knew that the Lord Advocate might lay the flattering unction to his soul that he was faithful to the parish system. The Secretary of State for War was head of the Secondary Education Association, of which one of the foremost points was the extension of the area. But what was the reason put forward by the Secretary for War, who had followed him in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, as to this idea of extended areas? The right hon. Gentleman said that it might create some difference of opinion, and that the only object of the Government was to proceed along the lines of least resistance. This, the most powerful Government of modern times, was obliged from the fact that a few difficulties had arisen, and from the fact that it had to crowd the Report and Third Reading stages into one debate, to adopt its present course. He and those who thought with him were not seeking to stop this Bill; such as it was they were ready to accept it, but not to accept it at the cost of surrendering the right of Scottish Members to discuss a Bill of the very first importance to their country. When a speech was was made on that side with regard to a most important principle of the measure they were accused of trying to stop the Bill. The answer to that was the conduct of the Opposition when the measure was before Grand Committee. They had no intention of stopping the Bill; the responsibility for that rested not with them but with Ministers who curtailed the right of discussion. They put upon the school boards to a larger extent than ever before the administration of secondary education, and they were extending the range of the schools that would be under their management. How many secondary schools were there in Scotland? In round numbers only about one hundred. For the management of these one hundred schools they were establishing or keeping up nearly a thousand school boards. Was that reasonable, was it business, was it doing what was best for Scotland? They were going to encourage these petty school boards to vie with one another in attempting to establish secondary schools. A petty school board would not 134 be content with its elementary school if in the next parish, or two or three parishes away, there was a superior school. They would run into unnecessary expenditure to raise a rival school; they would draw children into that school by various methods, not because the children wanted secondary education, but because the board wanted to make a goodly show in their own little school perhaps at the expense of the poor children who would be much better employed in beginning practical life. Let it not be thought that they were improving education by extending the period during which pupils remained at school. There was a good deal to be learned outside the school. They were running mad on this system of keeping children longer at school, in the belief that they were advancing education. There could not be a more disastrous mistake, nor one leading to greater difficulties, than to think that they would improve education by taking a larger slice out of the lives of pupils during which they were to remain within the walls of the school. They talked of the ladder of education which led a lad from the gutter to the university. It was true that this had done something for Scotland and something to affirm the glory of the parish school; but it would not be suitable to extend this idea into the far larger region of the public elementary schools. They could not do it, first of all because of the expense; and when he said expense he was not speaking of expenditure out of the rates—a far greater expenditure was the time which they took from the children. They were asking in this Bill that these petty school boards, scattered in profusion all over the country, should have power to extend compulsory education even up to the age of seventeen. But they should really stop to think a little when they were dealing with the system of an educational ladder from the gutter to the university. Let them pause to consider whether, when they shut up the children within the school walls for so long a time, they were going to have an equivalent for the time which they took from them. If children could live to the age of Methuselah—to come back a little to the illustrative methods of the hon. Gentleman opposite—perhaps it would 135 be reasonable to take so large a proportion of their lives, but he was inclined to think that they were leaning in the direction of making too extended demands upon the time of the youth of this country, who, after the age of seventeen, perhaps, had only thirty, forty or fifty years to live. But there was another question. The Government had recognised rightly that a grievance was to be felt by the teachers. That grievance arose, they were all ready to admit, from the exercise of a sort of petty tyranny by school boards. That petty tyranny existed only amongst the smaller school boards. Was it reasonable to expect that a highly educated man, carrying on an engrossing, tiring work, which was above all things a strain on his nerves, should find it always very easy to deal with a petty board, consisting of some of the busybodies of the place, who were anxious to make his life a burden to him, to inspect every part of his work, and use less thought, and thought which came to them more rarely actually in proportion as it ought to come more frequently, who were very little fitted to judge of real questions of educational administration? The less a man was able to judge of these questions, the less experience he had had of educational administration, the more he was apt to think he could tell the teacher all that he ought to do, and that anyone who doubted his full competence to pronounce on the school curriculum was narrow-minded. He had often had to deal with these smaller school boards. He had found it possible to manage them, but it had to be done with considerable diplomacy and tact, and it was always easy to persuade them to accept what seemed to be a commonsense judgment. Over and over again when he had to deal with these small school boards, at the end of a long meeting where a majority of three put its views against a minority of two with the utmost eloquence and profusion, they generally both took him privately aside and begged of him whatever happened that he would send down from Dover House a decision one way or another, it did not matter which. They were tired of disputing, but they could not give way for personal pride, and all they wanted was a settlement 136 and they recognised that it mattered very little which way it was.
§ * SIR HENRY CRAIKasked if the hon. Member who said they were very sensible people would like to be a teacher who was exposed to the administration of these same gentlemen, every part of whose work was submitted to their microscopic criticism, and whose every personal feeling was apt to be exaggerated by perhaps unkind and inconsiderate statements on the part of this body of his masters. What was the remedy that the Bill proposed? The only remedy the right hon. Gentleman could offer to the school teacher was that there should be a sort of appeal to the Department. He did not believe an appeal to the Department was worth the paper it was written on. If the teacher appealed what would happen? He had known cases where the right was, looking at it broadly, on the side of the teacher, and he had often had reason to try to say a good word on his behalf. The extension of the areas was the very scheme proposed by the teachers themselves. But the right hon. Gentleman fell back on a worse and less efficacious remedy. The teachers admitted that the appeal was a pis aller, but it was not what would really satisfy them. If there was an appeal the correspondence was sent up to the Department. Would any hon. Member say if he were confined to the monotonous labour of a school teacher he would always be wise in his correspondence with the school board? Might not temper sometimes get the better of him? He had never known a case, even where he thought the teacher had very much the right on his side, where he did not find he had absolutely spoilt his case and given it away by some foolish remark. That would be the result of the appeal. It would not help the teacher at all, and if he was condemned by the Department his career as a teacher was lost for ever. But there was another subject. The hon. Member had indulged in a very picturesque denunciation of the Department. He did not quite see 137 the relevancy to the question of the extension of the area, but after all if they were not to extend it, if they were to keep those petty boards of five people representing a mere handful of the electors, what possible resort had they but to the Department? Did they expect those 980 boards to be pioneers of education, that they were to consist of men with a full grasp of educational principle? What resort had they but to the Department? Instead of blaming the Department they ought to praise it.
§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSONI did not blame the Department but the system of the Bill which puts the Department in an impossible position.
§ * SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he hoped the Department had done its best to fulfil that impossible position, and if they wished to make its power vastly greater he should not regret it so much as the hon. Member, because he had the largest trust in the Department. They could do nothing better than to include within the four corners of an administrative provisions Bill, as this was, a vast extension of the powers included in it. But they devolved these upon 980 school boards, who in the vast majority of cases were ex necessitate incapable of doing the work that they were called upon to do, and they would, as certainly as sparks flew upwards, enormously increase the resort to the Department. They would make its interference and guidance more necessary at every corner. This whole question was the most important that had to be discussed, because it really was a question on which all their educational administration depended, and it occupied the Committee one hour and twenty minutes of which he had contributed sixteen minutes, and was greatly blamed for occupying the time of the Committee. If any absurdity in legislation could go further than that he had yet to see it. The population of Scotland was 4,500,000. The five school boards of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee, and Govan, comprised a population of 1,500,000, and they had left therefore for 967 school boards, a population of 3,000,000, or 3,000 for each school board, and an electorate of 250 or 300. Were these the bodies to which they 138 were going to give the administration of this vastly increased educational machinery? Was it the way in which they would firmly establish their educational administrative work, and attract the wisest people? An hon. Member from Ireland had been greatly struck by the difference of opinion amongst the Scottish Members in the Grand Committee. How did the difficulty arise in regard to the money? Of course, if they had to divide it amongst 983 different bodies, when they had to dovetail a school board that was doing something for secondary education with the next which was doing nothing, and a third which sent its pupils to a fourth school board school, a great part of the Bill must have nothing to do with education and with real administration. The Bill was essentially faulty because the Government had not been able to overcome little differences of opinion. In their weakness, slackness, and want of respect for the real interest of Scotland, the Government had determined to foist upon them a Bill which was disappointing, because in previous years they had a much better Bill. He thought the House would do well to accept this Amendment, which after all only left the power in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland to act. He begged to second.
§
New clause—
(1) The Secretary of Scotland may, at any time after the passing of this Act, by order, constitute school board districts as follows, and such districts shall hereafter be the districts for which school boards shall be elected, that is to say: (a) Each of the districts constituted, or to be constituted, in terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889; (b) each of the counties not divided into Local Government districts; (c) each of the following districts, namely, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, and Aberdeen. (2) Any question which may arise as to the county or local government district of which, for the purposes of this section, a burgh is to be deemed part shall be determined by the Secretary for Scotland, whose decision shall be final."—(Mr. Munro Ferguson.)
§ Brought up and read a first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,) Hawick Burghssaid the debate 139 had not been without a certain amount of interest. He thought the seconder of the Amendment had most effectually demolished the mover, and he had never seen anything so effective as the hon. Member's recalling the House to the subject of the Amendment after the eloquent references to Jacob and Esau, the Scilly Islands, and other irrelevant subjects. He was not sure that his hon. friend opposite came much nearer to the Amendment himself, for he had given a variety of illustrations which hardly seemed to him to assist the House in coming to a conclusion. He thought the House would be amazed to know what was the object of this Amendment. Its object was to enable the Secretary for Scotland after the passing of this Act to set up school board districts in Scotland. The Amendment had been supported by a triumphant declaration that they were suffering from bureaucracy in Scotland. All over Scotland at any moment they were to be liable to a democratic order from the Secretary for Scotland linking up any parishes he liked. That to him seemed bureaucracy run mad, and he never heard of such a proposal, because they would never know six months in or six months out what was going to happen. The Secretary for Scotland was to be in the position, so to speak, of taking all the school board districts by the scruff of the neck and compelling them to live under one order made in the office in London. That was bureaucracy run mad, and Scotland would not stand it for a moment. The situation was most peculiar. The Amendment had been referred to in various particulars by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, who talked as if they were going to set up some grotesque and absurd machinery consisting of 100 joints in a small country with under 5,000,000 population. He said that that was what they were doing, and in that way he stated they were lowering education in Scotland. The fact was, they were doing nothing of the sort, because they were leaving the time-honoured parishes in Scotland exactly where they were when Scottish education was administered during the long term of office of the hon. Member opposite. They were altering nothing in that respect, 140 but what they were determined to do and were going to do with great care was not to upset wantonly a scheme of education which upon the whole had had the merit of producing good educational results, and of making interest in education become at once a local widespread and national concern. Without that they could not have education thriving. If they managed the business from a central office, he agreed they would probably not get in touch with the local material. What was the Secretary for Scotland under this Amendment to do? He had to constitute school board districts, and they would, he supposed, be the districts of the counties constituted under the Local Government Act of 1889. He was more interested in regard to the situation which would be created in the outlying parts of Scotland which required to be very carefully attended to because they had not the power so effectively to look after their own interests. Take, for example, Sutherlandshire, which under the Local Government Act of 1889 was not divided into districts at all. The proposal before them was to enable the Secretary for Scotland any morning to declare the whole of Sutherlandshire a school board district, extinguishing all its parishes, although the extent of Sutherlandshire was over 2,000 square miles. He wished to put it clearly to the House: how could they expect any man in humble circumstances, and the bulk of the population of Sutherlandshire answered to that description, actively to intervene in the affairs of his county if he had to travel over such a wide extent of country at various periods of the year? The thing was absolutely impossible. What was meant in the name of objecting to bureaucracy was to establish first of all central bureaucracy which would have this tremendous power, and then either from the centre or in the districts they would effectually disestablish the interest in education which had been such a valuable asset in the progress of the country in the North. That was his answer to the Amendment. He totally objected to secondary education being charged to the parish. One of the most conspicuous provisions in this Bill was that in reference to the linking up for secondary purposes with the assistance of the 141 committee of those outlying districts, so that parishes controlling their own educational affairs in the primary sphere might be able to select through their school boards the promising school boys and girls and send them to centres in which their secondary education would be continued under the immediate provision of the local school boards, supervised by the educational committee. For the hon. Member opposite to say that the cause of education in Scotland would be lowered by this Bill was an absolutely grotesque misapprehension of the principal object of the measure, which was to enable the whole of Scotland, including the remote districts, to retain an interest in its own education and in its promising pupils and to enable those pupils to be transferred to secondary centres such as were provided by the Bill. He admitted that the scheme under the Bill was one for the advancement of promising pupils from the humble ranks of life, enabling those in the remote parts of the country to aspire to the highest honours which a University could provide. He respectfully demurred to a policy of that kind being stigmatised as a policy from the gutter to the University. He supposed the Universities were fed by the gutter by promising pupils from outlying parishes, but although their circumstances might be humble they were the very fibre out of which their civil and military service was formed. He totally objected to language of that kind from the point of view of the University, because it appeared to be depreciating the great bulk of the democracy of Scotland. Both the mover and the seconder of this Amendment were wrong in their theory about the linking up of parishes. Under the Bill there was special provision made for the uniting of parishes and they had not left out of account the possibility of single parishes, sometimes from paucity of population or from lack of financial resource, finding that it would be a wiser policy to amalgamate with its neighbours. They had within the four corners of the Bill such a special provision as that which would remove the local difficulty to which his hon. friend had called attention. The concluding observation of his hon. friend was that this proposal was passed by in 142 the Committee upstairs in an hour and twenty minutes, and he accused them of hurrying it. He wished to point out that if this clause were accepted the whole Bill would go, because it would knock the measure out of shape altogether by destroying parochial responsibility. It would destroy the parochial responsibility, the parochial area, and the parochial connection with the central authority, and it would set up the most capricious bureaucracy which anybody could conceive. On these grounds he said that what would be done by the Amendment was one of the most dangerous things that could be done, and that Scotland would never tolerate the idea of abandoning the system under which, notwithstanding the sneers of any person, he still maintained that Scotland had today a very fine educational result. It was out of the question for hon. Members to talk of degrading the schools and degrading the education because a system was being continued which had produced these good results.
§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he did not say so.
§ MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he was not quoting the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs. He was quoting the hon. Gentleman opposite who said they were lowering the schools and degrading the education. He knew that the hon. Gentleman opposite was a friend of education, and that he was acquainted with many of the details in connection with education in Scotland. There were provisions in the Bill which the hon. Gentleman would admit were of enormous advantage to Scotland as a nation, and he did not think that it promoted the cause of education in that country to have it grudgingly recognised by remarks of the kind which he had made. Upon the whole, if he wanted to upset and confuse, to make involved, intricate and unhappy the relations of the school boards to the central authority, he could devise no better scheme than that of the Amendment now before the House.
§ MR. H. GOOCH (Camberwell, Peckham)supported the proposal of the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs. 143 Until a very short time ago there was in England the very state of things which now existed in Scotland, namely, a large number of small school boards scattered up and down the country, and if there was one thing which everybody agreed in condemning it was the existence of these small boards. When they were swept away the provision by which it was done was the one portion of the Education Act which everybody approved. Under this Bill, it was true, powers were given to combine, but surely it was far better to have one large authority than a large number of small areas combined for one reason, and not combined regarding others in connection with the purposes of education. That would be most inconvenient. It was perfectly simple when there was only one parish school for the local school board to manage it, but at the present time a great deal more was done than in the ordinary parish school. They had to deal with questions relating to secondary and technical education, the appointment of teachers, and medical inspection. If the boards were to carry out that work properly under the present Bill, it would be far more satisfactory to have a large authority to do so. In England the county council had been constituted the local education authority and the system was working with complete satisfaction in every part of the country. They had been told that Sutherland was a large county, but the same might be said of Northumberland and Devonshire. In each of these counties the county council was the local education authority, and no difficulty had been met with in the administration. If they were to have really good officials and really efficient administration, it would be better to have the large authority. The larger the boards the more likely were they to get first-class men to serve upon them, and the better would be the administration for all concerned.
§ * MR. LAMONT (Buteshire)supported the new clause moved by his hon. friend. He must admit that in listening to the speech of the seconder the character in the Old Testament that came to his mind was not Esau, Jacob, or Methuselah, but Jeremiah. He supported the new 144 clause because he believed that the enlargement of the area was by far the most important reform which could be undertaken in the whole field of Scottish education. In the first place, the larger area would strengthen the local authority as against the central authority. In the next place, he believed the district area was the best for education as it had been proved to be the best for local government. By establishing the larger area for administrative purposes they would create an authority able to deal not only with elementary but with secondary education also, and thereby there would be a system of co-ordination which would simplify both. The position of good teachers would be improved because the board having authority over a larger area would be able when vacancies occurred to promote their best teachers to the best appointments in the area within their control. Furthermore, it would facilitate the dealing with the unsatisfactory or inefficient teachers. In a small parish area it was sometimes difficult, if not impossible, to find men who had a knowledge of education al work, or who had any education themselves. It was very difficult in that case to have the unsatisfactory teacher promptly dealt with, because in a small community the members of the school board might be his most intimate friends. By extending the area and having a larger board they got over that difficulty. He voted for a similar Amendment when the late Government was in office. At that time he was hon. secretary of the Scottish Educational Reform Association, of which the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State for War was then the head. Holding the same opinions now as then, he would support the Amendment.
§ * MR. BARNES (Glasgow, Blackfriars)said he found himself in considerable difficulty about the Amendment. He sympathised with its object, but he could not say that he assented to the particular form in which it was proposed that it should be achieved. He thought the parish area had ceased to be the ideal area for present-day conditions. After all, many years had passed since the Education Act of 1872 was passed, setting 145 up the parish area as the unit of administration. He could not speak of the county because he knew little or nothing about it, but he could quite conceive there was a good deal in what had been said by his hon. friend the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities as to the desirability of coupling-up some of these microscopic bodies and making them more widely representative. He was more concerned with the towns, and he professed to know something of the conditions there. He knew that the parish areas there were not the most suitable for education administration. As a matter of fact, the population of Scotland was now differently distributed from what it was thirty-six years ago, and this population difficulty must cause a very considerable amount of confusion in regard to the administration of school board affairs. On the Second Reading debate he mentioned some figures which he might repeat now. Govan, although in the main an industrial centre, embraced in its school board area many people who were fairly well-to-do. Govan, therefore, had an advantage because there were many children in the area who did not go to the public schools, although the parents paid the school rate. It was found that in Govan the school rate of 1s. 4d. in the £ produced £3 9s. 3½d. per head, while in Glasgow the rate of 1s. 5d. only produced £2 15s. or £2 16s. That was manifestly unfair, and that was one of the considerations which weighed with him in thinking that there should be rearrangement of school board areas. He failed to appreciate the emphasis which the Lord Advocate laid on the parish area as the traditional area. He himself was not there to support anything because it was traditional. He wished to adapt the school board areas as well as other things to modern requirements. When he found the areas were not suitable for these requirements, he must say that he wanted to see them altered. So far, it might appear that he was going to support the Amendment, but he was not going to do anything of the sort. He was going to vote against it. However much he might wish to see the area altered, he recognised that the method by which it was proposed to be done was not the best. Clause 20 of the Bill provided for dealing with cases where only 146 one authority was necessary, and if Glasgow felt strongly that its position was inequitable in relation to Govan, it could take action under that clause. The same clause provided for the coupling-up of small areas for continuation and secondary school purposes, and that, of course, was a complete answer to the hon. Member for the Universities. It provided for the initiative coming from those on the spot who knew the local requirements better than people either in London or Edinburgh. He thought that, on the whole, the Bill went as far as they could reasonably demand at the present time.
§ MR. PIRIE (Aberdeen, N.)said he was at one with the last speaker in preferring the authority of a large area rather than the one suggested in the proposed Amendment. But he was prepared to vote for that Amendment because he felt so strongly the desirability of impressing on the Department the dissatisfaction which existed in the towns at the bureaucratic system under which they in Scotland had to suffer. He would prefer to vote for the new clause because it would have the effect of lessening the number of school boards, whereas the policy of the Department had been to increase the number of school boards so as to stultify them and thereby increase their hold over them. He thought this clause would have the effect of largely simplifying the Scottish educational system, which had been rendered complex by the Department in order to keep the reins in their own hands. He differed from the Secretary for Scotland with reference to the control of the Scottish Members over the Education Department. They had none, and to say so was an illusion and a delusion. On the Second Reading of the Bill the Scottish Secretary said that Parliament controlled the Education Department; but the present Secretary for War, when he sat on the other side of the House, said that he viewed with great anxiety the increasing power which that Department had obtained. And the present Chief Secretary for Ireland once said with regard to the influence of the Scottish Members that—
Home Rule or no Home Rule, one thing was practically certain, and that was that Scotland would never get Scottish business done 147 as things were at present. Her Members might as well be sent to Pekin as to Westminster.It should be remembered that it was their duty in that House to represent the people of Scotland and not to allow the Education Department, however zealous its officials might be, and whatever good they had done in the past, to dominate the Scottish educational system and to rule the Scottish Education Department. This Bill was the direct outcome not so much of the wishes of the Scottish representatives or of the Scottish people as of the permanent officials of the Scottish Education Department; and anything they could do to lessen the strength of the Department and curb it the better it would be in the interests of Scottish education. That was why he would support the Amendment.
§ * MR. R. DUNCANsaid that the hon. Member for the Blackfriars division of Glasgow naturally took an opposite view from what he did with regard to Govan. The Govan parish extended far beyond the municipality of Glasgow, and the Govan school board dealt with, a large population and a wide area though perhaps not so large as that of Glasgow. One of the paragraphs in the Amendment gave power to separate part of one school board district from another, and that he objected to as far as it affected Govan School Board area. He did not know whether the figures given by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars division were correct or not, but it was quite possible that the higher figure for Govan was because of the greater efficiency of the Govan schools, which were admitted to be very efficient. He objected most strongly to have the Govan school board amalgamated with that of Glasgow. He had an Amendment later on to that effect.
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member was out of order in speaking to that Amendment now.
§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that it would possibly save time if he admitted that the point raised by the hon. Member was not really a very essential 148 one. A possible exception might be made in favour of Govan.
§ * MR. R. DUNCANsaid he only wished to emphasise the fact that he thought Govan parish was a proper school board district, and that if the average cost of the education of the children was higher per head than in Glasgow, it was on account of the higher efficiency.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he had been very much interested in the views put forward by the hon. Member for Blackfriars division. So far as he could gather, while the hon. Member agreed entirely, or to a large extent, that in many parts of the country a large area would not only be a benefit, but almost a necessity, he objected to the particular method of arriving at that result adopted in the Amendment. He quite agreed with the hon. Member, and candidly confessed that he did not think the new clause was the most desirable way in which the desired result could be achieved. He thought it would have been better, more courageous perhaps, if they had boldly embodied a proposal to put the larger areas into the Bill; but he asked what chance there would have been for this, or any other Government, to carry such a new clause at the present time. The Amendment, after all, was only an enabling clause. This question of larger areas had been discussed before more than once; and he would recall to the House the views which had been enunciated from hon. Members on the Treasury bench on the former occasion. The Lord Advocate said he thought that the Amendment was bureaucracy run mad; and he stuck up for the old traditional parish area. The right hon. Gentleman had done that previously with great success and conspicuous ability, but he would remind him that his views were not shared then by some of his present colleagues. The Secretary of State for War, speaking on the Education Bill of 1904, said, in regard to the question of areas, that the present difficulty arose from the fact that the existing areas were not selected for educational purposes, and that he knew of no way of getting out of the difficulty except 149 by allowing powers of combination of a more specific kind than that given in the Bill. Mr. Bryce, now our Ambassador to America, put the whole case in a nutshell when he said that the county was too large an area for elementary education, and that the better plan would be to take the parish as a primary unit, and to unite with a free hand the smaller areas and so create areas of the size of the present districts. And then Mr. Bryce went on to say that the proper authority might be one small county, or if necessary two small counties. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty also rushed into the debate on the question of areas. He
§ said that he admitted the good work done by the school boards, and the necessity of keeping the people in touch with the schools. Then the hon. Gentleman went on to criticise the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark in favour of the retention of the existing areas in the Bill of 1904, and said in regard to that proposal that the scheme of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark was educational Home Rule run mad.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 29; Noes, 158. (Division List No. 367.)
151| AYES. | ||
| Ashley, W. W. | Fletcher, J. S. | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh. |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Lamont, Norman | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Magnus, Sir Philip | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Munro Ferguson and Sir Henry Craik. |
| Cross, Alexander | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Nield, Herbert | |
| Fell, Arthur | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. | Hodge, John |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.] | Hooper, A. G. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh. | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. |
| Beale, W. P. | Dobson, Thomas W. | Horridge, Thomas Gardner |
| Beauchamp, E. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Hudson, Walter |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Bell, Richard | Erskine, David C. | Jardine, Sir J. |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt | Esslemont, George Birnie | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo | Everett, R. Lacey | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Fenwick, Charles | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Ferens, T. R. | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Lambert, George |
| Black, Arthur W. | Findlay, Alexander | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Levy, (Sir Maurice |
| Brace, William | Fullerton, Hugh | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Gill, A. H. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Brigg, John | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Glendinning, R. G. | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Glover, Thomas | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Gulland, John W. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs |
| Byles, William Pollard | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | M'Callum, John M. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose | M'Crae, Sir George |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Clough, William | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Maddison, Frederick |
| Clynes, J. R. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstd | Hedges, A. Paget | Marnham, F. J. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Helme, Norval Watson | Massie, J. |
| Cox, Harold | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Crooks, William | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Menzies, Walter |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Higham, John Sharp | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
| Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Nicholls, George | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under Lyne | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | Seddon, J. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh. |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Seely, Colonel | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| O'Grady, J. | Shackleton, David James | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Williamson, A. |
| Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Snowden, P. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Summerbell, T. | Young, Samuel |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Sutherland, J. E. | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | |
| Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) | Ure, Alexander | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Verney, F. W. | |
| Rowlands, J. | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
§ MR. SINCLAIRmoved to insert in Clause 3, after the word "institutions," the words "within or." He said that, by the clause, they enabled the school board to contribute towards the maintenance of crippled or defective children at homes outwith the district of the board, but they did not give them power within their district. Therefore he proposed this Amendment, which was an obvious one.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 12, after the word 'institutions,' to insert the words 'within or.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
§ Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
§ * MR. COCHRANEsaid he had also raised this question, and with all due respect to the Education Department of which the right hon. Gentleman was the head, he submitted that his grammar was better than that of the right hon. Gentleman. He proposed to leave out the word "outwith" in the Bill, and insert the words "whether within or without." In Scotland they were acquainted with the word "outwith," but in an Act of Parliament, which would have to be construed by English as well as Scottish lawyers, he thought it would be well to put in words which would be generally understood by the ordinary person. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, although he was head of the Scottish Education Department, would withdraw his Amendment and allow his to be moved.
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid he would propose the words.
§ MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. EMMOTT,) Oldhamsuggested that the Amendment should be put in the form to leave out the word "outwith," and insert the words "within or without."
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. SINCLAIR moved an Amendment in the form suggested by Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 12, to leave out the word 'outwith, and insert the words "within or without.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. SINCLAIRmoved, in Clause 4, to leave out from the word "supplied" to the end of the clause. The words, he explained, were not necessary as there was no other person employed or supplied for "the like purpose" under any other provision of this Act.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 3, line 6, to leave out from the word 'supplied' to the end of the clause."—(Mr. Sinclair.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ * MR. COCHRANEsaid the Amendment he now moved sought to clear up a little ambiguity in the Bill. Clause 5 enacted that relief of a permanent character 153 might be given to children where their parents were unable by reason of poverty or ill-health to supply food or clothing or to give the child necessary personal attention during the period in which it was under the obligation to attend school. The proviso at the end was that the school board should, in cases where they thought necessary, make temporary provision out of the fund, but there was no power as in the previous section to exempt genuine cases where through temporary causes, such as ill-health, a parent was bona-fide unable to provide for the child. The concluding words of the section, that the cost might be recovered as an alimentary debt, would carry imprisonment; obviously this would be very harsh treatment in view of the different treatment provided for permanent cases in the earlier part of the same section.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 4, line 9, after the word 'debt,' to insert the words 'unless it is found that such parent or guardian was unable by reason of poverty or ill-health to supply sufficient and proper food or clothing for the child, or to give the child the necessary personal attention.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. SINCLAIRaccepted the Amendment.
§ SIR F. BANBURYobjected to the Amendment being accepted without some reason being given by the Government. He was not at all sure that he approved of an Amendment which made it easy for everybody to obtain maintenance for their children at the expense of the State. Clause 5 as it stood was, in his opinion, quite sufficient for all purposes, and this Amendment went far beyond the necessities of the case. If a man was a pauper it was no use trying to make out that he was not, and he did not believe a pauper was a fit and proper person to exercise the franchise. Everything necessary was provided for in the section, and it was no use going further and saying that if the parents could not pay the amount should not be recoverable. That went without saying. If the Amendment was accepted the only result would be that nothing would be done. If it was not accepted 154 the same result would follow. No school board would bring an action against a person without money. But there was this fact that might come in, that a man might get money in the future, and the school board might then recover. He was inclined to think they ought not to vote for the Amendment. But, at all events, they ought to have some reason from the Government for accepting it, because if it was necessary the Government Bill was defective, and he was sure hon. Gentlemen opposite would not agree to that.
§ SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid it was in no hostile spirit that he now rose. He thought the Amendment of his hon. friend was a mistake. He thought the words "that aid given in the terms of the section should not deprive parents of any franchise, right, or privilege, or subject him to any disability" would be an evil to the working people of the country, and that it was a pity that they should remain there. But that was not the point he now raised. The question just now was with regard to this particular Amendment, the effect of which would be to introduce difficulties. The scheme of the clause was perfectly clear. If the parent could not pay for his child this clause made provision for it. But another case might come up where it was necessary to give immediate relief to a starving child. If the parent could afford to pay the school board should be paid, otherwise the expense would fall on the parochial rate. If this Amendment were accepted it would cause considerable doubt in the mind of the school boards and cause them to hesitate very much before they fed a child whom they found starved. He was quite certain the scheme of the clause was sufficient as it stood.
§ * MR. COCHRANEexplained that in Grand Committee the rule was laid down that relief might be given permanently during the period at which the child was at school in cases where the parent was unable to provide for it. Towards the end of Clause 5 it was also provided that a child might be temporarily relieved, but there it was Dot provided that where the parent of the child might be unable to give the child the necessary food, the cost should not be recoverable. They made no 155 provision to protect the parents in the case of temporary relief as was the case with regard to permanent relief, and the result might be that if a man who could not pay was proceeded against and did not pay because he could not he could be sent to prison. The power contained in the concluding words of the section to recover the cost as an alimentary debt carried with it the penalty of imprisonment, almost the only remaining relic of the power to imprison for debt.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)thought they ought to have a pronouncement from the Government as to their reasons for accepting the Amendment. If the Amendment was to carry out the mover's desire, he ought to have been more careful in his phraseology. Who was to find that "such a parent or guardian was unable by reason of poverty or ill-health to supply sufficient and proper food or clothing" to his child? It would be much better to put in some words to make it clear who was to determine whether or not the parent or guardian was unable by reason of poverty or ill-health, and he suggested that the school board should be the determining authority. He thought it only courteous to the House that they should have some pronouncement from the Government in the matter, and that they should be informed what was the attitude of the Government, and whether they thought the phraseology of the Amendment carried out the meaning of the mover.
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid the position of the Government might be summed up in a sentence. The Amendment would serve as an indication to the school boards who were making this temporary provision for a child, whilst in no way impairing the power which they possessed under the clause. He thought, therefore, it was a proper enough addition to the Bill, and the Government proposed to accept it. He agreed that it would be better to follow the wording in the earlier part of the clause, and, instead of "unless it is found," to use the words "unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the school board."
§ MR. BRIDGEMAN (Shropshire, Oswestry)asked why the words "or ill-health" should be inserted. The whole question was whether the parent or guardian could afford to pay or not, and it seemed quite unnecessary to have these words in. If a parent was in ill-health on account of poverty or in poverty on account of ill-health, the case would be covered by the words "by reason of poverty," alone. It seemed to him therefore that it would be better drafting to leave out the words "or ill-health."
§ MR. SINCLAIRsuggested that the wording in the earlier part of the clause should be followed. If it was fitting there, he thought it should be allowed to stand here.
§ MR. BARNESsaid it occurred to him that the Amendment implied that some action should be taken by the school board, and that, failing that action, no debt would be recoverable, whereas he understood from the Secretary for Scotland that he proposed that the debt should be recoverable unless it was shown to the satisfaction of the school board that the parent or guardian was unable, by reason of poverty or ill-health, to supply sufficient and proper food or clothing for the child. Did not that imply that the parent was to be put in a worse position than otherwise?
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid it did not in the least imply that. It was a direction to the school board that, when they were considering whether the debt should be recovered or not, they should have regard to the poverty or ill-health of the parent as a sufficient reason for not recovering.
§ MR. COCHRANEthought, if the words of his Amendment were to be corrected at all, it would be better to take the whole words in the earlier part of the clause.
§ MR. SINCLAIRdisagreed and pointed out that the earlier part of the clause referred to permanent provision, whereas the Amendment referred solely to immediate and temporary provision. It was not unless the school board was satisfied 157 that there was a case to prosecute that any prosecution would take place.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
In line I, to leave out the word 'found,' in order to insert the words 'shown to the satisfaction of the school board.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
§ Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ MR. JAMES HOPE moved to insert the words "or guardian" in Clause 6, after the word "parent." He presumed the word "parent" was meant to include "guardian," but it did not say so as in other clauses, and he submitted that, if they did not insert the words, it would distinctly exclude a guardian.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 4, line 10, after the word 'parent,' to insert the words 'or guardian.'"—(Mr. James Hope.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid he gave an undertaking in Committee that the Bill should be looked through and the words "or guardian" inserted where necessary. That applied specially to Clauses 8 and 9, though his undertaking was not limited to that. There were Amendments down to insert the words in those clauses, but this clause was really a re-enactment of former enactments, and the word "parent" covered what the hon. Gentleman wished, and there was no reason to put in the words "or guardian."
§ MR. WATT (Glasgow, College)differed from the right hon. Gentleman as to the necessity of the words "or guardian" in the clause. The words had apparently been put in the Bill at the sweet will of the draftsman, and, unless they were inserted in this clause, the unfortunate, child who had lost its parent would not necessarily be 158 educated. It was essential that the guardian of a child whose parents had died should be instructed to give it education, otherwise there would be a number of children in Scotland who would not necessarily be educated under the Bill. The insertion of the words "or guardian" was essential.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONthought the Amendment was unnecessary. The Bill would have to be read with the Education Acts. The sixth section of the principal Act of 1872 contained this definition—
Parent shall include guardian and any person who is liable to maintain or has the actual custody of any child.He did not think the insertion of the words "or guardian" all through the Bill had been necessary except on the principle (an important one he admitted) that they had been inserted in some places and were excluded in this place.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON moved to insert the word "elementary," so that Clause 6 should read: "It shall be the duty of every parent to provide efficient 'elementary' education for his children who are between five and fourteen years of age," The question was discussed in Committee, and he was bringing it up in fulfilment of a promise given in Committee that on Report they would have an opportunity for further consideration of these words. There was some embarrassment and confusion as to the precise attitude of the Government and some of their supporters with regard to this Amendment. At one moment the right hon. Gentleman showed a disposition to accept some Amendment of this character, and at another he asked them to defer consideration until Report. They were sure to have many objections urged against it by the Government, but there was one objection which he hoped no hon. Member would urge. He hoped it would not be said that this was an Amendment intended to limit and cramp the cause of education. There was nothing easier than to make a speech, of 159 that kind. Those who had not considered the subject would at once think there was a great deal of force in that contention. The plain facts were that this word "elementary," and even much stronger and more stringent defining words had been in every Education Act which had ever been passed for Scotland from 1872 down to 1901. So anxious was he to provide against any possible assertion of crippling that he had actually omitted the words which appeared in previous Acts, "in reading, writing and arithmetic." It was with a view of adopting the course which the Secretary for Scotland suggested, the insertion in the definition clause of a definition of what was meant by the word "elementary." The right hon. Gentleman had suggested a definition in Committee. He had not embodied it in the Amendment because he thought the right hon. Gentleman would probably prefer that the definition should be considered by those who advised the Department. There should be some definition of what was meant by "efficient education." They were laying a duty upon every parent. It was the first Act in which the precise limit and scope of that duty had not been defined. Not only did they lay the duty, but they imposed penalties. He seemed to recollect that the duty used to be defined as a "contingent liability to a sanction." The penalty which was attached to this duty was 20s. or fourteen days for the parent, with a repetition of the penalty according to the repetition of the offence. If they were really going to say, and he took it that the clause could have no other meaning, that it was to be the duty of every parent in Scotland, high or low, rich or poor, gentle or simple, that he might be called upon to provide secondary education for his children, it was a very serious proposition indeed. It was one that no country had ever faced yet, and he very much doubted whether even Scotland, advanced as she was in educational matters, could face it. He remembered the hon. Member for Mid Lanark pointing out in the debates in 1904 that, although secondary education was technically not compulsory under the existing Acts, in practice there were many parish schools where the pupils at the top were given secondary education 160 with very good results. That was a very different thing from saying it was to be the duty of every parent to provide such an education. He pressed the Government and their advisers to take very seriously into consideration whether or not they should not, when they imposed a duty upon a parent, also define in accurate, clear and definite language, about which there could be no mistake, the precise scope of the duty which was laid upon them.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIGseconded.
§
Amendment proposed.—
In page 4, line 11, after the word 'efficient,' to insert the word 'elementary.'"—(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)
§ Question proposed "That the word 'elementary' be there inserted."
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid that this question was very fully discussed in Committee upstairs, and the decision was, by a very large majority, in favour of the view expressed on behalf of the Government.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONThe right hon. Gentleman began by offering to accept the Amendment.
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid a good many things had happened in the course of the discussion. He was taking what happened at the end of the discussion which lasted for more than one day. One of the broad grounds for not accepting the Amendment was that the conditions under which parents were obliged to send their children to school between the ages of five and fourteen, were laid down for the last time under the Act of 1901, which gave the school boards power to grant certain exemptions after the age of twelve years, on certain conditions which the school board laid down—conditions which generally made up to the child for the loss of educational opportunities which his exemption from the age of twelve onwards might cause. In carrying out this statute the school boards had considered that that exemption had never been based on the question of attainment, and in so acting they had been acting entirely in accordance 161 with the spirit of educational administration in Scotland, which had never been to limit or deny to any child, however humble, the full opportunity afforded by public education. His first objection to the Amendment was that a standard of attainment was suggested as a guiding principle for the exemption of children from attendance at school. There could be nothing more injurious either to the children or to education than the operation of such a standard. Secondly, practical difficulties had been found in the carrying out of educational administration, because parents had thought that it was in their discretion to pick and choose and select for themselves the subjects in which their children were to be educated. It was essential in the interests of the children that the organisation and planning of educational time-tables should rest in the hands of the educational authority, and that the parents should conform to the arrangements that suited the majority of the pupils. This was not an imaginary difficulty, for it had occurred, and the Courts had decided against the parent. This was, and must be, a limiting Amendment. Although, very happily, the standard of attainment was rising in Scotland every year, and education was compulsory and free, it would be out of place to accept any limiting suggestion of this kind. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with having raised the question. He admitted its importance, but the reasons for the attitude of the Government were so cogent that he could not advise the House to take any other course than to reject the Amendment.
§ MR. BARRIE (Londonderry, N.)said he intruded in no unfriendly spirit to the Bill, which he heartily welcomed as a Scotsman. He was glad to see Scotland getting measures so much in advance of what they had been able to get for other parts of the country. But he felt that there was merit in the Amendment. It entirely resolved itself into a question of what was efficient education. Under this clause a parent was compelled to send his child of five years of age to school, there to obtain efficient education. While he admitted that some children were capable of 162 receiving efficient education at five years of age, they had to admit that the average child did not receive at a public school efficient education until the age of eight or nine. Therefore, it might be possible to introduce words here to provide that elementary education should only be insisted upon up to the age of nine or ten, and fox the remaining compulsory period of attendance efficient education would then be insisted upon. There was no real difference between the views of the mover of the Amendment and the Government, and he thought a mutua concession should be made on the lines he had indicated. It could not be the wish of the Government in this measure—which he hoped would stand for many years as a model of what good education could be provided—to compel the parent to provide what was called in the statute "efficient education" for a child of five years of age.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid the object of the Amendment was to define what education should be given to the child by the parent. Unless the words proposed were inserted the only persons who would be able to decide that efficient education was being given to a child would be the members of the school board. Undoubtedly under the Bill the people who would decide this question in the future would be the members of the school board. If they left in the words "efficient education" there would be nothing to prevent the school board from saying that no education except that given by themselves was efficient. If the word "elementary," was put in that would be a defining word, and it could be argued that the parent was giving efficient education, whereas if the word was left out the school board could say: "We do not consider the education you are giving is efficient, and the only efficient education is that which we are giving." The result might be that one school board would lay down a rule that all the children must come in, because the education would not otherwise be efficient, and another school board might declare that the ordinary education given by the parent should be considered efficient. In the interests of the Bill itself, it was 163 advisable that the same standard should prevail in the case of every school board, and it should not be left to the arbitrary decision of any school board to determine what was efficient education. If the word "elementary" was put in every school board would be obliged to exempt a child whose parent was giving it efficient elementary education. It was evident if they had a very advanced school presided over, for example, by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, he would be desirous that every child in his area should attend that particular school, and he was not so sure that that would be a wise thing. If a parent was willing to give efficient education to his child, it would be better that it should be given at home than under the school board. He was inclined to think that the first thoughts of the right hon. Gentleman in which he was in favour of accepting this Amendment, were the best. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman had been guided by the fact that he
§ could not carry his Amendment against the wishes of his own friends.
§ MR. JAMES HOPEwished to put a practical case. Supposing they took, for example, the case of a widowed lady with an only daughter. Supposing that lady gave her daughter the best education in her power, and taught her such subjects as French, housekeeping, etc. Would the local school board be able to say to that lady: "We do not approve of the type of education you are giving to your daughter; it is not elementary, and it is a bad form of secondary education; we are the judges, and we think your education is not efficient; you must send your daughter to the village school." Would that lady have to send her daughter to school without any appeal whatever?
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 32; Noes, 172. (Division List No. 368.)
165| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Renwick, George |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Ashley, W. W. | Fell, Arthur | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Fletcher, J. S. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Houston, Robert Paterson | Valentia, Viscount |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Younger, George |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Law, Andrew Bonar(Dulwich) | |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Mitchell-Thomson and Sir Frederick Banbury. |
| Cross, Alexander | Nield, Herbert | |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Brigg, John | Davies, David (Montgomery Co. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Bryce, J. Annan | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Byles, William Pollard | Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Beale, W. P. | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness |
| Beauchamp, E. | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Clough, William | Erskine, David C. |
| Bell, Richard | Clynes, J. R. | Esslemont, George Birnie |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Evans, Sir Samuel T. |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Fenwick, Charles |
| Black, Arthur W. | Crooks, William | Ferguson, R. C. Munro |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Crossley, William J. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace |
| Brace, William | Dalmeny, Lord | Findlay, Alexander |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Dalziel, James Henry | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Lewis, John Herbert | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Gill, A. H. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. |
| Glendinning, R. G. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Glover, Thomas | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Lyell, Charles Henry | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne |
| Gulland, John W. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Seddon, J. |
| Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) | Seely, Colonel |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | M'Cullum, John M. | Shackleton, David James |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | M'Crae, Sir George | Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.) |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh | M'Micking, Major G. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Mallet, Charles E. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Marks, G. (Croydon, Launceston | Snowden, P. |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Marnham, F. J. | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Massie, J. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Masterman, C. F. G. | Summerbell, T. |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Menzies, Walter | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Molteno, Percy Alport | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Tomkinson, James |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Morrell, Philip | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Henry, Charles S. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Verney, F. W. |
| Higham, John Sharp | Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. | Vivian, Henry |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
| Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Nicholls, George | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Hodge, John | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | Watt, Henry A. |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Norton, Captain Cecil William | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Holt, Richard Durning | O'Grady, J. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh |
| Hooper, A. G. | Parker, James (Halifax) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Paulton, James Mellor | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Pirie, Duncan V. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Hudson, Walter | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Williamson, A. |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Jardine, Sir J. | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Rainy, A. Rolland | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Ridsdale, E. A. | Yoxall, Henry James |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | |
| Lambert, George | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| Lamont, Norman | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) | |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Roe, Sir Thomas |
§ Clause 7:
§ MR. BRIDGEMAN (Shropshire, Oswestry), in moving to leave out Clause 7, said the clause appeared to be intended to introduce an entirely new principle in the regulations for compelling school attendance. It was intended to supersede the ninth section of the Act of 1883, which provided that after due warning a school board could apply to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to issue an order to compel the attendance of a child at school. So far as he could understand the clause, the penalties under Section 9 of the 1883 Act were still to exist with regard to the infringement of the order which would now be made by the school board. The school board were interested parties, and he asked the House to consider whether it was right that at a secret meeting at which reporters would not be present the board should be allowed to adjudicate. 166 A school board was interested in getting the greatest possible number of attendances in order to get the greatest possible grant. That could not be said to be an entirely impartial tribunal before which to arraign a parent. The only chance which the parent had was to appeal to the sheriff if he felt aggrieved by the order of the school board. That imposed on the parent the duty of attending twice—first before the school board, and then before the sheriff. To many parents that would be an extremely difficult and inconvenient thing to do. He could not see any sufficient reason for altering the old procedure. He begged to move.
§ SIR HENRY CRAIK, in seconding the Motion, said the new procedure proposed by the Government would make the school board prosecutor and judge in its own cause. Hitherto there had been two distinct offences possible under the 167 Education Act. The first was the neglect of the parent to educate his child under Section 70 of the Act of 1872. Then Section 9 of the Act of 1883 provided that when the neglect had existed for a certain time the school board might bring the parent before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and the Court might lay upon the parent a totally different duty—not merely that of providing education, but of making the child attend school. Did the right hon. Gentleman clearly understand that except an attendance order had been obtained no previous Education Act required any parent to send his child to school at all? It required him to educate his child, but it did not require him to send it to school. What was proposed by Clause 7 of the Bill was that Section 9 of the 1883 Act should no longer have effect in its present sense. They made it simply an alternative, and an alternative to be taken at the first stage. The duty laid on the parent in the first instance by the Act of 1872 was to educate the child, and it was only if he neglected to do so that an order could be applied for to compel attendance at school. A parent might say: "I do not want school board education for my child." There were many educated people who said they were capable of judging what was good for their children in the matter of education. He had known cases where parents had complained that they were being bothered by school boards to send their children to school, and where the boards were surprised to be told that there was no obligation whatever to send children to school. The Government were mixing up two things, and they were establishing in place of a Court of law a sort of Star Chamber, of a school board, which need not necessarily be open to the public, and they were to be the accuser and the judge. There seemed to be an inherent desire in the occupants of the Treasury bench to supersede the Courts of law. He wanted to know why the Government thought it necessary to take away the ordinary privilege of going to the Courts of law.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 4, to leave out Clause 7."—(Mr. Bridgeman.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 168 'of,' in page 4, line 39, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid he really did not think that the change intended by the clause was of such magnitude as had been represented. The clause was introduced at the unanimous request of the school boards of Scotland.
§ MR. BRIDGEMANWhat about the parents?
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid the school boards of Scotland had found great difficulty in securing the attendance of children, and the Government had to consider whether or not this simplified procedure could be introduced without any infringement of the position of the parents or of the children themselves. Under the old procedure in order to obtain an attendance order the school board went before the sheriff, and, having got it, they in their discretion applied it to the parent. Then the parent went to the sheriff, and he decided the case. The procedure now proposed was merely a simplification of that. The school board, which presumably knew the circumstances, issued the attendance order, and then when the order was put into execution the parent was taken before the sheriff. No harm came to the parent, and no penalty was inflicted except by the sheriff himself. The parent would be in no worse position than under the previous procedure, but a great deal of superfluous work would be saved in the Sheriff Court, while the school board had a more expeditious way of carrying out its work, and the organisation of the schools would profit pro tanto by the whole procedure.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that all this was practically a litigation between the parents and the school board as the school attendance authority. He quite understood that one party to a litigation should desire to be made a judge in its own cause, at any rate on the early stage of it. The school attendance authority complained that a child, without just cause, had been kept away from school, and it wished to decide that matter without the intervention of a Court of justice at an early stage. What was the ordinary practice at the present time 169 in England and Scotland? The school attendance authority complained that the child was kept away from school. The matter was taken before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction in England, and before the sheriff in Scotland, and the question was that if the child would not attend for the next fortnight or so an attendance order would be made, and the parent was warned. Very frequently no farther proceedings were required; but if so, the Court would mete out justice in accordance with the merits of the case. But what was the beautiful simplicity of the proposal in this clause? It was that the school attendance authority complained to itself that the parent had been neglecting to send its child to school; and then decided its own cause in its own favour. Contrary to the existing practice, there was no question of warning to the parents, or of postponing the action of the Court in order to see whether a better behaviour would be secured on the part of the child or the parents. Then the attendance order was made, and the matter came before the sheriff, who probably knew nothing of the facts, but who would be called upon to act in the best possible faith, but with undue severity. This was a matter in which the liberty of the subject was concerned, for when a parent was compelled to send a child to school his liberty was interfered with, a right which ought to be exercised with the greatest care and only after looking to the interest of all concerned. For a school board which looked to attendance as a means for securing grants to judge its own cause was an infringement of the liberty of the subject which the House should not agree to without the most careful consideration.
§ MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid that all this talk with regard to the liberty of the subject was entirely out of place. If the hon. Gentleman would peruse the clause, he would see that two conditions must be applied. In the first place, the thing was to be done by the parent without reasonable excuse; and in the second place, after due warning to the parents. Then it was that the school board had to get an attendance order. The final stage was that, if the parent thought that the school board 170 was wrong, he could appeal to the sheriff, and the proceedings before the sheriff were exceedingly simple and short. The House was not considering at present whether the school board was a judge in its own cause. What they wanted was the fact that where the child was neglected and kept away from school, that should be brought home to the parents.
§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSONcould not see how the parent could be given more careful consideration than under this clause, and he really failed to see how a school board was able to deal with truancy without interfering between parent and child. The board could interview the parent and the child, and if the parent was at fault he was not as a rule an object for much consideration. The ordinary parent was a good parent, and his children generally went readily to school. His experience was that the defaulting parents were the most ill-conditioned and drunken part of the population. He had known of twenty-one cases of truancy coming from one street inhabited by such people. He thought that the interview between the school board and the parent was simply invaluable for the purpose of preventing truancy.
§ MR. LAMBTON (Durham, S.E.)said that the Lord Advocate seemed to argue that they ought not to consider the liberty of the subject, and that the provisions of the clause were no infringement on the rights of parents. But the clause gave to the school board an unlimited power over the parents. The fact that the school board was to act as prosecutor, jury, and judge in each case was sufficient to condemn the clause. What was the procedure under the clause? If it appeared to a school board that the parent of any child was, without reasonable excuse, neglecting to provide for its efficient education, or failing to secure the regular attendance of the child at some public or inspected school, the parent was summoned before the school board and required to give every information and explanation respecting such neglect or failure of duty. The neglect or failure of duty was taken for for granted. The school board had only 171 to exercise a little imagination, and then summon the parent before them. Then the clause went on to say that if the parent, or some person on his behalf, either did not appear, or appeared and did not satisfy the school board that he had not failed in his duty without reasonable excuse, then an attendance order was issued. There again the school board was prosecutor, jury, and judge. Further, the parent had to prove that he had not failed in his duty. Surely it was a prosecutor who had to prove the fault, and not the defendant to show that he had not committed the fault. He was on the Grand Committee, and he knew that many of the clauses had been passed without due consideration to the rights of the parents.
§ * MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)said that as an English Member, and as a parent who sent his children to an elementary school, he and those beside him probably knew more about this matter than hon. Gentlemen above the gangway, none of whom had, in all likelihood, had their children at an elementary school. He thought that the clause was quite clear and simple. The parent must show that he was educating his children by some other method, than in the elementary school. The school board was a popularly elected body, subject to the parents of whose children they had the oversight, and the members of the board were not likely to do an unreasonable thing when they knew that the parents could get rid of them at election times. Again, due warning was given to the parents. Every opportunity was given them to supply information and make explanation. The hon. Gentleman above the gangway wanted to drag the mother before a magistrate in the first instance. He protested against that. They in England did not want it, and would not have it. In England the officials of the school board reported to the attendance committee that a child was not attending school, and the parent and the child were brought before the school board committee, who talked to the mother, it might be, very nicely and persuaded her to have more oversight over the child. They did not drag her before a Court until all its influence was used in the 172 direction of persuasion. He hoped the Government would not for one moment give way on this point. The system was working satisfactorily with them in England. [An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION Benches: No.] Somebody said no, but he knew what he was talking about. They never took a mother or father of a child to a Court in the first instance, or before they had had more than one opportunity of interviewing both the parent and the child. It was the very last resource to take the parent before a Court of law. They used their power of persuasion, and the attendance order was really a following up of the interview with the parents, and so far as these were concerned it was no more than a threat that unless they saw that their children went to school other proceedings would be taken. That was the best method of dealing with refractory parents. It was the child that they wanted to get at, and frequently the keeping away from school was the fault of the child itself and its companions. He trusted the House would never accept an Amendment which would bring the child into Court until that became absolutely necessary.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)said the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down did not seem to understand the question before the House. The hon. Member had entered a very proper defence of the system in England, and so far he was prepared to accept his view. But this Amendment altered the state of affairs existing in Scotland and would make it different from that which, prevailed in England, which the hon. Gentleman had rightly praised. Yet the hon. Member said he was prepared to accept the clause, although it would alter in Scotland the state of things now prevailing there and in England. He would ask, however, whether it was desirable that they should be so anxious to alter the tribunals, which had dealt between man and man in this country so fairly, and bring in other tribunals. It had been contended that the parents in default needed no special consideration, but that was not a judicial point of view. He was sure it was not the state of mind in which magistrates dealt with matters of this kind. They 173 had sooner or later to come to the magistrate, and it was desirable, if they did bring attendance cases of this sort before the bench, that consideration, and most careful consideration, should be given, even to defaulting parents. They should be dealt with from the judicial point of view, and the consideration should be given in a judicial frame of mind, even to people who were apparently in default. He believed, and he was certain hon. Members below the gangway also thought, that that was the way in which to deal with defaulting parents, who ought to have every consideration from a judicial tribunal, before they had an attendance order made against them. Perhaps he ought to apologise for intervening in this debate, as it did not concern him, but he wanted to protest simply from the judicial side against expressions which had been thrown out and to state the objection he had to dealing with judicial matters in this way. This might be a good alteration from some aspects, but in his view it was a bad one, and he should vote against the clause. Other hon. Members might hold different views, but he hoped they would not hold the view that this was an unimportant alteration of the law as it had existed in Scotland and England for many years.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid there was considerable discussion on this clause in Grand Committee and he would like, for the benefit of those hon. Members who had not the advantage of being there, to state what took place. The Lord Advocate stated that there was the safeguard of an appeal, but it was pointed out that that would be illusory, for the reason that, especially in the Highland districts of Scotland, the probability was that the parents summoned would be poor people. They would be summoned before the school board and would know very little about the further safeguard of an appeal, and if they did know it, they would have to go many, many miles to the sheriff. When summoned before the school board, a poor person would have to lose a day's work, and if the decision was unjust his only resource was to lose another day's work, possibly two or three, 174 in order to go to the Sheriff's Court. He was rather surprised that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, who were always most anxious not to put pecuniary liabilities upon the poorer classes of the country, should support this clause. He really thought it must be because they were not on the Grand Committee, and did not fully realise its importance. The Lord Advocate dismissed very summarily the statement of his hon. friend that this particular clause would make a school board prosecutor and judge in its own cause by saying that it was necessary and advisable that the children should attend school and therefore it was right that the school board should be both judge and prosecutor. It was right that stealing should be prevented, but they did not enact that the prosecutor in a case of theft should be the judge in his own cause because it was right to stop thieving. He really thought the Government ought to pause before they made a startling innovation in the law of Great Britain of this kind. He appealed to hon. Members below the gangway to realise that they were inflicting a very great pecuniary liability upon the poor parent who considered himself aggrieved by the arbitrary decision of a school board. The object of the school board was to get as many attendances as possible in order to get a grant, and great hardship to poor people would result if the clause were allowed to pass in its present form. He believed that the existing procedure was working fairly, and he would point out to the hon. Member for Clitheroe that if this clause was not passed there was nothing to prevent the school boards in Scotland sending for parents and pointing out in a fatherly manner that unless they sent their children to school they were injuring them and if they persisted proceedings would be taken. If this clause was passed, instead of persuasive power being used by the school board, they would insist upon the child coming to school, and when the parent had found out the remedy he would be put to great expense in taking advantage of that remedy.
§ Question put.
176§ The House divided:—Ayes, 158; Noes' 32. (Division List No. 369.)
177| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Gulland, John W. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Haworth, Arthur A. | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) |
| Beale, W. P. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Beauchamp, E. | Hedges, A. Paget | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th) |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Helme, Norval Watson | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n |
| Bell, Richard | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo) | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Henry, Charles S. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Higham, John Sharp | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Brace, William | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Brigg, John | Hodge, John | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Holland, Sir William Henry | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Holt, Richard Durning | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Hooper, A. G. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne |
| Byles, William Pollard | Horniman, Emslie John | Seddon, J. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Shackleton, David James |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Hudson, Walter | Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Clough, William | Jardine, Sir J. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Clynes, J. R. | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Crooks, William | Kekewich, Sir George | Summerbell, T. |
| Crossley, William J. | Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Laidlaw, Robert | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Lambert, George | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co) | Lamont, Norman | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Lehmann, R. C. | Tomkinson, James |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Ure, Alexander |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lewis, John Herbert | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Lyell, Charles Henry | Watt, Henry A. |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Erskine, David C. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | M'Callum, John M. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh. |
| Everett, R. Lacey | M'Crae, Sir George | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Ferens, T. R. | M'Micking, Major G. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Mallet, Charles E. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Massie, J. | Williamson, A. |
| Findlay, Alexander | Menzies, Walter | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Gill, A. H. | Morrell, Philip | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | |
| Glendinning, R. G. | Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| Glover, Thomas | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Nicholls, George | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Bignold, Sir Arthur | Craik, Sir Henry |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Carlile, E. Hildred | Cross, Alexander |
| Ashley, W. W. | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Dalrymple, Viscount |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S) | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Magnus, Sir Philip | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Forster, Henry William | Morpeth, Viscount | Valentia, Viscount |
| Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Younger, George |
| Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Renwick, George | |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Ronaldshay, Earl of | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Bridgeman and Sir Frederick Banbury, |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | |
| Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.) |
§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSON moved to leave out the words "or some person on his behalf." He did not think the appearance of a deputy of the parent before the school board would add to the good working of the clause. The interview by the school board with the parent was a good opportunity for the board to influence the parent, but if it was to be allowed to send a deputy, who probably in many centres would be a professional representative, then the value of the clause would be very largely lost. He had had a great many representations on this point since the Bill went through Committee, and great importance was attached to it by the administrators of the school board system. He was sure no school board would unnecessarily summon a parent before it, and that every consideration would be shown. There was no fear of any hardship, and it would add enormously to the value of school board work. He really thought the school boards were entitled to some consideration under the Bill.
§ * MR. COCHRANEseconded. He said he understood it was intended that the parent should be brought before the Board in a private way and an endeavour made to induce him to send his child to school. They did not want a lawyer or anyone to appear before the board to argue the matter. Were they to have the village orator appearing before the board every time, and arguing why children should not be compelled to attend? In the Children Bill they insisted that the parent should be the only person who should appear before the Court, and he ventured to say that the right hon. Gentleman, in inserting the words "or some other person on his behalf." had departed from the principle laid down that the attendance before the board should be private and informal. The words were put in in Grand Committee during the luncheon hour, being accepted by the Secretary of Scotland without there 178 being any opportunity of discussing them, and with no weighty reasons having been given for them.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 5, line 6, to leave out the words 'or some person on his behalf.'"—(Mr. Munro Ferguson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid the reason the words were put in was plain and simple. There was a considerable discussion as to whether they had provided in the clause for all contingencies, and the words, "If he, or some person on his behalf, either does not appear or appears and does not satisfy the school board" seemed to meet the only contingencies which might emerge out of the summons. It was represented in the Committee that it might be a great and unmerited hardship to a parent to be obliged to appear. He might have an excellent excuse which would completely satisfy the school board and which could equally well be delivered by some other member of his family or by some one commissioned to appear on his behalf. It seemed to the Committee quite superfluous to insist that the school board should require in every case the presence of the parent. It would be perfectly within the power of the school board to say that the person appearing on behalf of the parent did not satisfy them and that on some future occasion they must see the parent. It was perfectly open to the school board to use their discretion, and he could not enter into the frame of mind of hon. Gentlemen who could not leave a matter of this kind to be adjusted by the common sense, discretion, and experience of the members of the school boards. The words were inserted by the unanimous decision of the Committee after some discussion, and he hoped, if his hon. friend persisted in his objection, that 179 they might be allowed to take the sense of the House upon the Amendment, which was not a point of great importance, and get to the next clause.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. JAMES HOPEsaid that the result of the proposal in Clause 8 would be that once the exemption order was given, the child would be bound to attend up to the age of sixteen, and that would prejudice the prospects of that child's getting employment. That was an important objection to the first subhead, because a great liability would be incurred by the parent if the child between fourteen and sixteen years of age was not disposed to attend continuation classes. That liability did not appear to have been sufficiently realised. He objected to the third subsection on the ground that it sought to amend the Factory Act by a side wind, and any such Amendment as that ought to be done directly. The third subsection empowered school boards to make an order compelling a child to attend a continuation class which would prevent that child being employed during the hours allowed by the Factory Act. He objected to the fourth subsection on account of the extraordinary vagueness of the language. It was exceedingly difficult for a parent to regulate every movement of a child up to the age of fifteen, and ensure attendance at a continuation class. The operation of this clause would be exceedingly awkward in practice, and he begged to move the omission of Clause 8.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG, in seconding, desired to emphasise the objection which had been raised to subsection (3), particularly in regard to children who might be employed in some subsidiary occupation assisting to earn a living. He knew of many families doing work at home such as handloom weaving which was looked upon as an adjunct to their ordinary labour. Subsection (3) would interfere with the harmonious working of children in such occupation where parents were trying to earn something above their ordinary wages. In some parts of Scotland and Ireland certain forms of employment would be forbidden altogether under 180 this section. That appeared to be a hardship and would inevitably tend to drive a large amount of employment out of the country to the benefit of other countries where like conditions were not imposed. Many of the home industries of this country were very sensitive to legislation of this kind which interfered with small work like knitting and flowering, and some of the best work of this kind was done at home by children under the direction of their parents. Such work was not looked upon as work but as pleasure, which took them out of doors and at the same time helped to increase the family income. He had much pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 5, line 29, to leave out Clause 8."—(Mr. James Hope.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 38, page 5, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid that this clause was very fully discussed in Grand Committee where one or two suggestions were made by the critics of the clause and were accepted by the Government. It passed through the Committee without a division, which was a testimony to the unanimity of Scottish Members in its favour. It was a very simple clause, which did not bring in the general question of continuation classes, but only as regards exempted children. Under the provisions of the Act to which he had already alluded, children were exempted at the age of twelve from compulsory attendance, and those children compensated for that in later years by attending evening continuation classes. This clause widened the discretion of school boards in insisting upon compensating attendance in later years. It was a very elastic proposal giving school boards a wide discretion and mitigating the burden upon the children. He was advised that in many parts of Scotland the clause would be a great advantage to the children and to the school boards in carrying out their present duties under the law. He had already explained the purpose of the clause. With regard to sub-clause (3) he agreed 181 that there might be a danger of this school attendance being added to the period of work, and that would be too great a strain, but provision had been made to ensure that when a scholar was working under a statute which limited his work either in the mine or the factory, he would not have the school attendance added to his time, and there would be some adjustment to mitigate the burden.
§ * MR. COCHRANEsaid he could not help thinking that this clause was not only unnecessary but distinctly harmful. It was designed to extend the powers which school boards already possessed under Clause 3 of the Act of 1901, which provided that a child at the age of twelve might be exempted from attendance at school for part of the time if the parent applied to the school board. Under those circumstances the school board made certain conditions as to the attendance of that child at continuation schools up to the age of fourteen years. Under this clause it was now proposed to exercise that power up to the age of sixteen years, by which time the child might leave the parish altogether. Were they going to decide when the child was twelve years of age whether it was desirable that that child should attend a continuation class after the age of fourteen and up to the age of sixteen years? Many children at the age of fourteen had gone out into different parts of the country, and frequently the girls left home to seek employment in mills. In Paisley many of the girls came from a distance and got work there and attended voluntarily continuation classes, and yet it would be enacted by this clause that when they were twelve years of age they must go on attending continuation classes up to the age of sixteen. By doing that they might deprive those children of the possibility of earning a livelihood. Under this clause children might be obliged to leave their employment in order to attend a continuation class. Under Clause 9 school boards would have the fullest power to send children to continuation classes up to seventeen years of age, and this clause was absolutely unnecessary and harmful. It was really more stringent than Cause 9, 182 and he would like to know how far the jurisdiction of the school board would extend. In the case of a child over fourteen years who had left the parish, would the order made be effective in any part of Scotland? The school board could order compulsory attendance in the case of a child up to the age of fourteen years, and he wanted to know whether they could compel a child to attend beyond fourteen years of age if he had gone to live in another parish. There was no limit as to distance. Under Clause 9 there was a very salutary and proper provision, more especially in view of the fact that these classes might be held at night, that no young person should be required to attend a class beyond two miles from his residence. There was no such provision in Clause 8 of this Bill, and he would like to know whether a school board could compel a child to attend beyond the distance of two miles. He thought that was a very important point. Take the case of a farm lad who might be ordered to attend a continuation class. Under this clause he might have to walk ten miles. He ventured to say that the clause was absolutely unnecessary. Why had the Lord Advocate adopted a limit of sixteen under this clause and seventeen under the next clause, when both dealt with compulsory attendance at continuation classes? He felt perfectly certain that this clause would prevent many boys and girls from taking up employment in mills and factories and domestic service because they might be compelled to attend continuation classes. He asked the Lord Advocate to reply to those points.
§ MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid that a good many of the difficulties brought forward by his hon. friend were initiated by the late Government by the Act of 1901 which provided for relieving children from full attendance at school after twelve years of ago. This clause provided that where relief from school attendance was given after that age the board should have power to impose certain conditions as to attendance at a day school or a suitable continuation class afterwards. They were not dealing here with such cases as the hon. Member opposite had described; they were dealing with the actual case in which a 183 school board was confronted with an application by a parent who said that in the interest of the child and the family he should be released from the obligation of continuing to send his boy to school until he had eached the age of fourteen. It was hardly possible that there could be a greater loss to young people than would result from the excision of this clause from the Bill. The second question asked was why the Government had selected sixteen as the age for leaving the continuation classes. The present requirement was that full attendance should be given up to the age of fourteen. If a child was relieved from full attendance at twelve, the assumption was that he would become a half-timer. If they were to give two years release from full attendance it was only right that there should be four years attendance at the continuation classes in order that that child might be as well equipped educationally as the one who had given full attendance up to fourteen. The final question had reference to subsection (3) which prescribed that the hours of employment should not exceed a certain amount. The position the Government took up with regard to that was this: There were various Acts of Parliament which prescribed a statutory maximum number of hours which might be worked in mines and factories. If a child was relieved from full school atendance at twelve years of age and admitted to the full maximum labour allowed in a factory, the strain on the little frame of the child might be too much if, when his work was done, he had to go to a continuation class. They must, therefore, reckon the education period into the maximum factory time so that the physical condition of the young person might not be injured.
§ SIR PHILIP MAGNUSsaid he had full sympathy with the object of the clause, but it seemed to him that it was rather clumsily worded. He was not a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, and he did not quite understand from what had been said what was to be done in the case of children between twelve and fourteen. He had no doubt proper provision was made in the 184 Bill, but it was difficult to read into the clause as it now appeared what was meant. That was one of the difficulties which arose from having so short a time for the discussion of so important a Bill as this. There were many Amendments one would like to introduce into the Bill, not with the view of wrecking it as had been suggested by one member of the Government, but with the object of improving the measure. It seemed to him in regard to this clause that no distinct provision was made as to the continued education which a child was to receive between twelve and sixteen years of age. He understood the Lord Advocate to say that it was provided that an employer should allow every child in his employment sufficient time to enable him to profit by the instruction he would receive in the continuation classes. Unless employers in all cases were willing to allow time for that purpose, a great deal of the time given to the instruction in the continuation classes would be wasted. He would have liked to see clearer provision made in subsection (3) for the time allowed to children attending continuation classes, so that the receiving of instruction after their day's work might not be oppressive.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid there were two points on which the House wanted enlightenment. Subsection (4) imposed on the parent a penalty for neglecting to exercise due care. Supposing that a child at fifteen got useful and profitable employment some distance off, was the parent still to be under that penalty because the child was not attending the continuation class? The subsection would be very difficult to work, and was somewhat awkwardly expressed, and that raised some doubt as to the merits of the whole clause. In this clause a child which had been exempted from school attendance between the age of twelve and fourteen, was liable to attend a continuation class between the age of fourteen and sixteen, but in another clause the continuation class must be taken up to the age of seventeen. He wanted some explanation of that, and he trusted that the Secretary for Scotland would pardon him for stating the difficulties which had occurred to him.
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid he readily responded to the invitation of the hon. Gentleman, but he thought it would be convenient to defer consideration of Clause 9 until they came to it. Clause 9 gave a general power in regard to continuation classes which did not affect the provisions of Clause 8 in any way whatever. But Clause 8 did nothing more than amplify the present powers of the school boards under the Act of 1901 in providing for the continuance of the education of children who were exempted by the school board from attendance at an ordinary school between the ages of twelve and fourteen. In granting exemption from attendance at day schools between twelve and fourteen, the school board might lay down conditions as to attendance at continuation classes between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. The school board would say to the parent that the child should be relieved from compulsory attendance at the day school between twelve and fourteen, but that the child must attend such and such a class at such and such hours between fourteen and sixteen. The parent agreed to the terms of the arrangement and the school board made it after full knowledge of the local circumstances.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSONasked if that bound the child to the school board area.
§ MR. SINCLAIRNot in the least. It was possible for a child to go to another area. The practice had sprung up in Scotland of school boards communicating with one another in regard to these matters; and they had provided for certificates of attendance being given from the school board of the area which the child left to the school board of
§ the area to which he went. It was desirable that such communications should be continued so that the arrangement made with the original school board should be carried out in the new school board area to which the child went.
§ MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)wanted to know exactly what the clause meant. Were they to understand that a child when it had reached the age of twelve was exempted by the school board from full attendance at a day school for two years on condition that he was to go to a continuation school from fourteen to sixteen years of age?
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid that under the Act of 1901 attendance at day schools until the age of fourteen was already provided for.
§ MR. ASHLEYsaid that if that were so, this clause was exceedingly badly drawn. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire had raised a question as to the distance a child might have to go to attend a continuation class. Would he have to go five or ten miles? The Lord Advocate had said that that was not so, as it was provided in Clause 9 that the child would not have to go more than two miles to a continuation school. But the Secretary for Scotland had told them that Clause 9 had no relation whatever to Clause 8. He thought that the Amendment of his hon. friend was a good one, and he would vote for it.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 148; Noes, 25. (Division List No. 370.)
187| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Beale, W. P. | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Beauchamp, E. | Bryce, J. Annan |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn |
| Agnew, George William | Bell, Richard | Carr-Gomm, H. W. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo) | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Berridge, T. H. D. | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Black, Arthur W. | Clough, William |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Bowerman, C. W. | Clynes, J. R. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Brace, William | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd. |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Bridgeman, W. Clive | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Hooper, A. G. | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th) |
| Crossley, William J. | Horniman, Emslie John | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Hudson, Walter | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Illingworth, Percy H. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Jardine, Sir J. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Seddon, J. |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Seely, Colonel |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Laidlaw, Robert | Shackleton, David James |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Lambert, George | Shaw, Rt, Hn. T. (Hawick, B.) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lamont, Norman | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Erskine, David C. | Lehmann, R. C. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Levy, Sir Maurice | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Lewis, John Herbert | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Summerbell, T. |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Lyell, Charles Henry | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Findlay, Alexander | Lynch, H. B. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) | Tomkinson, James |
| Gill, A. H. | M'Callum, John M. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | M'Crae, Sir George | Ure, Alexander |
| Glover, Thomas | M'Micking, Major G. | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Menzies, Walter | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Gulland, John W. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Watt, Henry A. |
| Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh. |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh | Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Nicholls, George | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc't'r | Williamson, A. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Winfrey, R. |
| Henry, Charles S. | Paulton, James Mellor | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Higham, John Sharp | Pirie, Duncan V. | |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | |
| Hodge, John | Rainy, A. Rolland | |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Rendall, Athelstan | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Renwick, George |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Craik, Sir Henry | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Cross, Alexander | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Forster, Henry William | Valentia, Viscount |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | |
| Boland, John | Hay, Hon. Claude George | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. James Hope and Mr. Ashley. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Morpeth, Viscount |
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. BRIDGEMAN moved an Amendment to Clause 8 making it lawful for a school board in granting exemption from attendance at school under the Education Act of 1901 to impose as a condition attendance either at a day school, at a continuation class where available, or partly at one and partly at the other, after the age of fourteen years and until such age, not exceeding sixteen 188 years, as the board might think fit. The Amendment was to omit the reference; to fourteen years, and he moved it to draw attention to what seemed to him an opportunity for improvement in the clause, of which he thoroughly approved. As he understood Section 3 of the Act of 1901, the conditions which a school board might impose as the conditions under which exemption was given would 189 only apply to attendance at a day school, and it was obviously intended by Clause 8 of tie present Bill that the child between the years of twelve and fourteen should be able to attend at a day school, or at an evening school, or partly at one and partly at the other, whether its age was twelve, thirteen, fourteen, or fifteen. If it was not intended that the child should attend school at all between twelve and fourteen, then he thought the thing was quite wrong; whilst if it was desired that the child should attend between twelve and fourteen, it seemed eminently clear that the words "after the age of fourteen" were not only not necessary, but misleading. Therefore he moved the Amendment that stood in his name in order that the Secretary for Scotland might explain whether or not under the Act of 1901 attendance at continuation schools was available at all.
§ SIR PHILIP MAGNUSseconded the Amendment in the belief that it would secure an explanation.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 5, line 39, to leave out the words after the age of fourteen years, and.'"—(Mr. Bridgeman.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid the matter was simple, and there was no such difficulty as the hon. Member seemed to find. After the age of fourteen years was reached, the child should be given a somewhat wider discretion as to the choice of opportunities for his education, and therefore it was necessary to insert the words referred to in the Amendment.
§ MR. BRIDGEMANsaid his point was that it might be more convenient and better for a child between the ages of twelve and fourteen to go to an evening school instead of a day school. By putting in the words "after the age of fourteen" that was made impossible.
§ MR. SINCLAIRreplied that if the hon. Gentleman knew the circumstances of education in Scotland he would not say 190 that. The Act of 1901 had been found to work perfectly well, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman there was no ground for his fear of any child under the age of fourteen being able to avoid coming under the conditions of the clause.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ SIR F. BANBURY moved an Amendment to Clause 8 dealing with the penalties to be imposed on persons employing children above the age of fourteen at times when attendance at school or continuation classes is required, or for a greater number of hours than permitted. The Amendment was to modify the clause so that, instead of the penalty in the case of a second or subsequent offence not exceeding £5, it should not exceed 20s. where the conviction recurred at intervals of not less than three months. The hon. Member said he moved the Amendment because under the Act of 1872 the penalty was 20s., and it was provided that the penalty could not be repeated except at recurring periods of three months. There was no provision that on a separate offence the penalty might be increased. In the Act of 1878 an alteration was made and the penalty was increased to 40s., but the same proviso held good, that the penalty could only be inflicted at recurrent periods of three months and could not be increased. He did not know why this alteration should be made and the penalty increased in this particular instance when a child was over fourteen years, seeing that under the Acts of 1872 and 1878, in the case of a younger child, and therefore a worse offence, the penalty was not liable to be increased upon the subsequent offence. He would ask the learned Solicitor-General whether, if a person were convicted of knowingly employing a young person above the age of fourteen, and was fined 20s., it was the intention of the Government if the same person employed another young person over fourteen years of age, that he should be fined £5 because it was a subsequent offence. There was nothing in the clause to provide that the second conviction should involve an increased penalty only if it were for employing the same child as was employed before. As he read the 191 clause, if a person employed a fresh child the penalty was to be increased even to the extent of £5. He presumed that the intention of the Government was that if a person continued to employ the same child after a penalty had been inflicted, an increased penalty might be imposed, though under the section as it stood a larger penalty might be inflicted three or four years after the first conviction, because the same person knowingly employed a child which was not the same as in the first instance. He did not think that could possibly be intended by the Government, and therefore, unless an explanation were given upon the point, he must press the Amendment to a division. He begged to move.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIGseconded.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 6, line 12, to leave out the words from the word 'shillings,' to end of subsection (3) of Clause 8, and insert the words 'and such procedure may be repeated against the same person, or in respect of the same offence, at intervals of not less than three months.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid that really this subsection applied to the case of an employer who was trafficking in child labour. He used the word "trafficking" deliberately, because the subsection so put it that no conviction could follow unless the act was knowingly done. What the Government proposed was that there should be a fine of 20s. in the first instance. If the person took the child into his employ the next week there could not be a more deliberate violation of the statute, and therefore it was quite clear that a substantial penalty should be imposed. The hon. Baronet opposite said, "But suppose after an interval he employs another young person." If he did a second time knowingly traffic in child labour, the House was not going too far in imposing the full penalty.
§ * SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid if it was a serious offence—and no doubt they all agreed that it was a serious offence—for a parent to neglect the education of his 192 child between five and fourteen years of age, was it an offence so much greater if the parent neglected the education of his child between the ages of fourteen and sixteen? Take the case of a widow who had a girl or boy of sixteen years of age; was she to be heavily fined if she "neglected to exercise due care"? What sort of due care could a widow exercise over a sturdy boy of sixteen? If the offence occurred a second time—if, for instance, she had not locked the door or insisted by the threat of some penalty on his going to school, was she to be fined £5? It was possible by increasing these penalties to an absurd extent to make them so ridiculous that they would really fail in effect altogether. The utmost penalty which at present existed, and for which it was not proposed to make any additional penalty under this Bill, for absolutely neglecting the essential education of a child between the ages of five and fourteen was only 40s. Was there any reason, logic, or sound principle, in making a parent, who might have very little influence over a boy of sixteen—they knew what boys of sixteen were—subject to a penalty of £5 if the offence under this clause occurred a second time? For these reasons, and in order to produce a certain harmony between the different Acts of Parliament, he asked the Secretary for Scotland to make some concession.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the expression "trafficking in child labour" no doubt excited the sympathy of the House, although he thought it was somewhat far-fetched when applied to a boy or girl who was willing or anxious to be employed, and who was doing work which was useful or profitable to his or her family. Still, he was quite prepared to admit that if an employer knowingly employed a boy or girl contrary to the law the penalties would not be severe. But it had always been a matter of difficulty about these continuation classes to decide how a penalty for non-attendance could be properly imposed upon a parent or guardian, because a boy of sixteen or seventeen might be quite beyond the control of a widowed mother or an invalid father, and if a parent or guardian failed to exercise this sort of control, which he or she had not the physical power to enforce, it seemed that the penalties 193 proposed were extremely severe. If the penalties could be altered in respect of parents or guardians he should be inclined to ask his hon. friend not to divide on this section.
§ MR. SINCLAIRpointed out that in subsection (4), relating to the neglect of the parent or guardian, a penalty would only be imposed for "wilful default or by habitually neglecting to exercise due care," and that would surely give the protection which the right hon. Gentleman desired.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. SINCLAIR moved an Amendment to insert words to provide that the penalty for a second or subsequent offence should be imposed for an offence "whether relating to the game or to another young person."
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 6, line 13, after the word 'offence,' to insert the words 'whether relating to the same or to another young person.'"—(MR. Sinclair.)
§ MR. JAMES HOPE moved to amend subsection (4) so as to confine the penalties for wilful default or habitual neglect to exercise due care, thereby committing an offence under subsection (3), to parents, and omitting the words "or guardian." Somewhat earlier in the Bill, he said he moved to add the words "or guardian," and he was then told that it was unnecessary because this Bill had to be read in conjunction with the Education Acts from 1872 downwards, and that the definition included guardian. He therefore thought the same expression ought to be used throughout, or it might be construed that a difference was intended.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 6, line 14, to leave out the words 'or guardian.'"—(Mr. J. F. Hope.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
194§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid he saw no objection to the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR PHILIP MAGNUS moved an Amendment to the first subsection of Clause 9 to include in the subjects for which it should be the duty of a school board to make suitable provision of continuation classes for young persons above the age of fourteen, that of the domestic arts. The clause, he thought, was one of the most important in the whole Bill, and the first subsection indicated the subjects of instruction to be given in the continuation classes. Anyone who read the subsection would observe that the subjects of instruction referred rather to the occupations in which young men were likely to be engaged than to occupations in which young women over the age of fourteen were likely to be. His Amendment would definitely indicate that the requirements of women should be as carefully considered as those of men.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 6, line 27, after the word 'practised,' to insert the words 'and the domestic arts.'"—(Sir Philip Magnus.)
EARL OF RONALDSHAY (Middlesex, Hornsey)said that he put a new clause on the paper, relating to military drill, but it was ruled out of order, and, accordingly, he wished to move as an Amendment to the clause in the Bill to insert, in Clause 9, after the word "physical" the words "and in the case of male scholars military." The House would at once see that the object in view was to provide for military drill and instruction in the schools of Scotland. This was a matter to which he and many of his hon. friends attached a very great deal of importance. For his own part he thought the advantages that would accrue from the acceptance of the Amendment were twofold in character; in the first place there was the advantage to the individual and in the second place, the advantage to the State. He believed nobody to-day would deny the extreme 195 importance of physical culture. It was important—almost essential—not from the point of view of the body alone, but from the point of view of the mind as well. The brain of a young child undoubtedly produced better results if working in conjunction with a robust well developed physical frame than it did if the body were weakly and circulation stagnant. The first object therefore of everybody interested in the education of children should be to provide for the simultaneous development of mind and body, to endeavour as a golden rule to obtain in the words of the Latin phrase mens sana in corpore sano. He was of opinion that there was no better exercise for either mind or body than regular military drill and military training. The Secretary of State for War no doubt would correct him if he was wrong, but he believed it was true to say that military drill and exercises as provided by the military authorities at the present time were based on the latest teachings of science and physiology, and were therefore calculated to be productive of the most beneficial results. He did not think anybody would deny that beneficial results accrued from regular training of that kind, and those who had studied the question of the physical degeneration of the people would not deny that even conscription had been advocated in the most unexpected quarters. He did not want for the moment to go so far as that, but it really seemed preposterous that the State, which had taken the education of the children of the country into its own hands, and subjected their minds to a sort of mental incubation, should refuse all responsibility for the development and culture of their bodies. An additional advantage was to be derived from the instruction taking the form of military exercise and training. It lay in the fact that such training inculcated in these citizens in embryo a due sense of their responsibility towards the State as a whole. He appealed with every confidence to hon. Members who sat below the gangway on that side of the House to support his hon. friends and himself in that Amendment. He did so because everyone admitted—and the Secretary of State for War amongst them—that if the Territorial Army scheme 196 now on trial in the country was found wanting there would be no alternative but to resort to conscription. Rightly or wrongly, he did not care to say which, the idea was prevalent that conscription was distasteful to the representatives of labour in the House of Commons, and if that were so hon. Members below the gangway would see that it was to their interest to do everything that lay in their power to make the present Territorial Army scheme a success. He could not conceive of anything better calculated to make it a success than to imbue, the minds of the children of the country with a proper idea of their responsibility towards the State, and encourage them to enlist in that force when they arrived at an age to do so. He wished to say a word or two as to the benefits that would result from the acceptance of his Amendment from the point of view of the State as a whole. He supposed nobody would deny that even at the present day brute force was the ultimate arbiter in the destinies of nations. He noticed that some hon. Members objected to that statement, but surely they were forgetful of recent events. It was only necessary to point to the war in Manchuria, to the struggle for supremacy in South Africa and to other events of modern times to prove that brute force was to-day as in the past, and, he would add, must be for a very long future, the ultimate arbiter of the destinies of nations. That being so it behoved them to do all they could to put our own country in the position of being able, should the need arise, adequately to defend herself against attacks from outside. He desired to point out in that connection that we were at the present time—
§ * MR. SPEAKERI must remind the noble Lord that the subject under discussion is the curriculum of continuation classes.
EARL OF RONALDSHAYsaid he was trying to put before the House the arguments which he thought would have most force in backing up his invitation to support the Amendment. His sole desire was to show the advantages that would be gained by calling upon the school boards of Scotland to make 197 provision for military training and instruction for scholars in these continuation classes. As a Scotsman himself, or very largely a Scotsman, he had been proud of his countrymen in the past, and he was equally solicitous for their honour in the future. He hoped that hon. Members would not lightly reject the Amendment which he had put down and which he believed would do something to make good the rather obvious deficiencies of our military organisation.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 6, line 34, after the word 'physical,' to insert the words 'and in the case of male scholars military.'"—(Earl of Ronaldshay.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ SIR HENRY CRAIKremarked that many arguments might be used in favour of this proposal. It might, for example, be urged with some confidence on the Secretary of State for War how powerful would be the additional assistance given to the great scheme which the right hon. Gentleman said was to make us "a nation under arms," but it was not his intention on the present occasion to urge the acceptance of this proposal as a matter of military organisation. He wished rather to press it as a matter of education. Apart from any question of the advancement and building up of the force created by the Secretary of State for War, he supported the Amendment for the sake of the children themselves. He believed nothing was more important than that they should lay down such a rule, and he would not leave the matter entirely to the school boards, or even to the department which they had heard so vigorously criticised that night, but he would have the training advocated by the noble Lord established as the result of an injunction by the High Court of Parliament. In that way, and in that way alone, could it be properly imposed on every child. Surely the superstition was gone by now that education consisted only of the teaching 198 of books and black-boards, and the acquiring of certain snippets, more or less satisfactory, of information. We of this generation had thought we had done well in adding to it an immense amount of what was called technical education. But surely those who took a deep interest in the question felt that do what they could, what was called education turned to husks in their mouth if there was not something behind it, some training of character. That training of character might come in various ways. They were told it was expressly provided in some of the rules of the department that teaching of the rights of citizenship was to be part of the curriculum, especially, he thought, of the continuation classes. Was it not a duty of citizenship that a boy should be taught to prepare himself to take his part in performing the duties of comradeship and to work with his comrades for his country's good? It was not merely by physical exercises, not merely by the amusements of the playground, but by the instruction of the drill sergeant, the learning of obedience, the training in organised movement, the awakening of the instincts of comradeship, that boys could best be taught the duty of service to the State. He wished to cull a few sentences from the writings of one whom he thought would gain some respect even from the hon. Members below the gangway. The words he was going to road were by Thomas Carlyle, and the House must admit that they were singularly appropriate—
I always fancy there might much be done in the way of military drill withal. Beyond all other schooling, and as supplement or even as succedaneum for all other, one often wishes the entire population could be thoroughly drilled; into co-operative movement, into individual behaviour, correct, precise, and at once habitual and orderly as mathematics, in all, or in very many points—and ultimately in the point of actual military service, should such be required of it! That of commanding and obeying, were there nothing more, is it not the basis of all human culture; ought not all to have it; and how many ever do? I often say, the one official person, royal, sacerdotal, scholastic, governmental, of our times, who is still thoroughly a truth and a reality, and not in great part a hypothesis and worn-out humbug, proposing and attempting a duty which he fails to do—is the drill sergeant who is master of his work, and who will perform it.199 He would conclude by reading one other passage, to his mind equally effective and convincing, from the same author—But now, what is to hinder the acknowledged King in all corners of his territory, to introduce wisely a universal system of drill, not military only, but human in all kinds; so that no child or man born in his territory might miss the benefit of it—which would be immense to man, woman and child? I would begin with it, in mild, soft forms, so soon almost as my children were able to stand on their legs; and I would never wholly remit it till they had done with the world and me.He commended these passages to the House with the conviction that they would appeal to hon. Members. These were the words of a wise teacher. They were words not to be regarded lightly. He was convinced that if they were to make the schools complete, that if they were to realise the ideals of the right hon. Gentleman and were to make the schools schools not only for imparting complete information but also real institutions for the training of character, they must introduce something in the nature of the military training asked for.
§ MR. HALDANEsaid that as the Amendment concerned him in some small degree, he proposed to deal with that side of it with which he was concerned. They were not there to discuss the advantages of physical drill, for that was provided for in the clause and also in the code. They were there to discuss military training, and the idea was that the military training which was to be introduced should stop at the age of seventeen. He knew that the hon. Member and noble Lord who had just spoken wished to promote the endeavours which had been made on both sides of the House to put our military system on a better footing. In his humble judgment, however, they could not deal a more deadly blow at that system than by carrying the Amendment. They were evidently mixing up the different sides of our voluntary system which began by voluntary enlistment at not less an age than seventeen. On that system of voluntary enlistment we were absolutely dependent in this country for a far larger overseas army than any other country was, and we could not get that army except by voluntary enlistment, for it meant 200 a long period of service over-seas for which we could not get men by compulsion. Experience had shown that compulsion applied at an early age, or compulsion under moral persuasion such as sometimes took place hi schools, was the most deadly enemy of voluntary enlistment. It was only by getting people to come forward under the influence of what was sometimes described as military measles that we could get our recruits. He believed that if the Amendment were carried, our existing voluntary system would be placed in great peril. The military training which was proposed could not be in itself adequate. The only point which he wished to emphasise, was that the country which depended on voluntary enlistment for its overseas army, which was vital to the Empire, could deal no more deadly blow at that system than by imposing compulsion which was to stop at the age of seventeen.
§ MR. BARNESsaid that as he had listened to the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment, and to the hon. Gentleman who had seconded it, it had occurred to him that their speeches would have been more appropriate had not the last sentence of the first section of Clause 9 been in the Bill. But that particular part of the Bill provided it shall be the duty of the board—
To make provision for their instruction in the laws of health, and to afford opportunity for suitable physical training.So far as he had understood the speeches of the mover and seconder of the Amendment, they had been directed for nine-tenths of the time to advocating physical training, and there had therefore been no need for the Amendment. The tenth part which had been in favour of military training had, he thought, made out only a very poor case for it. The noble Lord had said that it was necessary to have military drill because he wanted to put into the minds of the boys some idea of their relationship and duties to the State. If they wanted to get that relationship between the boy and the State set up, the State must do its duty to the boy a good deal better than it had done in the past. If that had been done, they on those benches believed that no compulsion would have been necessary. Nothing of 201 the nature contemplated by the mover of the Amendment should be necessary to introduce a proper spirit into the youths of this country. It was perfectly true, as had been stated by the noble Lord, that contests between nations were inevitable. It was unfortunate that that should be the case, but it was true. It was therefore his desire that the youths of the country should be trained as well as it was possible to train them. He wished to remind hon. Members, and especially those among whom he sat, that they had been pleading for the State to do its duty in feeding the children and finding employment for the men. If that were done, they would have done a great deal more to achieve the object of the Amendment than anything in the nature of compulsory military training could do. He and his colleagues on the Labour benches were opposing the Amendment because they thought that it was unnecessary, seeing that the same object could be achieved by providing for the feeding of the children and for employment for the men.
§ MR. ASHLEYsaid that, as he understood the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, it was that if the Amendment were accepted they would be putting distaste for military service into the minds of the young men of the country. His argument had been that compulsion was a bad thing and would give distaste for military service, and that they would therefore have great difficulty in getting recruits for the Regular Army, the Territorial Army, and the Auxiliary Forces generally. He absolutely disagreed with the views which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed. He had been to school at Harrow, where compulsory football was in operation, but nobody would get up in that House and say that those who had been obliged to play football at Harrow would not play it after they had left Harrow and had passed on to the University. People were just as keen to play football whether it was compulsory or whether it was not. They might just as well say that because French and German were compulsory subjects at some schools nobody would speak French or German after they had 202 left school. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the military training which had been suggested would be no use at all to the young men who joined the Army or Auxiliary Forces. He and friends of his who had been drilled when they were at school, though perhaps the drill had not been as efficient as it ought to have been, had found it extremely useful when they had joined the Regular Army or the Militia, and he again therefore disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman when he said that that military training would not be useful in after-life. If the boys in the schools in Scotland were given a certain amount of military training while they were at continuation classes up to the age of seventeen, it would very much improve their physique, and though he did not think military training was as good as physical exercises, he considered that a combination of the two would be most valuable and most useful to the boys when they joined the Regular Army or Auxiliary Forces. The right hon. Gentleman knew how important it was to improve the physique of the young, for he was aware how it was deteriorating. The physique of the young men who came into the Special Reserve now was miserable. The right hon. Gentleman shook his head at that statement. Having seen these young men, he must again disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. They had most valuable instances of the good that could be done by military training furnished by other countries. He himself last year when travelling in Sweden had had the advantage of going over several of the schools where the boys from fourteen to seventeen years of age were receiving military training. They were drilled every day and received instruction in the use of the rifle. Sweden was a most democratic country, and there was therefore nothing inconsistent with a democratic system in that military training. They hoped for the very best results from the adoption of what the Amendment sought to give, and if the noble Lord pressed it to a division he would certainly support him in the lobby.
§ * MR. R. DUNCANthought the quotation from Carlyle which had been read to the House was worthy of the greatest attention, and should carry great weight with the Government. They wanted to 203 inspire the youths of the country with the right spirit. What was it that had given the Japanese their power? It was the military training and the determination to face death if necessary for their nation. Our nation could only hold its place by adopting a system under which a child must be trained up as a citizen of the State, ready to give his life, if necessary, for the State. The Secretary of State for War said that that spirit was not developed by training the youth of the country in the use of arms. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken. What was the experience with other nations? Did they find that when the
| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Davies, David (Montgomery Co. | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Forster, Henry William | Valentia, Viscount |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Younger, George |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheflield) | |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Kincaid-Smith, Captain | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—EARL of Ronaldshay and Sir Henry Craik. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Magnus, Sir Philip | |
| Craig, Captain Jomes (Down, E.) | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Cross, Alexander | Renwick, George |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Dalmeny, Lord | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Dalziel, James Henry | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Hooper, A. G. |
| Agnew, George William | Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Hudson, Walter |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Erskine, David C. | Jardine, Sir J. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Esslemont, George Birnie | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Everett, R. Lacey | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Beale, W. P. | Ferens, T. R. | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Beauchamp, E. | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Lambert, George |
| Beaumont, Hon. Herbert | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Lamont, Norman |
| Bell, Richard | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Fullerton, Hugh | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Gill, A. H. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Boland, John | Glover, Thomas | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Brace, William | Gulland, John W. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh | M'Callum, John M. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Haworth, Arthur A. | M'Crae, Sir George |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Helme, Norval Watson | Menzies, Walter |
| Clough, William | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Clynes, J. R. | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Henry, Charles S. | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Higham, John Sharp | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
§ youths were trained to the use of arms, to face even the possibility of death, their fibre was weakened? No; speaking as an employer he asserted that the nations they had to fear as employers—and it was a wholesome fear—the nations that did better than ourselves, were the nations whose men were ready to give their lives for their country, and who were willing to undergo discipline and were the competitors drilling. Those they had to fear.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Aves, 27; Noes, 124. (Division List No. 371.)
205| Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. | Seely, Colonel | Watt, Henry A. |
| Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Shackleton, David James | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Nicholls, George | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh. |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Pirie, Duncan V. | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Williamson, A. |
| Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh Central) | Strachey, Sir Edward | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Sutherland, J. E. | Winfrey, R. |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th) | Tomkinson, James | |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Ure, Alexander | |
| Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan | |
| Seddon, J. | Wagon, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG moved an addition to Clause 9 making it the duty of a school board to make suitable provision for the teaching of the National Anthem and the emblematic meaning of the national flag. The hon. Member intimated that in consequence of the lateness of the hour he did not intend to advance any of the arguments he had ready in commending the Amendment to the House, but would content himself with appealing to what he felt was the feeling in all parts of the House, even below the gangway, that the youth of the country should be given as many facilities as possible for being taught in early years the National Anthem and the true emblematic meaning of the national flag. He felt sure that the Amendment was such as to commend itself to the whole House without any speech in support.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 6, line 34, at the end, to insert the words 'and for the teaching of the National Anthem and the emblematic meaning of the national flag.'"—(Captain Craig.)
§ Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
§ * MR. J. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)confessed that he found himself in great perplexity as to how he should vote upon the Amendment in view of the very meagre explanation which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had given of the very remarkable proposal which he had upon the Order Paper of the House. He did not understand it. It was proposed to provide for the teaching of the emblematic meaning of the national 206 flag. He believed that the emblem on the national flag of Scotland was a lion rampant, or a lion couchant, or something of that kind, and he would like to know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed to have kindergarten lessons given to the students on the meaning of the different sorts of lions. It might be true that some people rushed in where Scotsmen feared to tread, but the hon. and gallant Gentlemen did not seem to be aware of the fact that from 1816 to 1853, a fierce controversy raged in Scotland as to what the national flag was, and the controversy was not settled yet. A great complaint was made by the people of Edinburgh, and a petition presented to the House, that the Cross of St. Andrew was put behind the Cross of Saint George, and that a great indignity had therefore been inflicted upon the people of Scotland. That protest was subsequently taken up by the Town Council of Brechin and a special inquiry had to be held by the Garter King of Arms, and from that day to this the Garter King had never published his decision. But that was not the only point on which he was obscure. The hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed that no school should receive any grant unless the children had been taught to sing the National Anthem. What was the National Anthem of Scotland? He heard a chorus of: "Scots wha hae?" He had frequently been to gatherings in Scotland political and other, and he found that the meetings finished up with nothing except "Auld Lang Syne," and so far as he could see that was the National Anthem of Scotland. He was seriously afraid that unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman defined his meaning he would be 207 subjected to serious misunderstanding and misrepresentation in Scotland. The people of the country would believe he meant the English National Anthem, and he was sure nothing could be further from his intention than to offer an insult of that sort to the people of Scotland. He also thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman should sweep in front of his own doorstep before he dealt with the affairs of the people of Scotland. He said that because he happened to be in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's constituency in East Down on Trafalgar Day, and he could assure him that the national flag was not flying from any Orange hall, brewery, or distillery in the whole concern. Unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman could see his way either by himself or through some of his friends to offer a concise and intelligent explanation as to what he meant by this Amendment he should be reluctantly compelled to vote against him.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ SIR HENRY CRAIK moved to omit subsection (3) of Clause 9, which made it lawful for a school board to make, vary, and revoke bye-laws for requiring the attendance at continuation classes, until an age not exceeding seventeen years, of young persons above the age of fourteen within their district who were not otherwise receiving a suitable education, or were not specially exempted by the school board from the operations of the bye-laws. The hon. Member said he did not wish to press his Amendment at that time, but he would like the Secretary for Scotland to answer one or two questions. Why was it in this case that the maximum age was seventeen and not sixteen? Furthermore, who was to be responsible, and what penalty would be imposed in the case of a boy over sixteen and under seventeen who did not attend a continuation school?
208
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 7, line 3, to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 9."—(Sir Henry Craik.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'seventeen,' in page 7, line 5, stand part of the Bill."
§ * SIR PHILIP MAGNUSdrew attention to the words "suitable education" in the subsection, and remarked that in Clause 6, upon which so much discussion arose in the earlier part of the debate, the words "efficient education" occurred. He did not vote for the introduction of the word "elementary," although he was not satisfied with the word "efficient." If the right hon. Gentleman could go back and use the word "suitable" instead of "efficient" in Clause 6, it would be an improvement, he thought.
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken would perhaps recollect that in employing the word "efficient" in Clause 6 they were following an earlier Act of Parliament. In this clause they were providing for the establishment of continuation classes, and the words in question were considered by the Committee upstairs to meet the case, and he did not think there was any reason for differing from the decision of the Committee in this respect. In regard to the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities, as to how they were to enforce the clause—
§ SIR HENRY CRAIKWhy seventeen instead of sixteen?
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid it was for this reason: This was not part of the machinery of instruction at present in Scotland. They were asking the school boards to establish continuation classes, and they were giving power to school boards to make bye-laws which would require the attendance of some persons at these continuation classes. Their attendance need 209 not be required until the age of seventeen, but it was eminently desirable that school boards should have a margin of three years, namely, from fourteen to seventeen, to work upon. In some districts circumstances might suggest that continuation classes should not begin until the full age of seventeen. This kind of teaching would involve a school board in considerable expense in the way of staff, accommodation, etc., and it might possibly be that with the margin of three years they might not be able to organise on an efficient scale. It was essential that the age should be left as it was, and he would appeal to the House even at that very late hour not to restrict the clause. It had undergone very careful discussion in Committee. They had looked at it from every point of view, and the Committee had deliberately come to the decision that the clause should stand as it did; and when the House recollected, as it must, that one great cause of unemployment from which the country was suffering at the present time was the absence of instruction and facilities for instruction, of young people between the ages of fourteen and seventeen, which tended to their drifting into the casual labour market, he hoped the House would not in any degree curtail facilities, which were enabling facilities, to school boards to cope with the difficulties with which they had to deal. The penalties to be imposed by the clause, in regard to employers, were set out in subsection (5), and in regard to parents and guardians in subsection (6). They discussed in Committee how far they should hold a parent or guardian responsible for a young person of sixteen who refused to comply with an order requiring his attendance, and those Members who were on the Committee would remember there was a provision that the young person himself or herself should be proceeded against. That, after discussion, was withdrawn from the clause, and they were now left with the powers contained 210 in the two subsections he had mentioned. It must be remembered, too, that these powers would be exercised by the school board with the full knowledge of local circumstances, and he thought that there was every reason to believe that they would be exercised with discretion and judgment.
§ MR. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs)said he had taken no part so far in this debate, and he hoped he might be excused if he intervened for a moment or two. He took a strong line on this part of the clause, when it was dealt with in Committee. He thought then, and still thought, that seventeen was too high an age, and that sixteen was quite high enough. He did not think school boards should have the right or power to require young persons to remain in continuation classes until seventeen years of age, and he could give as an example the difficulty that would have arisen in his own case if his guardians had sent him to a continuation class up to seventeen years of age. Power was taken in a previous clause to keep young people, who had missed one or two years of their educational training, at school until sixteen years of age, and yet in this clause compulsory power was to be given to keep them at continuation classes until seventeen years of age, although they had been at school all the time. That seemed ridiculous. If it had been the other way about there might be some reason for it. He did not, however, think it was any use dividing the House on the question. The right hon. Gentleman would be supported as usual by his battalions who were generally very docile on these questions, but he still thought the age ought to be sixteen and not seventeen.
§ * MR. COCHRANEthought this clause was one which ought to be discussed at considerable length. It established compulsory training up to seventeen for all children. He did not, however, propose 211 to detain the House at that hour, but merely to say that as regards compulsory powers he thought they might do a great deal of harm to continuation classes. He knew many continuation classes in Scotland, and they were attended by boys and girls who got an excellent education from them. If, however, those who went voluntarily and willingly were going to have imposed upon them a certain number who went against their will the classes would be wrecked. To make these classes compulsory would do away, in his opinion, with a great deal of the advantage of the continuation schools and would be detrimental to education in Scotland.
§ MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper to insert sixteen in place of seventeen; but for the reasons which his hon. friend had given he did not propose to move it. Before the Bill took final shape he would like to ask whether it was a desirable thing to make a girl of sixteen walk four miles—two miles each way—along a country road on a winter's evening to attend one of these classes.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. SINCLAIR moved an Amendment to subsection (5) to provide that the penalty in the case of a second or subsequent offence should take effect "whether relating to the same or to another young person."
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 7, line 37, after the word 'offence,' to insert the words 'whether relating to the same or to another young person.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
§ MR. SINCLAIR moved the adjournment of the debate.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—(Mr. Sinclair.)
§ SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somersetshire, Wellington)said he was sure they all welcomed the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, but it should be understood, he thought, that it was made distinctly on the understanding that the debate was to be renewed upon another day, but not a Saturday, and that a full afternoon debate, namely, up to 8.15 o'clock, was to be given for the remainder of this stage of the Bill. The House had been engaged for ten hours on nine clauses of the Bill, and many of the remaining clauses were opposed by hon. Members from Scotland on the Government side of the House, and, therefore, he thought, the Opposition were making a great concession in limiting the debate to the one afternoon. However, hon. Members opposite had been so silent to-day that perhaps they would continue their silence on a future occasion.
§ Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.
§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
§ Adjourned at eighteen minutes before Two o'clock.