§ Amendments reported (according to order).
§ *LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, the Amendment which stands in my name on page 2, line 13, is very simple. It is intended to prevent the unnecessary multiplication of Parliamentary Papers. As the clause stands, a separate Report of all these cases must be made each year; and I propose that they should be done in the Annual Report to Her Majesty, which, as a matter of course, is presented to both Houses.
§ Amendment moved, in Clause 4, Subsection 2, page 2, line 31, to leave out ("report annually to Parliament,") and insert ("publish in their annual Report a list of.")—(The Lord Sandford.)
*THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)I think the object of the noble Lord is really met by the clause as it stands. The Department is not likely to cease to make Annual Reports, and the clause as it is seems to me framed in the best way to carry out all the noble Lord's wishes. I do not wish to alter the clause unnecessarily, and the words really seem to me to carry out the object he has in view.
§ *LORD SANDFORDThe words in the clause, as I understand them, require a separate Report to be made in those cases, and that is the very thing I wish to avoid.
§ *VISCOUNT CRANBROOKI do not agree with this, and I do not wish to alter the Bill in regard to something 88 which I do not think really adds anything to it.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ *LORD SANDFORDThe second Amendment is somewhat different. I think the clause as it stands is based upon a false assumption. It is based upon the assumption that the object of this Bill is to provide as many free places as possible. Now, I think the intention of the Bill is that we should provide only as many free places as are necessary. The clause assumes you will provide as many as possible, because the Department is called upon to report the cases in which they have sanctioned the imposition of fees. The presumption, therefore, is that they are not to sanction the imposition of fees; but are to provide as many free places as possible. By the insertion of the words which I propose, "or refused" the Bill will be impartial, as these words will make it necessary for the Department to publish a Report of the cases, not only in which they have moved unduly in the direction of free education, but of the cases in which, though requested by the parents, as will often be the case, they have refused to sanction the imposition of fees which the parents are both able and willing to pay. I think it would be advisable that you should in this Bill put both the refusal and the sanction of fees upon the same equal and impartial footing.
§ Amendment moved, in Clause 4, page 2, line 32, after ("sanctioned") to insert ("or refused.")—(The Lord Sandford.)
§ *VISCOUNT CRANBROOKI really do not see the necessity for putting this in, although I do not object to it. The list would be merely lengthened a little, and unless there is some objection made in other quarters I shall not object to putting in these words "or refused."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ *LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, I am surprised that the words which I now move to leave out should have remained in the amended copy of the Bill. I am afraid it must have been from some stupidity or want of knowledge of the Forms of the House that I did not move their omission when the Bill was in Committee; but I understood they 89 had been agreed to be left out as a corollary to the similar Amendment made in the earlier part of the same clause.
§ Amendment moved, in Clause 4, Subsection 4, page 3, line 4, to leave out from ("or") to ("population") in line 6.—(The Lord Sandford.)
§ *THE MARQUESS OF RIPONI really hope Her Majesty's Government will not agree to leave out these words. There was no mistake on the last occasion. We quite understood the noble Marquess opposite to say that he would consider this question, and that it would be discussed at this stage of the Bill.
§ *VISCOUNT CRANBROOKNo; on the contrary, I stated distinctly I accepted the Amendment, though I did not think it of importance. I do not know whether noble Lords understood it, but I accepted it openly in the House.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF RIPONThe first Amendment which was put in related to a different matter. This Amendment refers to the question whether the schools which are free are sufficient for the wants of the population. I confess I attach considerable importance to the words of this clause, because, to my mind, they have more than one meaning. My noble Friend (Lord Sandford) the other day, after I had ventured to say that the word "suitable" in the 8th section of the Elementary Education Act had always been regarded by Mr. Forster and myself as bearing some relation to the religious suitability of the school for the class of parents whose children were to frequent it, quoted to your Lordships a circular, which was issued some 20 years ago, at the time I was at the Council Office, in which that definition was not included. I thought my memory must have failed me in that matter, but I referred to the proceedings in the Commission which was presided over by my noble Friend opposite (Lord Cross) a few years ago, and in that Commission I found that this answer was given by the late Mr. Patrick Cumin, the very able Secretary to the Education Department. The noble Lord asked him this question: "You follow what Mr. Forster said in his speech, that he meant by 'efficient' good buildings and good teaching, and that by 'suitable' 90 he meant suitable to the particular religious views of the parents of the children?" to which Mr. Patrick Cumin answered, "Yes, that is so." That may be in the recollection of my noble Friend (Lord Cross), because Mr. Patrick Cumin put a somewhat narrow interpretation upon the extent to which that phrase ought to go; and my noble Friend referred to the question afterwards in some further discussion, in which I confess I thought he had the better of Mr. Patrick Cumin. I am, therefore, entitled to say that the view originally taken of the word "suitable" embraced the suitability of the school in respect to the religious teaching there given, and that the religious atmosphere, as I may call it, was a matter to be considered at the time when you were dealing with the school supply of the district. It is not now a question of supply of schools, but it is a question of supply of free schools, and, therefore, I cannot abandon the view taken in 1870 with regard to the advisability of including in this case the word "suitable," or as it happens in this part of the clause the negative "unsuitable." But there may be other kinds of suitability, no doubt, and one of them is that you may have a large town district, and you may have your free schools all at one end of it, and your not-free schools at the other end of it. They may be just within the three-mile limit no doubt, but, at the same time, it would be only reasonable in a case of that kind that the free schools should be supplied within a proper distance of the home of the parents who require to use them. Underthose circumstances, I should greatly regret to see these words left out. I do not think that their omission will facilitate the discussion of the Amendments in another place, because I am told that these words were deliberately accepted by the Government there. It was understood that they admitted them freely, and it will be regarded as a proceeding somewhat unusual if they are now, without some good reason assigned, omitted from the clause. Under those circumstances, I hope the noble Viscount will maintain the words as they stand.
§ *VISCOUNT CRANBROOKIn regard to admitting the Amendment, though I do not consider this a material Amend- 91 ment, still I do not think it is so material as to make me withdraw from what I said before; but I would just remark in regard to what the noble Marquess has said that under the Public Education Act of 1870 it was not a question of deficiency of free places, but of public elementary schools entirely. It is a public elementary school, when it has these conditions attached to it, as I mentioned before, that it has proper buildings, and that it is within a reasonable distance, and if it has a Conscience Clause it is a suitable school. Under the Elementary Education Act there were certain schools which practically made the question of suitability very important; for instance, there were places in which certified efficient schools, not public elementary, existed without any Conscience Clause at all, and therefore, if there was a population beyond that which used the school, no doubt there was reason for interfering. The noble Marquess shakes his head, but I have referred to the Statute, and have made inquiry, and I find that undoubtedly that was the case; you had to take into account the existing school accommodation, of whatever kind; and if it was accommodation without a Conscience Clause, no doubt there was then a ground for having a School Board and for having interference. In this case no such question arises; this clause deals entirely with public elementary schools, and does not enter into the question of suitable schools of any kind outside the elementary question. That being so, it is in accordance with the Elementary Act, a suitable school.
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYThere was a discussion the other night as to how these words "suitable" and "unsuitable" found their way into the original Bill. I have taken the trouble to inquire into the matter, and I find that neither of these words was in the Bill originally.
§ *VISCOUNT CRANBROOKI believe that was so.
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYBoth of these words were inserted as Amendments in the clause, and there is not the least doubt in the minds of those who have given me information on the subject that considerable importance was attached to these words. They were 92 not in any way considered as the noble Viscount regards them—as of no consequence; and I have very little doubt that the noble Lord opposite sees that by getting rid of these words he is making a considerable change in the clause. The argument as to distance seems to me certainly to be one which ought to be considered. It is quite clear there may be such an arrangement of schools in the district that the provision of free accommodation may, although sufficient in point of numbers, be extremely unsuitable; and I know that for that reason, putting aside altogether the question of religious difficulty, the words are thought by many to be desirable. I do not think that the omission of "suitable" in the former part of the clause necessarily entails the omission of this word here. Although to a certain extent they are related they refer to different things. I do not feel quite so competent to give an opinion upon the religious difficulty as the noble Marquess; but looking to the great and serious difficulties, which have not diminished, with regard to the feelings and sentiments of people of various denominations in this country, I think myself it would be a pity that the requirement of suitability should not be retained, which might possibly enable the Education Department in some cases to mitigate those unfortunate dissensions which we do not desire to see.
*THE BISHOP OF LONDONI should like to point out that one of the arguments of the noble Lord in favour of retaining the word "suitable" is entirely met by the preceding words in the sub-section, because it says "in any school district or any part of a school district," and, therefore, it might very fairly come before the Education Department on the ground that here was a part of the school district which was not sufficiently supplied. I do not think that, using "suitability" in that sense, it is necessary to provide any further; but with regard to the other meaning of the word "unsuitable," I can only repeat what the Lord President has said about the words "suitable" and "unsuitable"—they have always, from 1870 downwards, referred to cases where there was no Conscience Clause, and every public and elementary school has always been dealt with in that way. The 93 reason for my pressing this is because the noble Marquess just now seemed to think the evidence given before the Commission, which I can remember, negatived this view. Now, although it is quite true that Mr. Patrick Coram expressed that view, yet he certainly maintained that public elementary schools were in all cases to be suitable.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ *LORD SANDFORDThe next Amendment, in line 7, is to secure that an inquiry shall be public in cases where inquiry is necessary. In consulting the feeling of a district the inquiry should necessarily be public—that is to say, all persons interested should have notice and should be able to attend the inquiry if they please, and to hear what is said on the other side, as to supplying additional free accommodation. At present public inquiries are held in non-School Board districts, and by this Amendment I propose to secure that public inquiry should be held in any School Board district in which more free accommodation is proposed on the application of the same persons, or may call for such an inquiry in districts not under a School Board.
§
Moved, in Clause 4, page 3, line 7, after ("case") insert—
Which inquiry shall, on the request of the same persons as are entitled under section nine of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, to apply for a public inquiry, be a public inquiry if the district is under a school board."—(The Lord Sandford.)
§ *VISCOUNT CRANBROOKI mentioned in Committee that I would consider this matter between then and now upon an Amendment which the noble Lord introduced. This has been submitted to the Parliamentary draughtsman, and it seems to be an efficient way of dealing with it; and I am quite ready to accept this Amendment as to public inquiry if noble Lords desire it.
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYIs it quite clear that in non-School Board districts there is a public inquiry.
§ *VISCOUNT CRANBROOKYes.
§ Amendment agreed to.
*THE BISHOP OF LONDONMy Lords, in page 3, line 27, in the middle of the second paragraph of Clause 5, I propose to insert words in accordance with what I said when I moved an Amendment to 94 this clause in Committee of the whole House. I moved an Amendment which would have left out from the beginning at the word "provided" down to Section 19 in that paragraph, and substituted for them power in any of these School Boards to associate themselves together and be treated by the Education Department as a single school. The objection was made by the Lord President that this would be practically unworkable. I did not see myself why it should be unworkable, but I undertook to endeavour to propose a different form of dealing with the matter, and what I propose now is to leave what has already been agreed to standing, and to insert words which will bring about in certain cases the result I have mentioned Those words are to the effect that the managers of two or more public elementary schools may agree together, and may, appoint a Committee and draw up a scheme, and that this scheme shall be submitted to the Education Department, and, if approved by them, those schools shall be treated as one school for such purposes as the scheme provides. I believe this cannot interfere with the principle of the Bill in the slightest degree, and I do not see that it will do anything to bring any greater expenditure upon the Government, nor will it in any way impede or retard the provisions for free education; but it will enable voluntary schools in a great many places to readjust their system in such a way that one school shall take one part in that system and another school may take another part. I do not know that anybody has any serious objection to that. I believe the words I have adopted have the approval of the Lord President of the Council, and I ask for their insertion.
§
Moved, in page 3, line 27, after ("section nineteen"), to add as a new paragraph—
("Where the managers of two or more public elementary schools in the same or neighbouring school districts, not being schools provided by a school board, agree to associate, and elect a committee for the schools in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the Education Department, the schools may be treated as one school for such of the purposes of the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1891, as may be mentioned in the scheme, and the committee may for such purposes be treated as the managers of the associated schools,")—(The Bishop of London.)
§ *VISCOUNT CRANBROOKWhen we discussed this question the other day, the noble Lord opposite expressed a very general opinion that it was desirable, if possible, to group schools. I see no way of doing it except by asking for the confidence of the House—that they will trust the Education Department to frame rules for that purpose. It seems to me somewhat difficult to lay down schemes; but if you have sufficient confidence in us, I shall be happy to undertake to do it.
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYIt seems to me to be eminently a matter for the action of the Department, and I think it very desirable.
§ Amendment agreed to.
*THE BISHOP OF LONDONThe next Amendment is that, where two or more schools are under the same managers, I propose to insert, in order to make it perfectly clear, the words "public elementary." It is necessary to insert those words in order to make it impossible that the managers should group with their own public elementary schools of a different character.
§ *VISCOUNT CRANBROOKAgreed.
§ Amendment agreed to.
*THE BISHOP OF LONDONThe last Amendment I have to propose is in Clause 6. The clause appears to me to be very unjust, as I said the other day when I went to a Division on the point, and was defeated; but, at any rate, it seems to me the schools to be dealt with under this clause should be those schools which the Bill, as a whole, deals with, because the Bill, at the very beginning, limits its operations to schools that are not "evening schools"—"not being evening schools" is the expression used in line 12, page 1, and, in order to make the whole thing move pari passu, I think the same rule ought to be applied here, because it is obvious the voluntary schools could not bring in evening schools. They are not within the Bill, and are not assisted. I think we ought to extend it in this particular, when we do not extend it to those schools in other cases.
§ *VISCOUNT CRANBROOKI am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment. It seems to me the evening schools are out of our purview, and the managers deal with those schools as they think proper. The voluntary schools have 96 full power, if they think proper, to make their evening schools free, and there is nothing to interfere with them. Take the case of Birmingham. Birmingham will gain very largely by the fee grants, having had low school fees. Therefore, if they think proper to employ some of the funds they will have in their hands for that purpose, they will be at liberty to do so.
§ Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
§ Bill to be read 3a to-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 257.)