§ Further considered on Report (according to Order).
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE moved to amend Clause 4 so that a local education authority should afford extended facilities where, as the result of a ballot, it appeared the parents of the majority of the children attending the school desired those facilities, and either that there was public school accommodation in schools not affected by a permission given under this section for any child whose parent declared his objection 443 to the facilities, or "that suitable provision would be made in the school or elsewhere giving to the children of those parents who declared their objection to the facilities religious instruction of the character permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870."
The noble Marquess saidMy Lords, the first Amendment stands in my name, and I desire to say a few words as to the reasons which have led me to move it. It is designed to remedy what we regard as a hard case arising under the Bill as it now stands, a hard ease of which, I venture to think, noble Lords opposite will scarcely be found prepared altogether to deny the existence. What that hard case is will best appear to your Lordships if you will be good enough to look at the first sub-section of Clause 4 as it stands in the Bill. You will see that under that sub-section a local education authority is to afford extended facilities under Clause 4 on the following conditions. First, that it appears from the result of the ballot that a sufficient majority of the parents of the children desire that those facilities should be afforded; and, secondly, that there is accommodation in other schools for any child whose parent declares his desire for a different; form of religious instruction.
This is what may happen under the clause as now worded. An application may be made for these extended facilities; the public inquiry is held; the ballot takes place; the sufficient majority is disclosed; but if at the. last moment it proves to be the case that any child whose parent declares his desire for a different form of religious instruction is without accommodation in another school, the extended facilities may not be afforded; so that literally it is in the power of the parent of a single child to, I might almost say, defraud the school of the facilities to which it would naturally and obviously be entitled. I cannot believe that it was the intention of your Lordships' House that the clause should be left in that shape; and so far, at any rate, as I was concerned, I voted for it in the anticipation that I should support Amendments which were put down by my noble friend Lord Cadogan, which would have had the effect of providing for these exacting 444 infants' religious instruction of the kind desired, if not in an alternative school, then in the school itself or in some other place. But as your Lordships remember, Lord Cadogan's Amendment was not pressed to a division, and the clause, therefore, remains in its present extremely inconvenient shape.
I should perhaps point out that the Amendment which I have moved stops far short of the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Cadogan. Your Lordships may recollect that Lord Cadogan contemplated that opportunities for religious instruction should be afforded for a minority comprising children of more than one religious denomination—a result which might, as was pointed out at the time, have led to a certain amount of confusion, and he also contemplated that, where the dissentient minority was a substantial one, there the staff of the school receiving the extended facilities might be recruited with special reference to the needs of the minority. Those stipulations disappear from the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper.
I would now call your Lordships' attention to the precise purport of my Amendment. We desire to cure what we believe to be the defect in the clause by providing that if all the other conditions necessary for obtaining extended facilities are fulfilled, those facilities shall be given if the local education authority is satisfied upon either of two points. The first is that there is alternative accommodation for the child or children in another school, and the second is that suitable provision can be made in the school or elsewhere—and I call the particular attention of the House to this—for giving Cowper-Temple teaching to the child or children of those parents who declare their objection to the facilities which the school seeks to obtain. That is, in our view, a very necessary safety valve; and I must say that it seems to me that if you do not provide it you may find trait the necessity of proving the existence of alternative accommodation will in a very large number of cases place an absolutely insuperable obstacle in the way of a school really entitled to extended facilities.
445 I dwelt just now upon the fact that the religious instruction which we desire to provide for the minority is to be Cowper-Temple teaching, and I will tell the House briefly why we say that. In the first place, if the matter were not so limited, you might find a demand for several different kinds of religious instruction for the children of whom the minority is composed. That might have inconvenient results, but, apart from that, we think it reasonable to say to the parents of the minority, "You must be content if you get for your children that kind of religious instruction which you would be entitled to get if the school failed altogether to obtain extended facilities." We get over in that way the difficulty which was apprehended in regard to the teaching of a multiplicity of religious. We allow only for Cowper-Temple teaching, and we allow for that teaching only, remember, if the local education authority is satisfied that the circumstances admit of what is described in the Amendment as suitable provision for giving that kind of teaching. That is to say, the local education authority is perfectly free to say, "We have looked into the circumstances of this school, and, owing to the peculiarity of those circumstances, we re-grot to find that suitable provision cannot be made." Then the whole thing falls through, and the extended facilities cannot be obtained. We believe that this proposal, thus limited and carefully guarded, is a wholly innocuous one, and that it will be, if adopted, the means of remedying an unintentional defect, I think I may say, in the Bill as it now stands, and of relieving the children of the minority of the undoubted hardship which would be occasioned to them were some step not taken to prevent this injustice being done.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 4, line 18, after the words 'and' to insert the word 'either'; in line 21 to leave 'out from the word 'his' to the end of line 23, and 'to insert the words' objection to the facilities; or (c) that suitable provision will be made in the school or elsewhere giving to the children of those parents who delare their objection to the facilities, religious instruction of the character permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870." — (The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE)My Lords, some of us on this side of the House thought that the faculty of astonishment had been exhausted by some of the Amendments placed on the Paper at previous stages of this Bill from different parts of the House, but I am bound to say that the fact that this particular Amendment should have been moved by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition at this stage revives that emotion in its most acute form. All I can say is that I trust that before this particular olive branch is transmitted to another place your Lordships will subject it to a very severe examination in order to see what the effect of the noble Marquess' Amendment really would be. As regards the first part of the Amendment, it is quite true that the words as they stand in paragraph (b) of Clause -1 would not have effected his purpose, or, I think, anybody's purpose, hut the noble Marquess will remember that they are not our words. They were inserted by noble Lords opposite in place of our much more harmless words.
I pass from that to consider what the substance of the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess is. The claim of the noble Marquess and of the most rev. Primate, who we are sorry is still absent from our debates, all through has been that they have not altered the substance of the Bill, and that all they have done is to enforce our declared intention to make the facilities offered under the Bill real and genuine, and the noble Marquess spoke of the misrepresentation to which he and his friends had been subjected outside this House on that point. They were quite unwilling to admit that the substance of the Bill was in any way altered. But when you proceed to apply the Clause 4 plan to an entirely different class of schools it is really playing with words to say that you are doing nothing to alter the structure of the Bill.
What are the effects which the noble Marquess' Amendment would have upon our clause? If Cowper-Temple teaching is to be given in the school it operates in one way against what I should have thought would be the wishes o a great many who would conduct these Clause 4 447 schools—it would prevent their being homogeneous schools, and it would destroy their special atmosphere and special character. On the other hand, the minority, instead of finding accommodation in some other school, may be obliged to be subjected to the whole religious atmosphere of the school, which, other things being equal, they might desire to avoid; or if you are going to find this accommodation for Cowper-Temple teaching outside the school, you subject the minority to some considerable inconvenience. In every case you oblige the minority to exercise the conscience clause under circumstances of considerable difficulty.
But, my Lords, after all, the point is not so much what will happen in urban schools. I want noble Lords to consider what will be the effect of this clause upon rural schools in single school areas. There is nothing whatever that I can see in the noble Marquess' clause to prevent its provisions applying to a vast majority of the village schools of England. All that has to be done in such a village school is to find two-thirds of those who vote willing to declare for a Clause 4 school. Undoubtedly in the case of village schools in many parts of England those conditions could largely be complied with, and the minority might receive Cowper-Temple teaching in a class-room, or some friendly farmer might lend a room, or some other accommodation might be found in the village. The effect would be that this single area school, the type of school for which Clause 3 was devised and where by common consent of noble Lords opposite there has existed a Nonconformist grievance—this school would be carried on as a Clause 4 school, with its definite Church instruction five days a week.
I really wonder whether the noble Marquess, in devising his clause, contemplated that that state of things was likely to arise. It seems to me that from that point of view this Amendment is a more objectionable one than that of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, which noble Lords opposite would not accept. That Amendment provided for five days facilities, but it did leave the appointment of the 448 teacher on the Clause 3 terms, and it did not do what the noble Marquess' Amendment certainly will do, provide for the turning of a great number of these single area parish schools into Clause 4 schools with all the advantages and privileges and the difficulty about the minority which necessarily belong to those schools. The noble Marquess says it all rests with the local authority, but the local authority, I take it, under the noble Marquess' Amendment, would be expected to give this leave if suitable provision in the shape of class-rooms or some such accommodation were given. In any case, there is no reason for giving a local option in this particular kind of matter; that is to say, for leaving a local authority with strong Church views to turn a great majority of these village schools into Clause 4 schools, whereas a local authority of a different kind might decline to give that leave. I cannot help once more asking the noble Marquess whether he has really considered all these points; and if he would agree to withdraw the clause at this stage and give some consideration to what I have said as to the effect of this Amendment upon rural areas, I verily believe he would not bring it up again on the Third Reading of the Bill.
§ LORD BELPERsaid that he had objected to Lord Cadogan's Amendments giving facilities to all denominations, because it was putting a duty on the local authority which could not be fulfilled, and making them responsible for the teaching of all sorts of religion demanded by the minority. It seemed to him perfectly novel to make the local education authority responsible for different sorts of religious teaching, and he felt that it would be quite impossible in practice to work such a provision satisfactorily. But he had not the same objection to the proposal that Cowper-Temple teaching should be provided in a Clause 4 school. The local authority was already responsible for providing such teaching in every council school. It seemed to him that the greater part of the noble Earl's argument went to the two-thirds Amendment which had been already carried. Nearly the whole of the noble Earl's argument rested on the point that there would be an enormous number of schools where there 449 might be a two-thirds majority wishing for the special facilities, and that if it were provided that those facilities should be given in all cases where provision could be made for the minority to have undenominational teaching it would increase the number of Clause 4 schools. It seemed to him that the noble Earl had argued against the minority being provided with any religious education at all. He thought it was very hard to argue that, because two-thirds of a school were to have a special denominational teaching, therefore the rest of the school were to have no religious teaching at all, because that practically would be the effect. They had arrived at an impasse with regard to the arguments that had been used. He did not wish to give any vote which would have the effect of extending Clause 4 schools beyond the purpose for which they were intended, but, so far as he understood the Amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, its only object was to afford reasonable facilities for the religious teaching which the local education authority had to give those children who were left in the school and who could not accept the religious teaching of the majority of the school.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONsaid that the Lord President had not attempted to meet the grievance in those cases where one or two children might be a bar to Clause 4 facilities being given to a school. It would generally be impossible to find an alternative school for the minority. He had always recognisad the Nonconformists' grievance, and in Spitalfields, where it was discovered that there were some 100 Jews, the Church itself invited the Jewish Rabbi to come in and deal with that minority. He wished that the clergy had always, where the, grievance; was felt, met it by inviting the Nonconformist minister to give religious instruction to the Nonconformist children. What the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition now j proposed was that what was done voluntarily in Spitalfields should be carried out generally, and that the minority should have the teaching their parents desired.
* LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that noble Lords did not realise the effect 450 of the Amendment. They talked as if they were entitled to have a Clause 4 school in every single-school district, and as if they doing a kindness in providing for the minority. The noble Marquess proposed that in a single-school district the children of dissentient parents should be sent somewhere outside the school, during the time set apart for religious instruction, and this was described as an opportunity to give them religious teaching. The Clause 4 schools had been asking for an "atmosphere." How, then, did hey propose to meet the case of children to whom this special atmosphere was objectionable They were to be made to breathe it for nine- tenths of the day, and to be sent elsewhere for one-tenth of the day to get a little fresh air. The proposition was preposterous.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that the Bill as it stood did not fulfil the desires of any one, and the President of the Council did not propose an alternative. What could the noble Earl suggest? One child could prevent a Roman Catholic school from being started any- where. They were all agreed that that was not satisfactory. It seemed to him that the Amendment was a just one.
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid that if the Government rejected this Amendment they refused the right to two-thirds of the. parents to have the religious teaching that they desired for their children. The Amendment was only doing that which made Clause 4 operative in regard to a class of schools which it was the desire to create, and it was a subject of common notoriety that those who cared for Church teaching had been willing that the Nonconformists should have every facility in the Church schools. The Government objected to anything which gave a right to the parents to have the religion taught that they wished, and he maintained that they should have some little regard for the "atmosphere" surrounding the minority in undenominational schools.
The Marquess of RIPON and the Marquess of SALISBURY both rising to address the House, the Lord Privy Seal gave way.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid he was very glad that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House was about to address their Lordships, because he might remedy a deficiency in the otherwise very skilful speech of the noble Earl the Lord President. Several speakers had pointed out that, notwithstanding that the noble Earl had criticised the Amendment, he had, though the Minister in charge of the Bill, abstained altogether from defending the provisions of the measure itself. The Bill as it stood when it reached their Lordships' House was in this respect absolutely unworkable. He did not, however, desire to go back into those old controversies. Nobody pretended that the ballot, as the noble Earl had proposed it to their Lordships, with paragraph (6), could have been worked, because the provision involved a revelation of who had voted in the ballot. That provision had disappeared in Committee.
But that was not the only respect in which the Government's proposal was unworkable. His noble friend the Leader of the Opposition had put to the noble Earl the difficulty. It was not a rural difficulty or an urban difficulty; it belonged to both. They might have a school, say, of 500 children, which fulfilled in every respect the conditions necessary to make it a Clause 4 school. There was, however, one child the parent of which demanded alternative accommodation, and, if there was no alternative accommodation outside the school, thereupon, said the Government, the remaining 499 children were to be denied all the advantages of a Clause 4 school. The case could be put even more strongly. A school such as he had described might have become a Clause 4 school; there might have been unanimity among the children, and the school might have continued a Clause 4 school for four, five, or even ten years. The whole school would have been organised on a Clause 4 basis, and everything would have proceeded on that foundation. It might be a Roman Catholic school. The Roman Catholic population of the district would gradually collect around it, but after it had continued, say, for ten years, a Nonconformist parent might suddenly come to live in the district. He would be 452 compelled under the Act of Parliament to send his child to that school. He would demand the alternative accommodation, and the whole of the system which had been continued to the satisfaction of all concerned for, perhaps, ten years would have to be cast aside and the school reduced to the level of a Cowper-Temple school.
He maintained, with absolute confidence, that a provision capable of working in any such way was ipso facto condemned, and could not be defended before Parliament. When his noble friend the Leader of the Opposition put the case generally it did not earn one syllable of notice from the noble Earl; he had, therefore, put the ease in detail. He held that the Bill was wholly unworkable. If the Bill remained in the form in which the Government desired it, let them conceive the pressure which would be exercised. In a district in which there was no alternative accommodation, in which the population desired to be on the Clause 4 basis, there might be a recalcitrant minority. He asked the House to conceive the pressure that would be put on the local authority to build a school to accommodate those children. Were their Lordships prepared to pass a provision which would involve such pressure on the local authority? He also asked their Lordships to realise the pressure that would be put on Nonconformist parents. Let them imagine the case of a school in which there was a small minority of Nonconformist children. A majority of two-thirds desired the Clause 4 system, but there was, however, a minority, and there was no alternative accommodation outside the school. Their Lordships would realise the sort of pressure that would be brought to bear on those parents. People would go to them and say, "Surely you are not going to make a row and upset us all. Surely you are going to accept the Clause 4 system, and are not going to demand alternative accommodation. You will put up with the teaching rather than cause your neighbours extreme inconvenience." That was the kind of pressure that would be exercised on the Nonconformist minority, and those noble Lords who believed in the tyrannous oppression of the squire and 453 the parson would no doubt add a number of details of how the squire and the parson under those circumstances would behave, although, for his part, he was not prepared to endorse such charges.
Under the system of his noble friend there would be no such pressure. The thing would be perfectly easy. What would be said to the Nonconformist minority would be this, "Of course, you are entitled to choose instruction which will suit you. We will provide Cowper-Temple religion for you, and you will in that way suffer no grievance if we place this school on a Clause 4 basis." Surely that was a far better system than that proposed by His Majesty's Government, which would involve unfair pressure on the Nonconformist minority. One speaker on the other side had referred to the grievance of the Nonconformist minority's being compelled to remain in the denominational atmosphere. He thought their Lordships knew full well that noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House were prepared to do everything in their power to minimise as far as possible any grievance which the, minority might put forward. If the Government had some way of protecting the interests of the minority better than the Amendment moved by Lord Lansdowne he invited them to state it. So long as the rights of the majority were recognised, by all means let the minority have every relief that it was possible for Parliament to afford. The noble Earl had said that under Lord Lansdowne's Amendment there was no advantage, or very little ad- vantage, in the elasticity given by the word "suitable," because some local education authorities would avail themselves of that word in order to exercise the powers under this provision largely, and others would, on the other hand, exercise them narrowly, and so they would j have differences of administration. And this from a Government which professed to believe in trusting the local education authority The Government had all through pressed the necessity of fully trusting the local education authority. Noble Lords on the Opposition side were prepared to trust the local education authority, while maintaining the rights of the majority in this matter of religious education, to do what they could to 454 secure to the minority all they could legitimately ask. He hoped the House would accept be Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDexpressed his surprise that this Amendment should be moved. The whole plea in the earlier part of the debates was that it was absolutely necessary for the schools under consideration that they should have a distinctly denominational atmosphere. That being the nature of those schools, surely every fair-minded man must see that it would be a great hardship on the minority of children in those schools if they were set up in such a way that they had no choice of attending any other school. His own belief was that the great mass of moderate Churchmen outside politics would have nothing to do with these schools, but would prefer the plain, open atmosphere outside. It was said that the arrangement to accommodate the minority inside the school would be a self to the rates, but the Amendment turned the whole arrangements of the Bill upside down. The representatives of the people could not look at such an Amendment. He was sorry the most rev. Primate was absent, because he could hardly imagine his well-balanced mind agreeing to this Amendment. It would be a positive misfortune if it were carried Even the Bishop of Oxford could hardly support it. His right rev. brother pleaded eloquently the other night, and gave a doleful picture of Church children in ordinary facilities schools having on three days a week to be taught by a Baptist schoolmistress. If that was such a hardship, what were they to say of all these schools in which there was to be this denominational atmosphere or influence all the time? He regarded the noble Marquess' Amendment as one of the most wrecking Amendments which had been put before the House. If it were any use, he would plead with the noble Marquess not to press the Amendment to a division. There must be many noble Lords opposite who were desirous to arrive at an accommodation with another place; and they must feel great misgivings about this Amendment, and he hoped they would vote against it.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON)My Lords, this 455 Amendment is no doubt a very important one. It strikes, as it seems to me, at the very heart of the Bill. I have always imagined up to this time that it was agreed on all sides that there was a marked distinction between the cases of districts in which there was a choice of schools and the cases of single school districts. This is the first hint we have had from noble Lords opposite that they desire to extend the facilities granted under Clause 4 to single school districts. When His Majesty's Government placed Clause 4 in the Bill they did so with the distinct intention that it should be confined to districts in which there was a choice of schools; and in accordance with the fundamental principles upon which this Bill has been founded, in accordance with every declaration that His Majesty's Government have made upon this subject, it is wholly impossible for them to accede to so vital and extreme a change in the Bill as is involved in the Amendment of my noble friend opposite. I confess that I have been greatly surprised at the appearance of this Amendment, because I have always thought that it was agreed on all hands that the cases of single school districts was altogether different and altogether apart from the cases of districts where there were more than one school.
I have long come to the conclusion that it was a great error in the Act of 1870, to which I was a party, that it did not make that distinction, and that it dealt with single school districts in the same way as other districts were dealt with. I believe I took the liberty of stating that opinion some years ago in this House. I held it then, and I hold it now, and I do entreat your Lordships to hesitate before you deviate from what up to this time I believe has generally been understood to be an agreed matter. I am not in the smallest degree accusing noble Lords opposite of any breach of faith; but I always thought that the difference between these two classes of schools was admitted, and that they were to be treated differently. Clause 4 is suitable to those districts where there is a choice of schools; it is not suitable to those districts where that choice does not exist. The passing of this Amend- 456 ment will have a grave effect upon the deliberation which the Bill will receive in another place, and I exhort your Lordships not to accept it.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARKpointed out that the noble Marquess had sat down, following the example of the Lord President, without saying one single word to meet the principal point of the attack. They were assured by those who looked carefully to the wording of the clause that the effect of proviso (b) was such that it deprived Clause 4, or went very far towards doing so, of all effective value whatever. In the absence of even the shadow of a suggestion from either the Lord President or the Leader of the House of any alternative method of meeting this great grievance, which, if left unsettled, would knock the bottom out of the special facilities, there was no other course but to go to a division on the Amendment.
§ THE DUKE or DEVONSHIREI do not understand that any Member of the Government who has yet spoken has stated exactly how the Government desire to deal with this clause. It is agreed, I believe, on all hands that the form in which it stands, as amended in Committee, is not satisfactory either to the Government themselves or to those who sit on this side of the House, and I presume that it would be the proposal of the Government to revert to the original form of the clause. I understand that the objection taken on this side of the House to the wording of the clause as it originally stood was that the existence in a school of a single child of a different denomination, with the absence of alternative accommodation for that child elsewhere, would prevent the local authority from granting the special facilities to that school. I do not think it was the intention of the Government that the existence of a very small minority who might possibly be put to some slight inconvenience, not because there was no possible accommodation, but because it would be inconvenient for them to obtain that accommodation, should be a bar to the granting of extended facilities. Perhaps 457 the Government will state at all events what their intention is with regard to this matter.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI can only speak again, of course, with the indulgence of the House, but I should like to say that it certainly is not our intention that where in practice all the conditions are fulfilled the existence of one extremely inconvenient child should be used to alter the whole character of the school. But, of course, what we say is that as a matter of fact it is very hard to believe that in districts where there are a number of schools—and it must be remembered that we do not intend these schools to be applied in any other districts—such a state of things would arise. As a matter of practice it would be found that the normal average of children would be provided for in the cases which we contemplate. It is perfectly true that in the case contemplated by the noble Marquess Lord Salisbury they would certainly not be provided for.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI contemplated all the cases.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEWell, in a very large number of the cases contemplated by the noble Marquess.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIf the noble Earl thinks that I regarded this question as confined to rural schools he is very much mistaken. There are a number of cases in urban districts where the difficulty would equally arise.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEWe have had nodata as to that from noble Lords opposite. I can only say that it is not our opinion that difficulties will arise. We believe that in the vast majority of cases, if not in all, accommodation for the minority will be forthcoming elsewhere. I admit that in one sense the reduction of the number to two-thirds may have added to that difficulty, but that cannot be put down to our fault. We can only defend the Bill as it was introduced and as we voted in the course of the discussion. I am perfectly willing, in reply to the noble Duke, to 458 consider whether it is possible to meet the point raised in any other way. But it is altogether impossible that in any circumstances we could agree to the clause as proposed to be amended by the noble Marquess opposite.
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREDo you propose to revert to the clause as it originally stood?
THE EARL OF OREWEYes. and to consider whether any words could be added to meet the noble Duke's point.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLKsaid the Amendment was intended to meet what was one of the most serious blots on the Bill. Paragraph (b) rendered Clause -A a fictitious boon from every point of view. The question was grappled with in Committee, but very often their Lordships found themselves in a certain amount of fog and perplexity and somehow the sub-section rode through the storm triumphant. It was, therefore, necessary at this stage of the Bill to deal with the matter. In the great town of Preston, for instance, it would be impossible, as the clause now stood, to have a Clause 4 school, and there were many other towns similarly situated. The Amendment aimed at carrying out the avowed intentions of the promoters of the Bill that the special facilities should be Teal and effective.
§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI, too, can only address the House again by your Lordships' indulgence. I merely wish to call attention to two or three matters of fact. In the first place, the noble Earl the Lord President and the noble Marquess the Leader of the House had not attempted to deny that the grievance which this Amendment is intended to deal with is a grievance which has existence. In the next place, neither the noble Earl nor the noble Marquess have been able to suggest any mode of dealing with that grievance. That being so, our plan holds the field, and in my view it would be well that we should divide upon the Amendment. But I wish to add that if, between now and the last stage of the Bill, the Lord 459 President is able to bring up words that will deal with the point effectually and deal with it in his view more appropriately than my words, I for one should be ready to consider them with an open mind. At present, however, I do not care to let go this Amendment until I know what is to take its place.
§ On Question, "That the word 'either' be there inserted," resolved in the affirmative.
§ On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 131.
461| CONTENTS. | ||
| Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Burghclere, L. | Joicey, L. |
| Crewe, E. (L. President.) | Colebrooke, L. | Loch, L. |
| Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.) | Coleridge, L. | Lyveden. L. |
| Courtney of Pen with, L. | Monkswell, L. | |
| Beauchamp, E. | Davey, L. | Monson, L. |
| Carrington, E. | Denman, L. [Teller.] | O'Hagan, L. |
| Chesterfield, E. | Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) | Pirrice, L. |
| Chichester, E. | Reay, L. | |
| Craven, E. | Eversley, L. | Rendel, L. |
| Kimberley, E. | Farrer, L. | Sandhurst, L. |
| Lytton, E. | Fitzmaurice, L. | Saye and Sele, L. |
| Portsmouth, E. | Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.] | Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.) |
| Stanley of Alderley, L. | ||
| Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.) | Grimthorpe, L. | Tweedmouth, L. |
| Selby, V. | Hamilton of Dalzell, L. | Wandsworth, L. |
| Haversham, L. | Weardale, L. | |
| Hereford, L. Bp. | Headley, L. | |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) | Nelson, E. | Ardilaun, L. |
| Bedford, D. | Northesk, E. | Armstrong, L. |
| Newcastle, D. | Onslow, E. | Ashbourne, L. |
| Richmond and Gordon, D. | Plymouth, E. | Ashcombe, L. |
| Rutland, D. | Rothes, E. | Atkinson, L. |
| Sutherland, D. | Saint Germans, E. | Barnard, L. |
| Scarbrough, E. | Belhaven and Stenton, L. | |
| Bath, M. | Shaftesbury, E. | Blythswood, L. |
| Cholmondeley, M. | Stamford, E. | Borthwick, L. |
| Lansdowne, M. | Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) | Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery). |
| Salisbury, M. | Verulam, E. | Braybrooke, L. |
| Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] | Braye, L. | |
| Amherst, E. | Burton, L. | |
| Ashburnham, E. | Bridport, V. | Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.) |
| Bathurst, E. | Churchill, V. [Teller.] | Clifford of Chudleigh, L. |
| Camperdown, E. | Colville of Culross, V. | Colchester, L. |
| Carnwath, E. | Falkland, V. | De Mauley, L. |
| Cathcart, E. | Goschen, Y. | Digby, L. |
| Coventry, E. | Halifax, V. | Dunboyne, L. |
| Dartrey, E. | Hardinge, V. | Ebury, L. |
| Devon, E. | Hill, V. | Ellenborough, L. |
| Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuchand Queensberry.) | Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) | Estcourt, L. |
| Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.) | ||
| Eldon, E. | Iveagh, V. | Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.) |
| Essex, E. | Kuntsford, V. | Forester, L. |
| Feversham, E. | Llandaff, V. | Gage, L. (K. Gage.) |
| Gainsborough, E. | St. Aldwyn, V. | Glenesk, L. |
| Guilford, E. | Harris, L. | |
| Haddington, E. | Bangor, L. Bp. | Hatherton, L. |
| Halsbury, E. | Chester, L. Bp. | Kelvin, L. |
| Huntingdon, E. | Liverpool, L. Bp. | Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.) |
| Ilchester, E. | London, L. Bp. | Kenyon, L. |
| Kilmorey, E. | Oxford, L. Bp. | Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) |
| Lauderdale, E. | St. David's, L. Bp. | Lawrence, L. |
| Lindsey, E. | Salisbury, L. Bp. | Leith of Fyvie, L. |
| Lucan, E. | Southwark, L. Bp. | Llangattock, L. |
| Mar and Kellie, E. | Macnaghten, L. | |
| Morley, E. | Addington, L. | Michelham, L. |
| Mount Edgcumbe, E. | Ampthill, L. | Middleton, L. |
| Moncrieff, L. | Redesdale, L. | Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde) |
| Muncaster, L. | Robertson, L. | Stalbridge, L. |
| Newlands, L. | Rothschild, L. | Stanmore, L. |
| North, L. | Saltoun, L. | Stratheden, and Campbell, L. |
| Oranmore and Browne, L. | Sanderson, L. | Teynham, I. |
| Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) | Shute, L. (V. Barrington.) | Zouche of Haryngworth. L. |
| Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.) | Sinclair, L. |
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ On Question, "That those words be there inserted," resolved in the affirmative.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThe next Amendment is to insert, after the word "school," the words "for facilities for religious instruction of a like special character." That is to meet a curious little point that was suggested, namely, that it would be possible, after facilities had been asked for the majority, or even before, for the parents of a small minority, if that minority reached twenty, to come forward and ask for the facilities, knowing that they could not get them, but with a view of preventing anybody else getting them.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 4, line 33, after the word 'school' to insert the words 'for facilities for religious instruction of a like special character.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThe next Amendment is also of a formal character. Under the present words extended facilities cannot be given if any rent is paid. It is thought that in some circumstances trustees might find it difficult to forego rent in order to get the extra facilities, and these words enable them to do so.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 4, line 41, after the wore 'school' to insert the words, 'and the owners of the school house shall have power to forego the payment of any rent payable under any arrangement or order while extended facilities are so afforded.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThe next Amendment is to leave out Clause 5. I think it is generally agreed that in view of the more or less kindred Amendments which have been placed on the Paper the House will desire to leave out Clause 5. But it will be better, I think, to postpone 462 any discussion on that point until we reach the new clauses. I therefore formally move that the clause be omitted.
§
Amendment moved—
To leave out Clause 5."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsubmitted that there was one part of Clause 5 which ought not to be omitted. Their Lordships would remember that in Committee a very useful Amendment was introduced by Lord Ashbourne giving an appeal to the owners against the action of the local education authority under Clause 4. The Amendments which their Lordships bad just passed had largely extended the possible action of the local education authority. It would rest with the local education authority to say whether or not there was alternative accommodation in other schools in the area. It would rest with them to say whether suitable provision in the school or elsewhere could be provided. So far as he could see there was no appeal in the Bill from the decision of the local education authority. A per-verse or hostile local education authority might decide these points wrongly, and, if so, the right to facilities was gone. He did not see that that point was covered by anything in the proposed new clause of the noble Earl, even as amended by the noble Duke. It was confined to cases where there was a failure to agree between the owners and the local education authority, but there was no appeal against a decision of the local education authority that there was no right to facilities because the conditions of Clause 4 were not complied with. He thought the provision inserted on the Motion of Lord Ashbourne was a very valuable one in this direction. These points admitted of great diversity of opinion, and there should be some means of redressing a, mistake on the part of the local education authority. He hardly thought it 463 was intended to leave this matter entirely in the discretion of the local education authority. The effect of the clause as it stood was that the local authority had almost complete discretion to decide whether or not a school should be admitted to Clause 4 facilities at all. He held that any error or miscarriage of justice on their part ought to be capable of redress. It was not a matter for the Commission, but one for the Board of Education to settle. He hoped the noble Earl the Lord President: would consent to repeal only sub-sections (3) and (4) of Clause 5 and allow sub-sections (1) and (2), which dealt fully with this question of appeal from the local education authority, to remain in the Bill.
LORD ASHBOUENEthought the course proposed by the Lord President, to omit Clause 5 and take the discussion on the Amendments to Clause 9, would be the most convenient. He trusted that the noble and learned Viscount who had just spoken would consent to that view. He thought his noble and learned friend had failed to notice an Amendment which had been inserted at the end of the first paragraph of the first sub- section to Clause 4, which enabled the Board of Education to decide any case in dispute. This would, he thought, cover the point.
THE EARL OF CKEWEThe noble and learned Lord who has just sat down is quite right in thinking that the noble and learned Viscount's point is covered by the Amendment to Clause 4. In these circumstances I think it would be better to delete Clause 5, at any rate provisionally, and proceed. It will, of course, be open to the noble and learned Viscount to raise the point again if he thinks it is not covered by the words referred to.
§ LORD DAVEY moved to leave out Clause 6 (provision of new schools with facilities for special religious instruction). It was not, he said, his intention to trouble the House with any discussion of the abstract merits of the proposal contained in the clause. Their Lordships would remember that the clause 464 was inserted towards the end of a sitting in Committee at the instance of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and after a long discussion on another clause, and that the particular terms of this clause and the mode in which the proposal contained in it was intended to be carried into effect did not receive much, or, he thought, any discussion from their Lordships. He ventured to submit that the terms of the clause as it stood, whatever might be the abstract merits of it, were such that it was not one which could find a place in this Bill, its provisions being contrary both, to the letter and to the spirit of the Bill.
§ His first objection to the clause was that it substituted the Board of Education for the local education authority in the exercise of some of the most important functions of that authority The Board of Education was to determine whether a school was required, and if the Board of Education determined that the proposed school was required it was to direct the local education authority to take it over. That appeared to him to he putting aside altogether the local education authority, and substituting for it the Board of Education. It enabled the Board of Education to impose on the local education authority the charge and the maintenance of a school which the local education authority thought was unnecessary or did not furnish the best means of providing school accommodation.
§ Nothing had surprised him more in these debates that the distrust which some of their Lordships and some right rev. Prelates had shown of the local education authority established by the Act of 1902. In this case the 'local education authority was entirely set aside, and had to act under the direction of the Board of Education. He maintained that it was the right and duty of the local education authority under the Act of 1902 and previous Acts to say whether additional school accommodation was required, and, if so, how it should be provided, whether by enlarging existing schools or by building new schools, or, if new schools were required, on what sites they should be erected, and whether those schools 465 should be large or small. On the other hand, it was the right and duty of the local authority to protect the public moneys under their charge and administration from any unnecessary burden.
§ He maintained that so long as the local authority exercised its judgment in good faith in matters within its jurisdiction, no interference ought to be permitted from an outside body. That was the principle which he had always understood had hitherto actuated Ministers for Education in dealing with these matters. This clause, however, enabled a Minister of the Crown to impose a new charge and the maintenance of a new school upon a local authority. That was a reversal of what had up to the present time been the policy of Parliament in respect to local authorities, and the policy which was intended to be carried out in this Bill. He ventured to submit that it was unfair to the Minister. He would not for one moment suggest that a Minister of the Crown would be actuated, in dealing with these matters, by any other than public motives, but their lordships must be well aware that the Minister would be open to unfounded attacks for favouring one class of opinion in a particular locality. He thought Ministers ought to be protected from any suspicion of partiality of that kind.
§ His next point was that the proposal was contrary to the letter and spirit of the Bill. The first clause of the Bill provided that a school should not be recognised as a public elementary school unless it was a school provided by the local education authority. How could anybody suggest, according to any fair use of language, that a school provided under the circumstances contained in Clause 6 would be a school provided by the local authority? He admitted that the Board of Education had to take into consideration a number of things, and he observed that Viscount St. Aldwyn proposed to include in the general terms of the clause certain matters in particular. He did not envy the task of the Minister for Education who had to find his way to a decision under this clause and to weigh the wishes of the parents, the necessity for a school, the economy of the rates, and the possible injury to secular edu- 466 cation. He agreed that the duties thrown on the Board of Education by the Bill, as amended by their Lordships, were likely to drive the Minister at the head of that Department into a lunatic asylum.
§ The second and third important clauses of the Bill related only to existing schools. That was a matter of primary importance. They were in the nature of clauses of a temporary character, for the purpose of facilitating the transfer of voluntary schools to the local education authorities, and for the purpose of introducing and encouraging a new system which was intended to be carried out by this clause. There could be no doubt, he thought, that that was the meaning of those clauses, and the effect of Clause 6, if it remained in its present form, would be that what was intended as a temporary provision for the purpose of bridging over the transfer from one state of things to another would be converted into a permanent provision. To illustrate what he had said, he asked their Lordships to compare the present Clause 6, as inserted by their Lordships in Committee, with the Clause 6 for which it was substituted. That clause was of a totally different character. The old Clause 6 enabled the local education authority, where there was an elementary school, although not a public elementary school, already being carried on, if they thought fit, to negotiate, and, if they could acquire it on easier terms by doing so, to grant special facilities. It was entirely a question of negotiation and bargaining between the owners of the elementary schools to be taken over and the local authority, and the intervention of any third party was excluded by the terms of the clause, which carefully provided that there should be in that case no appeal to the Board of Education. That was a clause of a widely different character, and it was not open to the objections which he had ventured to lay before their Lordships He did not say that it would entirely meet his views, but it was a clause not open to those objections.
§ It had been said that this was an undenominational Bill. He assumed that that was so. Their Lordships had already read it a second time; and was 467 it fair, right, or consonant with Parliamentary traditions that a Bill should be so altered as to make it a different Bill, based on a different principle, and containing provisions inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the Bill as introduced? It was said out of doors by distinguished persons that compromise was in the air No one could wish more earnestly than he that that was so, but he regretted to say that he saw very little indication of it in their Lordships' House that evening. He ventured to ask, even to entreat, their Lordships to exhibit their willingness for conciliation and compromise by reconsidering their decision and omitting Clause 6, which he was quite sure would be a greater obstacle to anything like compromise or agreement than the right rev. Prelate who moved the clause probably imagined.
* THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORDacknowledged the immense debt of gratitude which all owed to the public spirited work of the local education authorities, but pointed out that the question dealt with in this clause was of a particular nature, which might not have a dispassionate hearing from the local education authority. It was clearly desirable to have uniformity of practice and such independence as would be secured only by carrying the question before the Board of Education. The noble and learned Lord had spoken of the Board of Education as though it were likely to act in entire disregard of the wishes of the local education authority. Before deciding, the Board of Education would hear the views of all parties; and the provision in question gave the best security that the clause would be worked rightly and equitably. The noble and learned Lord had also said that because these schools would be proffered by those who desired Clause 4 facilities, therefore, they could not be said in any reasonable sense to be provided by the local education authority. Surely the noble and learned Lord was missing the meaning of the word "provided." When they spoke of a provided school they meant a school administered in certain ways and under certain conditions by the local education authority. If a school was taken over and 468 administered by the local education authority, it became, in the sense of this Bill, a provided school. The third argument of the noble and learned Lord was addressed to this point, that in Clauses 2, 3 and 4 provisions were made for the transition from the present to a future stage, and that they were to regard those clauses as intended to meet a transient need and not to be of permanent operation. He recognised there the re-emergence of a point which, when it first came prominently into view, had a very great effect on their Lordships. He well remembered the feeling which was expressed when it came out clearly that at the end of five years extended-facilities schools were to be at the mercy of, it might be, hostile local education authorities. He thought their Lordships were for the most part greatly surprised to learn how much there was that was transitory in the provisions they had been studying. The argument of the noble and learned Lord was, he understood, that existing schools only should enjoy the privileges provided by Clauses 2, 3, and 4. It was a perfectly clear issue that was raised by this clause. Did they, or did they not, intend finally to put an end to the generosity which proffered the provision of new schools under the conditions of Clauses 3 and 4? If noble Lords did mean to say that henceforward no one should be allowed to provide new schools for the enjoyment of these privileges, then let that be clearly stated and let Clause 6 go. But he believed that, if they were to do that, they would put an end to one of the most helpful and valuable forms of generosity in the country; they would put an end to one of the best ways in which the general cause of education had been served; and they would alienate a volume of interest without which the work of education would go on greatly impoverished. The clause was in accordance with the general principles of the Bill, and to delete it would strike a very serious blow at influences which had done good work on behalf of elementary education.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI am anxious that the discussion on this particular 469 point, which is rather, I think, of an academic nature as matters stand, should not be prolonged more than is possible. I am entirety in accord with my noble and learned friend behind me. I regard this clause as it stands as one of the very worst clauses in the Bill. At the same time I should not have consented to its abolition without some provision for inserting our Clause 6, because I considered that that clause did meet a deserving case. Where a school of a denominational character which had been started and was a going concern desired to be taken over, it seemed to us fair that it should be so taken over. If I do not attempt to develop the exceedingly clear and complete arguments of my noble and learned friend, it is not from any want of agreement with him; but I am not sure that there would be any great advantage in arguing this matter at length. My only object in rising, therefore, was to appeal to my noble and learned friend not to press his Amendment to a division. If time had served I should have been happy to vote with him; but, in the circumstances, I hope he will content himself with saying "Content" to the Amendment when it is put.
§ LORD DAVEYsaid he could not resist the appeal of his noble friend, and would, he admitted with some regret, withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved Amendments to Clause 6 with the purpose of providing that the Board of Education in considering whether a new school was required should have specific regard not only "to the wishes of the parents as to the religious education of their children" but also to "the interest of secular instruction," and to "the economy of the rates." If the clause had simply said that they should have regard to all the circumstances of the case, he did not know that it would have been necessary to specify anything more. But certainly they ought to have regard to something else besides the wishes of the parents as to the religious education of the children. He therefore proposed to insert the words in this Amendment.
470
§
Amendment moved—
In page 7, line 13, after the word 'including' to insert the words 'the interest of secular instruction'; and in line 14 after the word 'children' to insert the words 'and the economy of the rates"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEIt is quite clear that from our point of view the Amendment of the noble Viscount improves the clause as it stands, and I cannot help saying that the fact that those words were not originally inserted docs show the kind of bias with which this clause was introduced. At the same time I am obliged to mention that the burden which is placed on the Board of Education in trying to decide between these incompatible things is an exceedingly difficult and almost impossible one for them to bear. Different boards of education will take different views as to the proper precedence of these particular interests, and that fact, I am afraid, makes the intended safeguard rather illusory. But the words are an improvement from our point of view, and therefore we agree to them.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYpointed out that it had been the duty of the Board of Education ever since 1902 to decide whether a school should be taken over or a new school built, and he could not see why the present President of the Board of Education should not do the work which he found it possible to do under the Act of 1902. It was essential that there should be an appeal to the Board of Education from an antagonistic local education authority. In some parts of the country so strong was the bias that the ratepayers were not permitted to take advantage of the generosity and munificence alluded to by the Bishop of Oxford.
§ THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON, on behalf of the Bishop of Winchester, moved to insert a new clause providing that the local education authority should, if required, give up at least one full school day annually for the purpose of the inspection of special religious instruction, but that the expenses of the inspection should not be paid by the local authority. 471 He was thankful to say that the Government had accepted the principle of this Amendment. He did not consider the facilities which had been granted to them really adequate and solid unless the instruction given was inspected. They also felt very strongly that the other instruction given in the school under the Cowper-Temple Clause should also be inspected, but it was not for them to lay down rules as to what the local education authorities should do. Therefore in his Amendment the local education authority "might" afford such opportunities for all religious instruction. He only inserted the word "shall" in connection with instruction given under the facilities to be afforded by the Bill. Their object was to make those facilities real.
§
Amendment moved—
To insert the following new clause '(1) The local education authority may afford such opportunities as they think fit for the inspection of any religious instruction given in any public elementary school provided by them, by a person not being one of His Majesty's inspectors, and shall, if required by or on behalf of persons who are responsible for the provision of religious instruction of some special character in pursuance of any facilities afforded under this Act for the purpose (other than facilities afforded on account of there being only one public elementary school in a rural area), give up at least one full and unbroken school day annually for the purpose of the inspection of the special religious instruction, and allow the use of the schoolhouse for the purpose free of charge. (2) During the hours given up to any inspection for which an opportunity is afforded under this section, the school shall be closed for any purpose other than that of the inspection. (3) No part of the expenses of conducting any inspection of religious instruction of a special character for which an opportunity is afforded under this section shall be paid by the local education authority. (4) At least fourteen days before an inspection is held in pursuance of this section notice of the time set apart for the inspection shall be read out publicly in the school."—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEWe have been in communication with the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, and we are very glad to accept his Amendment in substance subject to one or two alterations. The first is in line 7, after the word "afforded," to leave out "under" and to insert "in accordance with Sections 3 and 4." That is really a drafting Amendment. The other 472 Amendment we propose is one of more substance. It is—
In line 8, after the word 'purpose,' to insert 'and if the authority are satisfied that there are at least thirty children ordinarily receiving that religious instruction.'I think it is pretty clear that if there were a very small number of children it would be quite possible for the inspection to take place during the ordinary religious hour, which could no doubt be done by arrangement. The other alteration we propose is in lines 8, 9, and 10 of the Amendment, and is to leave out the words "other than facilities afforded on account of there being only one public elementary school in a rural area." That is due to the fact that the Amendment of the right rev. Primate the Bishop of Hereford has gone out of the Bill. Those words are therefore not required. If the right rev. Prelate will accept those alterations we shall be very glad to agree to his Amendment.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE moved an Amendment to Clause 7 omitting the words "in the case of schools in which no facilities for religious instruction of a special character are afforded under this Act." The noble Marquess said: The object of the Amendment is this. Under this clause children are obliged to be present in the school during the time allotted for religious instruction, but it is also enacted that if the parent desires to withdraw his child from that religious instruction the child may receive secular instruction in lieu thereof during the allotted time. Then the clause goes on to say that a parent shall not be liable to any penalty for taking his child away from school during the allotted time—that is to say, either from the religious instruction or from the secular instruction given in lieu thereof—if the parent can show that the child is receiving some form of religious instruction elsewhere. In the clause as it now stands this exception is limited to Cowper - Temple schools. The words which I propose to leave out have that 473 effect. I cannot see what reason there is for so restricting the exception. It seems to me to be equally desirable whether you are dealing with a parent who wishes to take his child away for this purpose from a Cowper-Temple school, or from a Clause 4 school, or from a Clause 3 school. It is quite clear that in a Clause 4 school you may have an undenominational minority, the members of which may wish that their children should receive religious instruction elsewhere; the same, I think, may be said of Clause 3 schools, and the argument in regard to those schools applies the more strongly because we have now decided that ordinary facilities are to be afforded only on two days a week instead of five. This exception in favour of Cowper-Temple schools ought not to be made, and I therefore beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 7, line 33, to leave out from the word 'instruction' to the word 'a' in line 35.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI entirely agree to the noble Marquess's Amendment.
§ Consequential Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF CEEWE moved an Amendment in the second sub-section of Clause 8 providing that a teacher "seeking employment or" employed in a public elementary school "otherwise than as a teacher of religious subjects only" should not be required as part of his duties to give any religious instruction. The noble Earl said: This Amendment is intended to cover what we have always stated to be our object, that a teacher should not have definite inquiries put to him as to his religious opinions when seeking employment. The insertion of the words "otherwise than as a teacher of religious subjects only" meets a point which was raised by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of St. David's. The words are intended to cover the rare case, as we think, where all the teachers in a council school refuse to give the religious in- 474 struction and a person has to be called in from outside to give it. In that case there is no objection to any tests or to any inquiries being made as to his religious knowledge.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 8, line 7, after the word 'teacher' to insert the words "seeking employment or.' and after the word 'school' to insert the words 'otherwise than as a teacher of religious subjects only:'".—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWE moved to omit subsections (1) and (2) as embodied in the printed Clause 9, in order to substitute a new provision. The noble Earl said: This Amendment is simply a redrafting in a better form of the sub-sections as inserted in the Bill.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 9, line 3, to leave out from the beginning of the clause to the word 'subject' in line 29, and insert: (1) Where the school-house of an existing voluntary school is held under charitable trusts, and no arrangement has been made with respect to the school house by agreement under this Act, the local education authority may, at any time after the first day of May, nineteen hundred and seven, apply to the Commission appointed under this Act to determine with respect to the trusts of the school-house the question whether the use of the school-house for the purposes of a public elementary school by the local education authority in accordance with this Act is the best mode of giving effect to those trusts, and, if the Commission determine that question in the affirmative, the Commission may then make an order requiring the owners of the school house to give, and the local education authority to take, such use of the school-house as is required for the purpose of carrying on a public elementary school provided by the authority.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThere is no substantial difference?
§ THE EARL OF CREWENo.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThe right rev. Prelate asks me why we have left these words out. I think it is for me to ask why the right rev. Prelate and his friends put them in. They were not in 475 the original Bill, and they open up the whole question of the bilateral case or the unilateral case. As I shall have to explain when we come to the Amendment of the noble Duke, we do not admit the principle, because we are unable to do so, of free access to the Commission by all schools held under charitable trusts.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYheld that the omission of the words in question made a very substantial difference; but he thought the point was covered by the noble Duke's Amendment to be moved subsequently, and in that case their Lordships need not deal with it now.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThat is so.
* THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELDsaid that the next Amendment which stood in his name had been withdrawn at an earlier stage at the wish of the Lord President, who had undertaken to give it his consideration. The object of the Amendment was to secure the facilities offered to those who transferred voluntary schools under the Bill. When the Bill was first introduced there were two or three holes through which the facilities might slip away. All those holes had been stopped up except in the case of schools about to be transferred, in which case it was quite possible that the Commissioners might refuse facilities where they were asked by the owners of the schools. He based his request to the Government to accept this Amendment upon the pledge of His Majesty's Ministers themselves, who had given the country to understand that wherever any voluntary school was handed over and facilities were asked for they must be granted. Mr. Birrell made this statement on 9th April, and again on 10th May, in the House of Commons he said—
If the trustees of any school make this particular stipulation before transfer, that there should be these facilities given on two days in the week, the obligation to permit that teaching becomes statutory.He therefore appealed to the noble Earl to put into the Bill the intention of His Majesty's Government.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 9, line 41, after the word 'considered' to insert the words 'but such conditions shall include, if desired by the owners, a provision requiring the affording of facilities in accordance with this Act.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Wakefield.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThe Amendment of the right rev. Prelate is not quite so simple a matter as he seems to think. The words of my right hon. friend which he just quoted had reference, I take it, to the bargain which was to take place between the local authority and the trustees before the transfer. I cannot recall any occasion on which my right hon. friend said that it would be an absolute obligation on the Commission to afford these facilities. The Commission give the use of the school subject to such conditions, if any, as to payment or other matters, as the Commission think just, having regard to various stated matters, and also to such other circumstances as may, in their opinion, properly be considered, and it is very difficult to understand that it should ever happen that where there was a real case for facilities the Commission would not make them part of their scheme. But it is rather another matter to interfere with the discretion of the Commission when it comes to consider what the terms of a trust are. In a very great majority of cases the terms of the trust would no doubt be best carried out, in the opinion of the Commission, by the granting of these facilities, and that, I think, would not only apply to schools where the trusts stipulated that children should be brought up in the principles of the Church of England, but also to a certain number of schools where the trusts are not so explicit, but where, as a matter of fact, there has been a long user in the principles of the Church of England. Under these circumstances I think one must naturally conclude that the Commission would be practically certain to allow the facilities, but it surely would be rather a strong proposal to allow owners who might be strong Churchmen for the time being absolutely to break the trust. The trust might be of an explicitly undenominational character, and yet those who were acting as owners for this purpose might ask for facilities, and it does seem to me a strange and unusual power to give to the owners 477 to enable them to force the Commissioners to give facilities even in cases where the trusts forbid that being done. I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid he was a little surprised to hear the decision of the noble Earl. He understood that the undertaking given in Another place was quite explicit.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEdissented.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid he had understood that it was clearly stated in another place that, where the owners of a school under a trust made an arrangement, they might insist that facilities should be part of that arrangement, and similarly that if, upon a disagreement, the matter came before the Commission, at that stage they might again insist upon it. The words of the President of the Board of Education, which had been quoted by the Tight rev. Prelate, appeared to be quits complete. He did not suppose the right rev. Prelate would wish to press this Amendment on the Government if they preferred their own words. But he thought the noble Earl ought to promise to look into the matter in view of the engagement that was entered into in another place.
§ LORD DAVEYcould not help thinking that the noble Marquess and the right rev. Prelate must have misunderstood what was said in the other House, because it was quite impossible that Mr. Birrell could have made the statement that in all cases of charitable trusts facilities for some special religious instruction should be given.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYOnly when asked for by the owners.
§ LORD DAVEYsaid that in many cases charitable trusts were not confined to any particular religious instruction. The trust might be for education generally. He had in mind a school, of which he was at one time a trustee, where the trust stipulated that the school was to be carried on as an elementary school for the benefit of the parish. A trust of that character might come before the 478 Commission to have determined whether using it as a public elementary school under this Act would be the best mode of carrying out that trust, and it would be manifestly unfair that in such a case sanction should be given for the education to be carried on according to the tenets of any particular religion.
§ LORD BARNARD, in the interest of strict adherence to charitable trusts, agreed with the Lord President of the Council and with the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down. He suggested to the right rev. Prelate that it would really not be consistent with the views which they had adopted to insist that the authorities should be bound to grant facilities for religious instruction solely at the request of the persons who happened for the time being to be in charge of the school.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKE-FIELDsaid that in cases where there was a specific undenominational provision in the trust deed he would be the last person to wish that it should be violated. But if the noble Earl the Lord President would give the matter his consideration he would withdraw his Amendment. He thought it might be possible to insert such words as "where not inconsistent with the trust deed."
§ LORD DAVEYthought this was specially covered by the clause as it stood.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI will certainly consider the matter in view of what the right rev. Prelate says.
§ Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI now beg to move to leave out sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 0 and to substitute the new provision standing in my name.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 10, line 1, to leave out sub-sections (3), (4), and (5), and to insert—' (2) In determining any such question or in making any such order the Commission shall act in accordance with the principles followed by the High Court in exercising as the successors of the Court of Chancery the ordinary jurisdiction as to charities inherent in that Court, but they shall not treat a proposal to carry on an elementary
479
school as a proper mode of giving effect to the trusts of the schoolhouse unless sufficient guarantee is given for the effective continuance of the school for a period of at least five years.'" —(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved the omission of the words at the end of the sub-section requiring a sufficient guarantee for the effective continuance of the school for a period of at least five years. He held that if full effect were given to these words it would be impossible in any case to get a sufficient guarantee. The noble Earl had not given any reason why the House should reverse the decision at which it arrived in Committee, to which he hoped their Lordships would adhere. His noble friend Viscount St. Aldwyn had an Amendment on the Paper to omit from the proposed new sub-section (2) the words "for a period of at least five years." That Amendment, if agreed to, would leave the Commission free to require a sufficient guarantee for the effective continuance of the school for ten years or more. The truth was, this condition was almost impossible to fulfil, and it would be defeating the object of the clause itself if it were insisted upon.
§
Amendment moved to the proposed amendment—
To delete from the proposed new subsection (2) all words after 'inherent in that Court.'"—(Viscount Llandaff.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthought it would be convenient if the noble Earl the Lord President, when moving an Amendment which contained a reversal of a decision arrived at in Committee, would point out to the House that this would be the effect of the Amendment.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI am afraid my extreme anxiety to save time has led me astray. I quite admit the noble. Earl's point. I see that the noble Viscount on the Front Bench proposes to. leave it essential that a guarantee of some kind should be offered, but he does not like the guarantee to last five years. The noble Viscount on the Cross Benches, however, desires to delete this part of the section altogether. As far a as that Amendment is concerned, we think that it is not reasonable to leave 480 the local education authority without some guidance as to what new schools they may have to build, and if a mere proposition to carry on a school is to be treated as a sufficient reason for allowing it to stand out of the Bill, local education authorities will be placed in a position of very considerable uncertainty and difficulty, in which it is not reasonable for this House to place them. As regards the Amendment of the noble Viscount opposite, if he would agree to accept a term of three years instead of five years, we should be prepared to meet him on that. I am afraid, however, we could not go further than that.
§ * VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he had placed his Amendment on the Paper, to leave out the words "for a period of at least five years," because he noticed that the noble Earl the Lord President had proposed to restore the words which were deleted by their Lordships in Committee. He admitted that this difficulty might not be entirely met by merely striking out the words which he proposed to delete. He was afraid he could not say that a guarantee for three years would not be too long.
§ LORD BARNARDasked how the owners of the schoolhouse could be expected to give a guarantee for the effective continuance of the school. He thought the local education authority were to carry on the school.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThe point is this. We think that a mere statement on the part of the trustees that they were prepared to carry on the school as a certified efficient school would not be sufficient, as it would place the local authority in a position of uncertainty as to whether they would not have ultimately to build a new school. There should be some substantial guarantee for the continuance of the school.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEdid not think the noble Earl bore in mind the earlier part of the clause, under which the Commission were told that in determining any such question, and in making any such order, they should act in accordance with the principles followed by 481 the High Court in exercising as the successors of the Court of Chancery the ordinary jurisdiction as to charities inherent in that Court. That was clear and sufficient. If the Commission were left free to act on their own trained discretion they would do so with wisdom. He saw no other course open to their Lordships than to delete the words requiring a sufficient guarantee.
* LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsuggested that the point would perhaps be met by omitting the words, at the end of the proposed new sub-section—
Unless sufficient guarantee is given for the effective continuance of the school for a period of at least five years,and substituting for them the words—Unless they are satisfied that the school will be continued as a certified efficient school.This would bring the matter under the consideration of the Commission. They did not want the education of a village to be precarious and possibly to break down in a few months. If they placed the responsibility on the Commission of being satisfied they would have substantial security.
§ * VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he was quite willing to accept that suggestion.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI need not say I greatly prefer the words suggested by my noble friend Lord Stanley to the operation which is proposed to be performed by the noble Viscount on the cross benches (Lord Llandaff), and therefore I should make no objection to their insertion.
§ On Question, the Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI now move the insertion of the new sub-section standing in my name. Its object is to meet the case of mixed trusts. The point is this, that where the trustees of a mixed trust desire to have a general scheme made covering the whole ground of their trust they may, by agreement, 482 ask the Commission to undertake the second part of their trust as well as the educational part. We think that will be a convenience in certain cases.
§
Amendment moved—
To insert the following new sub-section, '(3) If the owners of a schoolhouse in respect of which an application is made by the local education authority under this section, desire that a scheme should be made by the Commission with reference to the mode in which effect is to be given to the trusts of the schoolhouse in the future, so far as effect is not given to those trusts by the order (if any) made by the Commission under this section, the Commission may make a scheme accordingly, and in making such a scheme shall act in accordance with the principles which they are required to follow in making an order under this section."'—(The Earl of Crewe.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNpointed out that, now that sub-sections (3).(4), and (5) had been struck out, there was no provision in the Bill for renewing the schemes upon their expiry.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEIf the noble Earl will look at page 8 of the Amendments he will see general provisions as to schemes and orders of the Commission. It is provided that a scheme made by the Commission may be altered by a scheme made by the Board of Education in the same manner, and so on.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI now move the insertion of clauses relating to appeals to the Commission as respects extended facilities. I think it would be more convenient that I should postpone what I have to say until the noble Duke has moved the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, to insert the following clauses, '(1)Where the local education authority fail to accept an arrangement offered to them by the owners of the schoolhouse of an existing voluntary school as regards the use of the school-house, and the school is one in respect of which extended facilities are desired, the owners of the schoolhouse may appeal to the Commission appointed under this Act, and that Commission may, if they are satisfied that the conditions as
483
to the fulfilment of which a local education authority must be satisfied before they can grant extended facilities in a school under this Act are fulfilled in the case of the school, and that the schoolhouse is structurally suitable, and, if they otherwise think fit after considering the circumstances of the case, and the wishes of the parents of children attending the school, as to the continuance of the school with extended facilities, by order require the local education authority to continue the school as a public elementary school provided by them, on such terms and conditions as respects the use of the schoolhouse as may be provided by the order, and to afford the extended facilities desired, but if under any special circumstances of the case the Commission think it expedient, they may, after consulting the Board of Education, instead of making such an order, make an order allowing the school to continue as a State-aided school. (2) The certificate of the Board of Education as to the result of a ballot taken with respect to the wishes of parents, or as to whether a schoolhouse is structurally suitable or not, or whether any condition as to public school accommodation is satisfied, shall be treated as conclusive by the Commission.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE, in moving the Amendment standing in his name to the proposed new clauses. said: My Lords, on examining further than I had been able to do last Thursday the new clauses of which notice had been given by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council I came to the conclusion that it would be more convenient to put my proposed new sub-section to Clause 9 in the form of an Amendment to the new sections which the noble Earl has just moved. The noble Earl explained very clearly the other day that the essential difference between his proposal and mine was that my suggestion related to all schools, while his only applied to schools for which extended facilities were claimed. I have, therefore, to state very briefly why in my opinion this very considerable extension of his proposed clause, is necessary.
§
The number of schools which will be affected by the Amendment of which I have given notice is probably the largest of any which will come to be transferred under the provisions of this Rill. They are the schools which are either privately owned or are in the hands of trustees as educational trusts. The Government desire that these schools should, whenever they are suitable and necessary, be transferred. I think in former discussions that has been admitted, but I
484
will quote one passage from Mr. Birrell's observations in another place which puts the point very clearly. Mr. Birrell said that—
He could assure the Committee that the desire of the Government was, and always had been, that as many as possible of the properly-equipped voluntary schools of the country should be transferred to the local authorities, and it had never entered into their heads as part of their scheme that the local authorities should decline to take over such schools as were properly equipped and fitted to form part of the national system.
§ That sentence makes the desire of the Government perfectly clear. The reason for my Amendment is that they have not made any provision in the Bill whereby practical effect would be given to that desire on their part. We have no security whatever that these schools which they desire to form part of our educational system in future will be taken over by the authorities.
§ The noble Earl opposite, in the observations he made the other day, said he trusted that economical considerations would in the great majority of cases induce the authorities to take over these schools. He said they would prefer to hire efficient schools than be put to the expense of building new ones. No doubt that will be so in a large number of cases. But it will not be universally the case, and it is quite possible that economical considerations may not point in this direction. I have heard of a case in which it was suggested that it would be a more economical arrangement to build new schools than to take over a number of existing schools, which would require a considerably larger staff; and even if economical considerations pointed in one direction, there might be other considerations, possibly of an educational character, or partly of a purely sectarian character, which would induce a local authority to exercise its option in the direction of refusing to take over existing schools and filling their places with schools provided by themselves.
§ If the local authorities should de cline in any case to take over these schools great injustice and hardship might be the consequence. The injustice would be of two kinds. Injustice may be inflicted upon the parents who have been accustomed to the use 485 of these schools for the purpose of giving their children not only secular education education but the kind of religious instruction which they desire; and it will be no doubt a hardship to them that, without being consulted on the subject themselves, they should be deprived of the religious facilities which their children have hitherto enjoyed. Then there is the injustice which will be inflicted upon the owners or trustees of these schools. They have been invited and encouraged, at great cost to themselves, to build these schools for the purpose of providing the district in which they live with that kind of religious instruction which they believe should be provided for their neighbours and for the inhabitants of those districts.
§ This injustice, it seems to me, will amount to an actual breach of faith. No more definite pledge was ever given by Parliament than that given by the late Mr. Forster in his celebrated declaration that the Act of 1870 was intended not to supplant, but to supplement, the existing supply of voluntary schools. That pledge of Mr. Forster's was embodied, if not positively, at all events negatively, in the Act of 1870, and the policy thus laid down by Mr. Forster has been the universally accepted policy of the Education Department under every Government from 1870 to the present time. No school board, no local authority, has ever been permitted to build or supply a school for the purpose of supplanting an existing voluntary school, and, therefore, when private persons or the Churches have been permitted to build new schools it has been on the distinct understanding that the faith of Parliament was pledged that, so long as those schools continued efficient, they would not be interfered with by the board or council schools.
§ It is not only that private individuals and churches have been permitted to build these schools. Actual pressure has in some cases been applied to the building of such schools. It is easier to explain a point of this sort by instancing a concrete case. I am very well acquainted with the town of Eastbourne. Now, Eastbourne, has never had a School Board. It had never, up to a very short time since, had any but voluntary schools; 486 some have lately been transferred, I believe, to the council. But a short time ago, in consequence of the growth of the town, increased accommodation was required for the education of the children, and a very strong request was addressed by the Board of Education to the trustees and owners of the voluntary schools stating that additional accommodation was required, and that, if that accommodation was not provided by them, it would be necessary for the Board to make an order for a School Board. The town did not want a School Board; a great effort was made, and the necessary schools were built and the required accommodation supplied. I ask your Lordships whether it would not be a case of intolerable injustice and hardship of, after pressure of that kind had been applied by the Education Department on certain classes in that town, they were to find now that the schools which they had exerted themselves to provide might be abandoned and so cease to exist.
§ The other day the noble Lord opposite, Lord Stanley of Alderley, said that it was not the business of the local education authorities to provide sectarian teaching at the expense of the rates. I submit that we are not concerned at present with what is the business of the local authority. We are concerned with the business of Parliament, and I say it is the business of Parliament to secure that injustice is not inflicted upon any class of the inhabitants of this country. It is the business of Parliament to see that the pledges which have been given by Parliament are observed, and that the faith of Parliament is not broken in its transactions with the people. I should like to appeal to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, The noble and learned Lord and my noble friend Lord Halsbury are the greatest authorities in this House on questions of equity. I should like to ask them whether, in their opinion, it is consistent with the principles of equity that schools which have been built under such circumstances as I have described should at the will of the local authority, even if that will is exercised in the most complete good faith, be discontinued and hereafter cease to exist? If, as I hold, such a proceeding as this is contrary to 487 every principle of equity, then I ask the Government what provision is there contained in this Bill to make such a failure of justice impossible or unlikely?
§ I have no desire to press to an extreme length the principle which I am endeavouring to advocate. I have no wish that unsuitable schools should be retained. I have no desire that within certain limits schools which are redundant should continue to exist. I agree with the noble Earl opposite in his proposal that the Board of Education is the proper authority to determine whether a school is structurally suitable or not. But the question of redundancy is not so simple as that. It is a question which it is not possible to decide off-hand by merely counting the number of children and the number of school places available in a district. It is a question which must be decided upon more general grounds. It cannot be decided only on grounds of economy or even of educational efficiency. The wishes of the parents in regard to the religious instruction of their children, the rights of owners, and the pledges which have been given by Parliament are elements in the consideration of this question which cannot be disregarded, and which cannot justly be left to the sole arbitrament of the local authority, however desirous that authority may be to do its duty.
§ Again, I ask your Lordships to consider the probable course of proceeding when this Bill becomes law. I am content to take the case cited by the noble Lord opposite the other day. He said he was aware of a town in which there was such an amount of surplus school accommodation that six schools might very properly and efficiently take the place of eleven existing schools. I think it is extremely likely that in such a case as that some of those schools may be redundant. I think it is quite possible that a reasonable local authority, dealing with reasonable owners and trustees of schools, may come to some arrangement by which a certain number of those schools would be dispensed with. It is quite probable that some of them may be redundant, not from the point of view only of educational efficiency, but also from the point of view of the desires of the parents as to the religious instruction 488 of their children. But if they should fail, as it is possible they may fail, then I say the question which of these schools and how many of these schools can properly be refused by the local authority is a question which it is not fair or just to their owners to leave to the uncontrolled decision of the local authority of that town.
§ I do not believe that any very great difference exists between the Government and myself upon this point. I believe the Government are not indisposed to confer the power which I propose to confer upon the Commission—the power of deciding on all these points. I think, from the language used by the noble Earl the other day, that his objection to the proposal consists principally in the large extension which it will involve of their administrative functions, and the difficulty that may be experienced in persuading them to undertake them. But the noble Earl seems still to cling, for some reason which I cannot understand, to the principle of the bilateral arrangement, although he admits that one side of the bilateral arrangement is impossible. He admits that it would be too strong a measure to impose on every private owner of a school the surrender of the schoolhouse. He admits that it would be impossible to impose that obligation upon the trustees of schools held under open trusts. But, although he admits that impossibility, he still seems to have a hankering, which I cannot altogether understand, for something in the nature of a bilateral arrangement.
§ The bilateral arrangement which has been proposed seems to me to be recommended neither by justice nor by common sense. On what possible ground can it be contended that the owners of a voluntary school in a certain town or district should not be able to obtain justice from the Commission because the Commission is unable to give to a local authority in a different part of the county, perhaps at the other end of the county, the use of a school which the owner is unwilling to surrender, and which they desire to obtain the use of? On these grounds I trust that the Government will be prepared to give a favourable consideration to the extension which I 489 propose in the clause, which, in my opinion, I must admit is a very great improvement upon that in the original Bill which it replaces.
§
Amendment moved—
To amend the proposed new clause, as follows:—In line 4, to leave out the word 'extended'; in line 5, after the word 'facilities' to insert thy words 'in accordance with Sections 3 or 4 of this Act'; in line 7, to leave out the word 'may' and to insert the word 'shall,' and to leave out the words if they are satisfied that the conditions as to the fulfilment of which a local education authority must be satisfied before they can grant extended facilities in a school under this Act are fulfilled in the case of the school, and that the schoolhouse is structurally suitable, and, if they otherwise think fit after considering the circumstances of the case, and the wishes of the parents of children attending the school, as to the continuance of the school with extended facilities 'and to insert the words' unless they are of opinion that the schoolhouse is not structurally suitable, or that the school is not required to meet the wishes of the parents as regards the religious instruction of their children, or that, after taking these matters into consideration, there an; still sufficient grounds for refusal; in line 18, to leave out the words 'extended,' and to leave out from the word desired to the end of subsection (1) and to insert the words 'in accordance with this Act'; and in line 20, after the word 'condition' to insert the words 'prescribed in Section 4 of this Act.'"—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI think perhaps it would be most convenient if before we adjourn for dinner, I say a few words on the noble Duke's Amendment. As the noble Duke has said, Ms Amendment extends to all schools; that is to say, the local education authority if the Commission think fit, may be compelled to take over any school whether in the hands of trustees or belonging to a private owner, but there are a very considerable number of schools which, however much they may desire to obtain them, it is impossible for them to acquire, Commission or no Commission. It probably would not be too much to say that out of the 14,000 voluntary schools, all of which could claim to be taken over, there are at least 5,000—I dare say considerably more—which, however much the authority might desire to acquire them, could snap their fingers at that authority and stand out. I confess that on the face of it that does not seem an entirely fair bargain between the local 490 education authorities and the schools as a whole.
The noble Duke said it would be no consolation to a school which an authority refused to take over, or which did not want to be taken over and yet was taken over, to know that the other side of the bilateral compact was being played off in some other remote town. But the reverse case might happen in a single town. There might be a single town in which a particular authority wanted a given school and were by no means able to get it, and by no means wanted another one which they were obliged to take, and, so long as that is possible under the noble Duke's arrangement, it does not seem to me an entirely fair proposition as between the two parties.
The noble Duke alluded to our bilateral offer made in another place. The objections to that we always admitted were obvious. It demanded a very general consent owing, undoubtedly, to its novel character, both as regards private owners and as regards trusts, and if that consent was not forthcoming it was useless for us to press it or even to urge noble Lords to look at it again. But it is important to remember that during the whole time that offer was available it was never intended to apply to numerically redundant schools We never made it a condition that every school, however redundant, should be able to force itself on the authority, so to speak, without mercy. The noble Duke offers to meet that point by saying that the Commission might regard numerical redundancy as one of the reasons for not taking over a school. But before I deal with that point I should like to say one word upon the general position in the light of the noble Duke's quotation from Mr. Forster that board schools were only intended to be supplementary to voluntary schools.
I think the answer to that is that Mr. Forster's pledge cannot be held to chain us for all eternity unless the conditions remain the same. I should not admit that a Parliamentary pledge of that kind under any circumstances could be regarded as absolutely eternal in operation, but no doubt if the conditions were the same it would be a strong measure 491 to depart from; but our case for the whole transaction is that the conditions have so seriously altered, especially by the Act of 1902, that in our opinion Mr. Forster's pledge as a pledge no longer applies. We have no desire whatever to destroy voluntary schools, and we have tried to show it by the facilities which we have offered. But we cannot admit that any voluntary school as such has a claim against the local authority or against Parliament and the country to be carried on if on other grounds it is undesirable that it should be carried on.
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREI think I may be allowed to explain. I did not rely in the least on Mr. Forster's pledge. I spoke of the pledge which was given and which, in my opinion, was embodied in the Act of 1870 and in subsequent Acts, and of the universal practice of the Education Department since that date, which has given to private individuals and to churches a pledge as to the manner in which their schools would be treated if they were induced to build them.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEUntil the schools came on the rates. That pledge was observed up to 1902. The bargain was faithfully adhered to, but was swept away by the Act of 1902. The noble Duke obviously and clearly by his Amendment places a variety of important new duties on the Commission. They would have to decide whether or not the schoolhouse was structurally suitable, whether the school was required to meet the wishes of the parents as regards the religious instruction of their children, and, after taking these matters into consideration, whether there were still sufficient grounds of refusal. It is necessary for the House seriously to consider what the effect of the insertion of these words would be upon the work of the Commission. The Commission was appointed as a judicial body. It was appointed with reference to its known experience, skill, and fairness, sitting as a judicial body, but it was not appointed with any reference to its opinions on any of these subjects, and yet when you come to consider the necessary working of these words of the noble Duke's I think noble Lords must see that the opinions of 492 the Commission will be, by common consent, one of the most important, matters in considering how their duties are to be performed.
The matters at issue as to what weight ought to be given to the desire of the parents for religious instruction in a particular case, how far that consideration ought to override a question of economy and the interests of the ratepayers— all these matters are points which perfectly honourable and fair-minded people are bound to decide upon in an entirely different manner according to the view they hold of the relative importance of the different things. That is the point I have often attempted to make with regard to the question of discontinuing schools. If you had a President of the Board of Education who considered that the interests of elementary education were absolutely paramount he would override in ninety-nine cases out of 100 the interests of the ratepayers. If you had a President of the Board of Education who considered local economy the first interest and did not care very much whether any child was taught religion at all — he would be very different from the present one, I ought to add—he would discontinue a great number of schools which the other Minister would undoubtedly continue. You have to apply that consideration to these gentlemen, and unfortunately it does not appear to me to be a matter on which anybody can be impartial. Suppose it to be necessary under the noble Duke's arrangement to add additional members to the Commission, and that we were to ask my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley to sit as a member. Nobody, I am sure, would object. Everybody knows the knowledge and the fairness which the noble Lord would bring to bear. Suppose, on the other hand, Lord Hugh Cecil were placed on the Commission. Everybody knows equally that he would act with conspicuous ability and with equal fairness.
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRESuppose you find an impartial person.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI do not see how anybody can be impartial on this point. Surely these are not questions 493 which it is possible to consider in a judicial spirit, and I cannot conceive the existence of people who would not take a somewhat strong view on one side or the other. Of course, I am not able to say what the attitude of the Commission may be if the Amendment of the noble Duke is carried, whether they will consider it possible to continue their labours, whether they will ask to be relieved, or whether they will ask to have their number added to, or what course they may desire to take. But I should be sorry for the House to arrive at a conclusion on this Amendment without very carefully weighing the considerations, and without noble Lords asking themselves whether these are matters on which it is possible for any people however reasonably minded, to arrive at anything like a judicial decision.
* LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid he would not go over the same ground as he had traversed the other day, but would deal with the special points raised in the noble Duke's speech. He had stated that this obligation to take over the voluntary schools which desired to be taken over whether the local education authority wished it or not was an obligation of honour, and that the Act of 1870 which embodied the principle that board schools were intended to supplement and not supplant voluntary schools was sufficient justification for every voluntary school being maintained by the local authority. The Lord President of the Council had already pointed out that first of all there could be no Parliamentary perpetuity of the conditions of State aid; and, secondly, that those conditions had been very materially altered by the Act of 1902. Therefore, to appeal to a policy earlier that; that date was wholly irrelevant. Long before the Act of 1902 the settlement of 1870 was torn up by the friends of voluntary schools. The noble Duke himself appeared to be somewhat forgetful of the very strong line he took as early as the year 1876, when the first violation took place of the concordat by which Mr. Gladstone undertook to give increased grants to voluntary schools, on the express condition that the to be done on the condition that the State should provide one half and the 494 other half was to be provided by private effort. The first evasion of that principle took place in 1876 by what was known as the 17s. 6d. limit. Provision was then made that so long as the Parliamentary grant did not exceed 17s. 6d. a head of the scholars so long should voluntary schools be relieved of the obligation of providing half the cost. That so roused the resentment of the noble Duke, who was then Lord Hartington, that he actually moved the recommittal of the Bill, and in the debate which subsequently took place he acknowledged that the Act of 1870 was a compromise, and said he looked for the extension of the school board system, and the substitution of a public school board system for the voluntary system. He further stated in that memorable debate that those schools which now were maintained entirely out of public funds had forfeited the right to the title of voluntary schools, and henceforth should be known only as denominational schools. Those extracts were simply samples of the speech, and they showed that at that time there remained no obligation of honour upon Parliament to maintain a system which the beneficiaries had themselves torn up. The noble Duke perhaps might repudiate his past, and say as Mr. Gladstone did on the occasion of his Bill to disestablish the Welsh Church, that thirty years had elapsed since he took an opposite view, and that he had come of age in the interval, but, at any rate, he should not hold them to be guilty of bad faith. On the top of what happened in 1870 there had been the aid grant, exemption from rates, and the Act of 1902, and they were now told that they were honourably bound to admit those schools not only on the rates and taxes, but also to relieve them of the last obligation of maintenance and repair which was imposed upon them by the Act of 1902. And yet, when the conditions had been so changed they were told that it was an obligation of honour to give whatever concessions were demanded without imposing any of the old conditions. Since 1876 there had been other evasions of the Act of 1870, culminating in the Act of 1902. He would remind the noble Duke that the obligation he proposed to impose on the rate a years of maintaining these schools was 495 one which it was not competent for their Lordships to impose. With reference to the case of Eastbourne, that town had shown a certain indolent reluctance to bear burdens, which had been developed, perhaps, by the too kind and generous consideration shown by wealthy people, who took the burdens of their neighbours on themselves. He could not help thinking that the possession of such a benefactor as the noble Duke had a little undermined the self-respect and public spirit of Eastbourne. That town, anxious to escape the burden of a school board, made every effort it could to go on with inefficient and insufficient and high fee paying accommodation. At last the Board of Education came down upon them, and an officer who was sent down to Eastbourne on behalf of the Board found a large deficiency of from 1,500 to 1,800 places. The town proceeded to meet that deficiency not by putting their hands into their pockets, but by forming a limited liability company, which built the schools and let them to the managers at about 4 or 5 per cent. interest. Perhaps the noble Duke himself was a shareholder, and he might remember the exact amount of interest he was promised. That was not a public spirited way of meeting the demand for a school board. He thought the Board of Education under all Governments had shown themselves unduly tender in considering the claims of denominationalism as against the claims of public education. The noble Duke admitted that his proposal might and probably would put a heavy burden upon the rates. He admitted also that it might diminish educational efficiency, but he claimed that the friends of denominationalism had a right to all the advantages, whatever change in the law was made. The noble Duke had also spoken of the bilateral arrangement. Whether bilateral or unilateral, any obligation to take over schools which were not needed was a wrong done to the public and an injury to education. He was very thankful that the Conservative Party in the House of Commons did not jump at that proposal, which was not in the original Bill, but was offered as a compromise. He hoped that their Lordships would retain the right of the people to represent the people and pursue the 496 policy which was most advantageous to education, efficiency, and economy.
§ * LORD ASHBOURNEsaid the noble Lord who had just sat down had shown great knowledge of history and the position of this question, and everyone had listened to him with attention and respect. Personally he admired very much the adroitness of his debating power, but he did not think the noble Lord had fully realised the main point on which the Duke of Devonshire made out his case in support of this Amendment. His references to the Act of 1870 were by way of illustration, and were, I think, intended only to illustrate the growth of the question. His references to what had been said in the House of Commons were naturally sought to bring into prominence what he considered was the real justice of the case. Surely the matter was one which might be looked at fairly without being unduly obscured by any suggestion of future dangers. The position now was that voluntary schools could be counted by thousands, and that they had done a vast deal for education in this country. The whole history of elementary education showed its great indebtedness to the voluntary schools which were being dealt with under this Bill. The Bill proposed practically to obliterate the voluntary schools or to put them under State control with certain qualifications. The substance of the position they were now placed in was that the Lord President of the Council had put on the Paper pages of Amendments which required careful consideration in order to know their exact bearing. Those Amendments had been closely and earnestly considered. The noble Duke had manifestly considered them with an anxious desire to appreciate their bearing and to meet them in as fair and moderate a way as he could. By his Amendment the noble Duke had obviouely endeavoured to engraft upon the Amendments of the Lord President of the Council what he thought was needed in order to obtain justice. One of the great objections to this Bill was that it tended to destroy or greatly imperil all voluntary schools. It was only reasonable to bear in mind that they were practically destroying those schools that were not taken over. Therefore it was a 497 tremendous problem. If this was a Bill declaring that the State would at once take over all voluntary schools which had done so much in the past for the cause of education he could understand it, and that would obviate a great deal of argument. The Bill, however, stated that the local authority might, if they so desired, take over the voluntary schools, and there was to be no appeal from the action of the local education authority. The Amendment of the noble Duke said in reference to that matter, "This is not fair or reasonable. There are some local authorities with strong views and some with extreme views. We have to guard the whole position by giving an appeal." That appeal was given under the noble Duke's Amendment. Was it not reasonable that there should be an appeal against an erring local education authority? He made no charge against those authorities; in fact, he admitted that the great majority of them might be desirous of acting reasonably and justly, but there were some who might take views that any ordinary person would say were not reasonable or just. Some local authorities might have fads of their own and believe that the teaching of the board schools was the soundest and the best. Others might hold the opinion that centralisation and co-ordination would be better achieved by the abolition of the voluntary schools. Each board was entitled to have its own views, and all that the Amendment of the noble Duke laid down was that it was only reasonable and fair that there should be an appeal to some other independent body to consider what had been done by the local education authority, on the application of those who felt themselves aggrieved by their action. The noble Duke also dealt with Clauses 3 and 4. and gave an appeal in reference to them. It was all very well to talk of an offer made in the House of Commons, but that offer was open to the obvious criticisms which were made upon it. At the present moment there was no appeal from the arbitrary, harsh, and unjust action of the 498 local education authorities for in regard to any schools under Clause 3. He thought it was only reasonable that there should be such an appeal, and the noble Duke, dealing with the matter in a most reasonable temperate and conciliatory manner, had suggested that there should be such an appeal. Then there was the desire of the noble Duke to give an appeal to schools taken under Clause 4. Therefore this Amendment went on the same ground which was sought to be covered by the Amendment of the Lord President of the Council, but it went over that ground in a more complete, satisfactory, and just way. With every respect to the Lord President he contended that he had given no answer to the substance of the claim made by the noble Duke; nor had Lord Stanley, who always spoke on this subject with an embarrassing amount of information, indicated from the beginning to the end of his remarks anything to show that it was unreasonable that there should be an appeal of some kind against the refusals, under Clause 3, nor had he dealt with the manner in which the noble Duke sought to give an appeal from the action of the local authorities under Clause 4. The Lord President had indicated that the conditions laid down by the noble Duke in his Amendment were such that it was not reasonable to cast upon the Commission, but surely the noble Earl for the moment had forgotten his own Amendment. There was not a single condition in the noble Duke's Amendment that did not appear in the Amendment of the noble Earl. If the Commission were expected to find out for themselves the topics indicated in the noble Earl's Amendment how did it become embarrassing and impossible when the very same conditions in slightly altered language were found in the Amendment of the noble Duke.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI would like to call the noble Lord's attention to sub-section (2) of my Amendment, because he will see there that all the points of 499 an administrative nature are dealt with by allowing the certificate of the Board of Education to be taken by the Commissioners as conclusive upon that point without further examination.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEasked where the noble Duke questioned that certificate and did not adopt it.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEHe only adopts it for schools under Clause 4.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEsaid the noble Duke adopted the certificate under Clause 4 where of course it was germane, It would be unreasonable to apply a certificate that was to kill every element of discussion on the part of the appellate tribunal, but the noble Duke applied the certificate appeals under Clause 4. The noble Earl opposite seemed to think it was impossible to find any really impartial person to administer these matters. He had been going through the world for more years than the noble Earl, and he had met in every walk of life men whose impartiality and fairness he would willingly trust. The noble Earl mentioned Lord Stanley of Alderley. Having heard Lord Stanley in this House he desired to say that he would look upon the noble Lord as a man perfectly capable of bringing an impartial mind to bear upon any matters submitted to him for a judicial decision. His experience of life did not permit him to adopt so pessimistic a view of mankind. If they gave a man a duty and the responsibility of having to perform it there were few men who would not be able to rise to the dignity of the occasion. Those who had listened to the noble Duke's speech and had read the Amendment would agree that it was framed in the most moderate and conciliatory spirit. The question involved, while an important one, was readily understood, and he trusted their Lordships would find little difficulty in supporting the views expressed by the noble Duke.
§ LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid the noble Earl had called attention to the second sub-section of his Amendment which appeared to him to introduce a difficulty which did not occur in a similar clause which previously existed in the Bill. The question of structural suitability came previously before the Commission, and the Commission when adjudicating as it were between the local authority and the owners or others interested in the school would have had before them, not only the certificate of the local education authority that the school was structurally unfit, but also the undertaking on the part of the owners to put the school at once in a state of structural suitability to the satisfaction of the Commissioners. As it stood now the matter of structural suitability would appear to have already been adjudicated upon by the Board of Education without any communication whatever with the owners, and without any opportunity being given to them to show their capability of putting the buildings into such a condition of structural suitability as was required by the Board of Education. It seemed to him that a difficulty which did not arise as the Bill stood originally had now arisen, because the Board o Education might give a certificate on the existing state of the schools, and when that certificate came before the Commission it would be in their power to say that they were totally unable to take into consideration the willingness of the owners to put the buildings in a proper state of structural suitability, and they might refuse to consider the matter at all. It seemed to him that that would be creating a grave injustice which he could hardly imagine this subsection intended to perpetrate, and he should like to be assured that such a failure of justice would not occur.
§ On Question, "That the word 'extended' stand part of the Amendment," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 34; Not-contents, 103.
501| CONTENTS. | ||
| Crewe, E. (L. President.) | Chesterfield, E. | Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.) |
| Chichester, E. | Selby, V. | |
| Beauchamp, E. | Portsmouth, E. | |
| Carrington, E. | Russell, E. | Hereford, L. Bp. |
| Boston, L. | Fitzmaurice, L. | Pirrie, L. |
| Brassey, L. | Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.] | Reay, L. |
| Colebrooke, L. | Sandhurst, L. | |
| Coleridge, L. | Grimthorpe, L. | Stanley of Alderley, L. |
| Courtney of Penwith, L. | Hamilton of Dalzell, L. | Tweedmouth, L. |
| Denman, L. [Teller.] | Haversham, L. | Wandsworth, L. |
| Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) | Headley, L. | Weardale, L. |
| Joicey, L. | Welby, L. | |
| Eversley, L. | Lyveden, L. | |
| NOT CONTENTS. | ||
| York, L. Abp. | Onslow, E. | Ashbourne, L. |
| Plymouth, E. | Balfour, L. | |
| Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal) | Radnor, E. | Barnard. L. |
| Devonshire, D. | Rothes, E. | Belhaven and Stenton, L. |
| Newcastle, D. | Saint Germans, E. | Belper, L. |
| Northumberland, D. | Stamford, E. | Borthwick, L. |
| Richmond and Gordon, D. | Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) | Burton. L. |
| Rutland, D. | Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] | Clifford of Chudleigh, L. |
| Clinton, L. | ||
| Bath, M. | Bridport, V. | Colchester, L. |
| Lansdowne, M. | Churchill, V. [Teller.] | De Mauley, L. |
| Salisbury, M. | Cobham, V. | Digby, L. |
| Colville of Culross, V. | Ebury, L. | |
| Ancaster, E. | Cross, V. | Estcourt, L. |
| Ashburnham, E. | Falkland, V. | Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.) |
| Camperdown, E. | Falmouth, V. | Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.) |
| Carlisle, E. | Halifax, V. | Forester, L. |
| Cathcart, E. | Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) | Gage, L. (V. Gage.) |
| Clarendon, E. | Hatherton, L. | |
| Dartrey, E. | Iveagh, V. | Hothfield, L. |
| Devon, E. | Llandaff, V. | Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.) |
| Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) | St Aldwyn, V. | Knaresborough, L. |
| Lawrence, L. | ||
| Feversham, E. | Bangor, L. Bp. | Leith of Fyvie, L. |
| Gainsborough, E. | Birmingham, L. Bp. | North, L. |
| Guilford, E. | Chester, L. Bp. | Northbourne, L. |
| Haddington, E. | Lincoln, L. Bp. | Penrhyn, L. |
| Hardwicke, E. | London, L. Bp. | Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.) |
| Huntingdon, E. | Oxford, L. Bp. | Redesdale, L. |
| Ilchester, E. | St. David's. L. Bp. | Ritchie of Dundee, L. |
| Jersey, E. | Salisbury. L. Bp. | Robertson, L. |
| Kilmorey, E. | Southwark, L. Bp. | Sanderson, L. |
| Lytton, K. | Wakefield, L. Bp. | Stanmon, L. |
| Malmesbury, E. | Stuart of Castle Stuart, L. (E. Moray.) | |
| Mar and Kellie, E. | Addington, L. | |
| Morley, E. | Allerton, L. | Zouche of Haryngworth, L. |
| Morton, K. | Ampthill, L. | |
| Nelson, E. | Ardilaun, L. |
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ On Question, "That the words 'in accordance with section 3 or 4 of this Act' be inserted after the word 'facilities,'"resolved in the affirmative.
§ On Question, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Amendment," resolved in the negative.
§ On Question, "That the remainder of the Amendments to the Amendment be agreed to," resolved in the affirmative.
§ On Question, "That the new clause as amended stand part of the Bill," resolved an the affirmative.
502§ THE EARL OF CREWEI will next move the new clause providing general provisions as to schemes and the orders of the Commission. I will move first sub-section (a) which places the Board of Education in the same position they would be in whilst exercising their powers under the Charitable Trusts Acts 1853– 1894. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
To insert as a new clause—'(1) A scheme or order made by the Commission shall have effect as if enacted by this Act, provided that-(a) a scheme made by the Commission may be altered by a scheme made by the Board of Education in the same manner
503
and subject to the same provisions as a scheme made by the Board in pursuance of their powers under the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1894; and."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI will now move sub-section (b) which deals with the period of five years, a point which created a considerable stir when it first came to the notice of noble Lords opposite. I am bound to say that, on the merits I thought there was much to be said for the view that it was hardly reasonable to allow these schools without any appeal to be discontinued possibly at the end of five years. I do not think noble Lords opposite argued this point very closely at the time, because they were so much occupied in charging us with other things that they said less on the merits than might have been expected. I think I pointed out before that the arrangement to which we agreed as to the prior right of entry makes it exceedingly probable that there will be no difficulty in the vast majority of cases in continuing these schools. I beg to move sub-section (b).
§
Amendment moved—
To insert after the words last added— '(6) An order made by the Commission may be varied or cancelled by agreement between the local education authority and the owners of the schoolhouse at any time, and by the Board of Education at any time after the expiration of five years from the date of the commencement of the original order, on any application made for the purpose by the authority or the owners, but no such application shall be entertained by the Board unless a pried of at least one year has elapsed since the date of the decision of the Board on the last application under this provision. The Board of Education, in considering any application for the varying or cancelling of an order shall be subject to the same provisions as those to which the Commission are subject under this Act in making the original order. When an application for the varying or cancelling of an order is made by a local education authority, that authority shall, if required by the Board of Education for the purpose of their decision on the application, hold a ballot in accordance with this Act as to the wishes of the parents with respect to extended facilities.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI will now move the second sub-section which, has been inserted in response to demands by noble Lords opposite for an appeal to be given to the Commission under certain circumstances. There is a precedent for these words in more than one Act of Parliament, and he; Commission, as I understand, are anxious that they should not be expected to give leave to appeal except on really substantial points of law. It is provided that the appeal should not go beyond the Court of Appeal, which of course is in the interests of saving time and expense.
§
Amendment moved—
To insert after the word last added — '(2) The Commission may. if they think fit, in any case where their decision appears to them to involve a substantial question of law of general importance, give leave, on the application of the local education authority or the owners of the schoolhouse, to appeal from that decision in manner provided by Rules of Court to the Court of Appeal, whose decision shall be final, but, subject to this provision, no Court shall have power to review or interfere in any way with the schemes, orders, decisions, or other proceedings of the Commission, or of the Board of Education on the consideration of any application to vary or cancel an order made by the Commission, and the Commission shall, amongst other matters, have power, for the purpose of their powers and duties under this Act, to decide whether a schoolhouse or any interest therein is held under charitable trusts or not. (3) Where an order is made by the Commission with respect to the use of a school-house by the local education authority, the conditions set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) and the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section two of tins Act shall apply as they apply in the case of an arrangement made under that section.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§
Amendment moved—
To insert as a new clause, 'the parents of at least twenty children attending a transferred voluntary school, or the parents' committee, if aggrieved by the mode in which extended facilities are afforded by a local education authority, may appeal to the Board of Education, and that Hoard, if satisfied, after considering the circumstances of the case, that there are reasonable grounds for the appeal, may make an order allowing the school to continue as a State-aided school and providing so far as necessary for the cancelling of any arrangement or order made with respect to the transfer or use of the schoolhouse, and for any other matter for which provision is required in connection with the order of the Board under this section."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ LORD ASHBOURNE moved an Amendment to the clause providing that the Board might make an order "pre- scribing the mode in which extended facilities shall be carried out." He said the Government clause which was now put in the amended form by the noble Earl gave power of appeal to the parents of the children against the way in which the facilities were carried out, and if the Board of Education were satisfied that the parents' objection was well grounded, the remedy was that the school should be translated into a State-aided school. His Amendment came in at this point, and, instead of allowing the Board to make an order for the school to continue as a State-aided school, it enacted that the Board should make an order prescribing the mode in which the extended facilities should be carried out. He hail a subsequent Amendment which replaced the idea of the State-aided school, but in the present Amendment he only sought to give power to the appellate tribunal to say how the facilities should be carried out.
§
Amendment moved to the proposed clause—
In line 7, leave nut from 'order' to the end of the clause, and insert' prescribing the mode in which extended facilities shall be carried out.'" —(Lord Ashbourne.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEsaid the Government took objection to the proposal of the noble Lord. They adhered to the opinion that although a certain amount of trouble and difficulty might apparently be saved by making the mandamus not the result of an appeal from an individual, but of the order of the Board of Education, they came back to the difficulty that if these people did not do what was wanted of them and did not obey their orders there was no med whatever except to put them into gaol. Under the circumstances the Government considered it was an unsuitable and almost an unmeaning remedy, and therefore they could not accept the noble Lord's Amendment, though he would not put their Lordships to the trouble of going to a division.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid if the noble Earl were dissatisfied with he Amendment; as a remedy it was for 506 the Government to propose some other remedy. He quite agreed with him there was a certain awkwardness in the application of the Amendment, although some remedy was required. There was a remedy to which the Legislature was not a stranger and it was a very effective remedy. It was contained in the Default Act passed in the last Parliament. If the noble Earl desired them to strengthen this proposal they would be glad to put on the Paper an Amendment embodying the Default Act in this Bill.
§ On Question, "That those words be there inserted," resolved in the affirmative.
§ New Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
To insert as a now clause, 'Where an order is made under this section allowing a school to continue as a, State-aided school, the Hoard of Education may, not withstanding anything in this or any other Act, pay to that school the Parliamentary grants which would be payable in respect of the school or the scholars in the school if it was a public elementary school, so long as the Board are satisfied that the regulations contained in paragraphs one, two, and three of section seven of the Elementary Education Act, 1870 a copy of which shall be conspicuously put, up in the school), and such other conditions as they prescribe as conditions for the payment of the grant, are complied with in the case of the school. A State-aided school shall not be treated as a public elementary school except for the purpose of the Elementary School Teachers (Superanimation) Act, I898, and any other purpose which may be prescribed by the Board of Education."'—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ LORD ASHBOURNEproposed to amend the clause by inserting at the beginning that if the Commission thought fit after consulting the Board of Education, they might in the case of any existing or transferred voluntary school which fulfilled the conditions requisite before extended facilities could be granted under this Act make an order continuing such school as a State-aided school—
(a) If the applicants for the facilities desire that instead of the facilities being granted such an order should be made: or (b) if the parents committee complain of the mode in which extended facilities are afforded by the local education authority, and desire that, in lieu of any other remedy, such an order should be made provided that in no case shall such an order be made unless the owners of the school-house consent, and the Commission are satisfied that the 507 estimated income of the school from endowments, fees, and voluntary contributions will secure a standard of maintenance not inferior to that of the public elementary schools in the area.He did not say he was strongly in favour of State-aided schools, but he recognised there might be occasions when it would be for the general convenience and ad vantage that there should be State-aided schools, and he proposed to provide for those occasions in what he ventured to think was a carefully balanced and considered Amendment. He had put in every safeguard he could think of, but if the noble Earl had further qualifications he would like to introduce at a subsequent stage of the Bill he would be glad to consider them. He thought the noble Earl would recognise that this Amendment was not framed in any controversial spirit.
§
Amendment to the new clause moved—
To insert at the beginning the following words 'if the Commission think fit after consulting the Board of Education, they may, in the case of any existing or transferred voluntary school which fulfils the conditions requisite before extended facilities can be granted under this Act, make an order continuing such school as a State-aided school—(a) if the applicants for the facilities desire that instead of the facilities being granted such an order should be made; or (6) if the parents' committed complain of the mode in which extended facilities are afforded by the local education authority, and desire that, in lieu of any other remedy, such an order should be made; provided that in no case shall such an order be made unless the owners of the schoolhouse consent, and the Commission are satisfied that the estimated income of the school from endowments, fees, and voluntary contributions will secure a standard of maintenance not inferior to that of the other public elementary schools in the area. The order may provide so far as necessary for the cancelling of any arrangement or order made with respect to the transfer or use of the schoolhouse, and for any other matter for which provision is required in connection with the order of the Commission under this section."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEsaid there was a certain difference between the Government proposal and that of the noble and learned Lord, because he apparently contemplated that the owners of the school should be able to go straight to the Commission and ask to be turned into a State-aided school without coming to any relations or attempting to agree with the authority. That did not seem to him to be reasonable 508 or practicable, because he should think that the Commissioner's would in every case refuse to turn the school into a State-aided school without knowing that some kind of communication had taken place between the authority and the owners of the school with a view to arriving at an agreement. That was an important difference, and it was certainly not one upon which the Government would be disposed to look kindly. Subsection (b) of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment seemed to contemplate that the Commission was going to be everlasting. The Commission would probably be dissolved long before the parents' committees in many cases had an opportunity of making their complaint. He hoped they would not have to make complaints at all, but if they did it would be some years after the Commission had done its labour; and therefore he did not understand how they proposed to make an appeal to them on the subject.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that matter could be met at a later stage.
* THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKE-FIELDdrew attention to the words "not inferior to that of the other elementary schools in the area" and suggested that the word "other" should be struck out.
§ New clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF CKEWE moved an Amendment providing that the Commission might act by any two of their number, and notwithstanding any vacancy in their number. He said this was a small matter concerning the operations of the Commission, and he knew the Amendment met with their approval; indeed the Commission considered it almost necessary to the proper carrying out of their duties.
§
Amendment moved—
In page in, line 33, at the beginning of the line, insert 'The Commission may act by any two of their number and not with standing any vacancy in their number.'"—[The Earl of Crewe.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWE moved a new sub-section to enable the Commission to appoint such officers as they thought necessary for the purpose of assisting in the execution of their duties under this Act. The Amendment, he explained, was also in order that the Commission might carry out their work in an efficient manner. The words had been carefully chosen in order to meet the point upon which a contention was made by the Marquess of Salisbury when the House was last discussing this matter, that he would view with suspicion any handing over of powers to a sub-commissioner. He thought the Amendment guarded against that, though he thought it was a great convenience to be able to depute someone to inquire on their behalf.
§
Amendment moved —
In page 10, line 40, after the wool 'law' to insert as a separate sub-section:—'(C) The Commission may appoint or employ such number of officers and persons as they think necessary for the purpose of assisting in the execution of their duties under this Act, and may remove any officer or person so appointed or employed, and, for the purpose of obtaining any information which the Commission may require, may direct any commissioner or any such officer or person to hold an inquiry. But nothing in this Act shall authorise the Commission to delegate the decision of any point which it is their duty to decide under this Act, or the making of a scheme or order under this Act.'"—(The Karl of Crewe.)
§
Amendments moved—
In page 11, lines '2 and 3, to leave out '31st day of December, 1908,' and insert 'the 1st of July, 1909.'
In page 11, line 12, to leave out 'January' find insert 'July.'
In page 11, line 13, after 'eight' to insert or from the appointed date, if the Schoolhouse is in an area for which a later date is appointed or the operation of section one of this Act 'and to leave out' January 'and insert July'" —(The Karl of Crewe.)
§ VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved an Amendment to establish a parents' committee in the schools temporarily occupied under Clause 11 by the local education authority and in State-aided schools. Both classes of 510 schools were to be purely denominational, and therefore seemed to be in the same category as Clause 4 schools, and he hoped the noble Earl would see no objection to the Amendment. Under the Bill as it stood, there would be no managers to these schools, and therefore it was important that there should be a parents' committee to be responsible for the religious instruction. The second paragraph of the Amendment simply referred questions between the local education authority and the parents' committee to the Board of Education.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 11, line 34, after the word 'effect,' to insert the following new sub sections:— (4) In all schools used by the local education authority under this section, and in all State-aided schools, there shall be a parents' committee elected mid nominated as provided in Section 4 of this Act, and all the provisions hereinbefore contained with reference to the parents' committee shall apply to the parents' committee in those schools. (5) If any question arises between the local education authority and the parents' committee of any school as to the proper and adequate fulfilment of their duties by the committee, such question shall be referred to the Board of Education, whose decision shall be final, and shall be complied I with by the local education authority and the parents' committee (6) The powers of managers under Section 76 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, snail, after the passing of this Act, be exercised by the parents' committees appointed under this Act.'"—(Viscount Llandaff.)
THE EARL OF CKEWEsaid as regarded Clause 11 schools the Government had no objection whatever to the appointment of a parents' committee to manage the religious education while the schools were in a state of suspense, but they did not wish to see parents' committees in State-aided schools, because, as he had pointed out before, the Code would contain special arrangements for the management of those schools which would obviously be of a denominational character, and it would therefore be a pity to appoint a parents' committee merely to dual with religious education in those schools, because, as a matter of fact, their general management would necessarily be of a more or less denominational kind. As regarded the second point, they wore not at all willing for the Board of Education to undertake to settle disputes between the parents' committee and the local education authority. It would be throwing an entirely new 511 burden upon the Board, and he was afraid it was one they were unable to accept. But so far as the third Amendment of the noble Viscount was concerned — that headed sub-section (6)—the Government would accept that if the noble Viscount would substitute the word "section" for "Act" at the end.
§ * VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNhoped his noble friend would not press ibis Amendment, because Clause 11 referred to all existing voluntary schools, and, as Lord Salisbury showed the other night when a proposal was made to appoint a parents committee for schools coming under Clause 3, it would be perfectly possible that a majority of the parents might not belong to the denomination to which the schools hitherto belonged.
§ VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid he had not included Clause 3 schools, but had purposely omitted them.
§ * VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid, so far as he could understand it, the noble Viscount's Amendment included Clause 3 schools. At any rate, it included all schools that came under Clause 11, and they might be schools in which the majority of the parents did not belong to the denomination to which the school belonged under the trust deed, and they had no right to elect a parents' committee in order to manage religious education in such a school during the time it was temporarily used by the local education authority. Surely for that time they might trust the existing managers with the denominational education in the school. He hoped his noble friend would not press his Amendment.
§ LORD BELPERasked whether it would not be possible to continue the managers until it had been decided what class of schools these schools were to come under. It was clear that they would want somebody to carry out everything under the clause for two years.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEsaid that point had been considered before, and he had already stated that they were not prepared to retain the general management of the school under the foundation 512 managers, but they were obliged to place it in the hands of the local authority.
§ VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid he understood his Amendment was accepted in part.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEsaid he had pointed out there were certain parts to which he had no objection, but he had no reason to believe that his acceptance entitled the noble Viscount to conclude that the House would accept it also.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§
Amendments moved—
In page 11, line 37, to leave out the word 'January' and insert the word 'July' and after the word 'eight' to insert the words 'or the appointed date, if the school is in an area for which a later date is appointed for the operation of Section 1 of this Act.'
In page 12, line 1, to leave out the word 'January' and insert the word 'July.'
In page 12, line 33, to leave out the word 'January' and insert the word 'July' and after the word 'eight' to insert the words 'or before the appointed date, if the schoolhouse is in an area for which a later date is appointed for the operation of Section 1 of this Act.'
In page 13, line 14, to leave out the word 'January' and insert the word 'July.'
In page 13, line 15, after the word 'eight' insert the words 'or the appointed date, if the schoolhouse is in an area for which a later date is appointed for the operation of Section 1 of this Act.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWE moved a new sub section to provide that nothing in this Act should affect any power or authority of the Hoard of Education or Charity Commissioners or of any Court to make schemes or orders with reference to charitable trusts. Although in some cases the owners of the schoolhouse would under the Bill be enabled to ask the Commission to make schemes with respect to their trust, yet it was thought desirable to save the powers of the Board of Education and the Charity Commissioners.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 12, line 34. after the word 'Education' to insert the following new sub-section: —'(3) Nothing in this Act shall affect any power or authority of the Board of Education or Charity Commissioners or of any Court to make schemes or orders with reference to charitable trusts.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ LORD BARNARDpointed out that the Board of Education might make an order, and the Commission under the Act might also make an order, and the two orders might be inconsistent.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid the noble Earl would surely not press this Amendment unless he had a conclusive answer to the noble Lord's contention. It seemed to stand to reason that there should not be two Commissions sitting upon one authority at the same time.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEsaid the fear was that the appointment of the Commission might be held to destroy the powers of the Charity Commissioners or the Board of Education in certain cases in which the Commission would not act; but it was not, he thought, a vital Amendment, and if noble Lords took a very strong objection to it he would withdraw it, at any rate at this stage.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF CREWE moved the addition of the following sub-section in Clause 14:—"(4) The power of the Commission to make an order or scheme with respect to a schoolhouse and the power of the local education authority to use a schoolhouse temporarily under, this Act shall not, where that power arises under provisions of this Act which are confined in their application to schoolhouses held under charitable trusts, be exercised in such a manner as to bind or restrict any interest in the schoolhouse which is not subject to those trusts without the consent of the persons in whom that interest is vested." He said the point was raised during the course of the debates when they were discussing Clauses 9 and 11. It was feared that as the Commission under Clause 9 and the local authority under Clause 11 were given power to deal with charitable trusts, it must be made quite clear that the power only extended to those interests which were subject to trusts, and not to all the other interests of the schoolhouse.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 12, line 34, to insert the following new sub-section — '(4) The power of the Commission to make an order or scheme with respect to a schoolhouse and the
514
power of the local education authority to use a school house temporarily under this Act shall not, where that power arises under provisions of this Act which are confined in their application to schoolhouses held under charitable trusts, be exercised in such a manner as to bind or restrict any interest in the schoolhouse which is not subject to those trusts without the consent of the persons in whom that interest is vested." — (The Earl of Crewe).
§ Drafting Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF CREWE moved to leave out the words "of voluntary schools," in lines 10 and 11 and insert 'for the purpose of a public elementary school. 'The Amendment was really one of a verbal kind. It had been suggested that if this Bill passed there would be no such thing as voluntary schools, and therefore the words "voluntary schools" would have no definite meaning, and that consequently some doubt might be raised as to whether it was not confined to existing voluntary schools.
§ LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHWould not a "certified efficient school" be a voluntary school?
§ THE EARL OF CREWEIt might be, but I do not quite see the purpose of the noble Lord's Question.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 14, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'of voluntary schools' and to insert the words 'for the purpose of a public elementary school.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ LORD BELPER moved an Amendment providing that in any case where the powers and duties conferred on a local education commit toe entailed the expenditure of money, such committee should be so constituted as to ensure that not less than two-thirds of the whole body should be representative members, who might be either elected for the purpose by the local government or parochial electors of the delegation area, or members of the district or parish councils within the delegation area, or members of the county council representing any electoral division which lay wholly or partly within the delegation area. He said the Amendment was of some importance as dealing 515 with the administrative part of the Bill, and perhaps he might be allowed to remind the House of the position in which the delegation clause stood when they were in Committee. There was considerable discussion on the bearing of the clause, and although some slight concession was made by the Government, he subsequently, though unable to accept that, offered to make it clear that in cases where the delegation authority had the power of spending money a majority of them should be directly representative of the ratepayers. After that there was a division taken, which, without stretching the point too far, showed, at all events, that the great majority of the House were of opinion that some further concession should be made to the views of the county council than had been made by the Government. Since the Committee stage he had had an opportunity of learning the views of a good many Members of the House who were interested in county council work, and in whose judgment he had great confidence. He had also had the opportunity of consulting his friends who represented the County Councils' Association, and who, equally with him, were responsible for the Amendment. He thought those who agreed with him felt that if the powers were going to be given to a local education committee of spending money, and, if necessary, spending more money that the sum spent for the same purpose by the county council, they could not contest the point that the ratepayers ought to be represented by a majority on that committee. In fact, so far as he could see, the only security against extravagance would be that the ratepayers should be able to call that committee to account, and the only excuse for spending a larger sum of money than had hitherto been spent for the same sort of purpose was that the district wished that amount to be spent, and that they would support the committee which represented them in the spending of that money. Under those circumstances they thought it desirable that he should put on the Paper an Amendment which would carry out their views, and he ventured to submit that this Amendment carried out in a full and fair mariner the principle that where they gave powers to a local education committee to spend money the committee should, by way 516 of security against extravagance, be representative of the ratepayers. In the Amendment he had adopted the principle that such committee should be so constituted as to ensure that no less than two-thirds of the whole body were representative members. He adopted two-thirds because obviously that was a considerable majority, and if he remembered rightly, the noble Lord the President of the Council himself suggested two-thirds instead of three-fourths as regarded this clause. The Amendment also adopted the representation very much in the words which were used in the former clause; that was to say, there might be a body elected for the purpose by the local government or parochial electors of the delegation area, or the representative body might consist of the district or parish councillors, and they had added to that that it might also consist of members of the county council representing any electoral division lying wholly or partly within the delegation area. A much larger interest with regard to local government was taken in the election of county councillors than in the case of parish councillors, and as the county council had had the responsibility of dealing with the education question it seemed rather invidious that they should be left out, and not called in this clause representative members. As the clause was drawn it gave considerably more latitude to the county council in drawing up their scheme, because as long as they secured the principle of the two-thirds representation they had the choice of the members being elected in whatever way they liked. He was fully aware that this was a concession, and he thought a real concession towards the view of the Government. He knew there were many Members of the House who took a very great interest in this question, and he was very anxious in view of the responsibility that rested upon him in being their spokesman in this matter that the subject should not leave the House without some expression of their views as to the limit to which they could give way with regard to the appointment of these committees. He knew there were some Members who would have preferred that the matter should be left entirely optional, and that no obligation should be put upon them, but, as that matter had been decided and this delegation scheme had been arranged for, he 517 was only anxious to get as much latitude in the matter as was possible consistently with the principle which he thought they could not contest if it came back to this House, that where money was spent there must be some representation. He would point out one or two things. In the first place, if two-thirds were to be representative, it, at all events, would allow so far as the other third went the appointment of those conversant with education, managers of schools, ladies who took a great deal of interest in education, but who might not like to stand a contested election; and they might strengthen the committees where it was thought they did not contain many men who had large experience in education, by adding educationists, and those who had been conversant with the working of education in previous years. Although he did not say it would be necessary to put on one-third in all cases, it would, at all events, give a considerable latitude to the county council in drawing their scheme to be able to put on one-third to strengthen these committees from an educational point of view. Then he laid very great stress indeed on members of the county council being able to act on these committees when they wore first started. There were many members of the county councils who had taken a most active interest in the work of education—that detailed work which would be practically delegated to these subordinate committees and he thought it would add considerably to the smooth working of those committees if there was placed at their disposal the experience which the county councils had gained during the last four years by insuring that members of the county councils were placed on thorn. He had proposed the Amendment in a form which seemed to him the most desirable to enable members of the county council to be placed on these committees, but if in the course of discussion it was found that there was any better way of doing it he would not, certainly so far as he was concerned, let that stand in the way so long as they could ensure that members of the county council who resided in or were members for a particular district should be able to be appointed on the education committees. He would like to mention another point which was not contained 518 in the words of his clause. When the discussion took place in Committee he mentioned that they laid very great stress indeed on the omission of sub-section (3.) If they could not get all the latitude they asked for originally in the clause he looked upon that as the greatest possible safeguard to the county councils in appointing their education committees, and in settling what the duties of those education committees should be, because, as he had pointed out, if their powers and duties must be uniform, either delegation work must progress extremely slowly, or they would have to give the most incompetent committees the same powers that they gave to those whose experience was thoroughly to be trusted. Therefore, if his Amendment led to any compromise, or was accepted by the Government, he hoped the Government would understand that he looked upon the continued omission of sub-section (3) as essential to the scheme, and he had rather hoped from the fact that they did not divide against the Amendment that they would recognise that it was a great safeguard to the county council. He had satisfied himself that the clerks of the councils and the county accountants could very easily work out a system of accounts which would not cause very much more trouble or expense, and he was sure that the Local Government auditors, when they were satisfied that they would have to change their form of accounts in some way, would do everything they could to facilitate the proper form of accounts being kept. He was quite aware that there would be a considerable number of committees which would be entrusted with adequate powers, entrusted with the spending of money, but at the same time be believed there would be small committees which at first nobody would like to trust with such powers. Therefore if they desired to entrust these powers to these small committees some such Amendment as this was necessary. He noticed that one or two of his noble friends on this side of the House stated in Committee that the Committee was so near agreement that it might be hoped that they would come to some agreement at this stage. This House contained a much larger number of representatives of county councils and county council associations at the present time than did the other House, 519 and therefore he would have been sorry if this clause had left the House without his having made some offer that might load to a solution of this rather difficult question. He hoped the words he had placed upon the Paper and the few remarks he had made would be a step in that direction. He might say he had no special affection for the actual wording of his clause as it stood so long as the substance was adhered to, and therefore he hoped what he had said would meet with some response from the Government which might lead to a settlement of the question. If that settlement could be arrived at before the Bill left this House it would be so much the better; but his clause would, at all events, show their bona fides in the matter and that they were willing to recognise this principle, which was a recognised principle in local government, and were anxious to meet as far as they could the objections to his Amendment as it stood.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 14, line, 34, after the word 'them,' to insert the words, 'Provided that in any case where the powers and duties confer red on a local education committee entail the expenditure of money, such committee shall be so constituted as to ensure that not less than two-thirds of the whole body shall be representative members, who may he cither elected for the purpose by the Local Government or parochial electors of the delegation area, or members of the district or parish councils within the delegation area, or members of the county council representing any electoral; division which lies wholly or partly within the delegation area.'"—(Lord Belper.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEMy Lords, we cordially recognise the very conciliatory and moderate spirit in which the noble Lord has proposed this important clause. And I hope he is right in believing that we are so near to an agreement that before the Bill leaves this House we shall have arrived at a solution generally acceptable to all. I quite agree that considering the great number of noble Lords in this House well acquainted with the principles of county council; government it would be something of a shame to us if we allowed the Bill to leave this House without having arrived at some agreement on this question of delegation. Speaking generally, we are prepared to accept at any rate the principle of my noble friend's clause. I am not sure, however, how his original provisions 520 will work in view of sub-section (2) of the Act, which compels all these bodies to have a certain amount of money entrusted to thorn. As a matter of fact we are somewhat wedded to the form of our original description of representative bodies under their different heads, and we should prefer some re-construction of the original sub-section (4) to the words used by the noble Lord. What I propose to do is to bring up an Amendment at the next stage to re-insert our own sub-section (4) in a considerably altered form, I propose to say that any local Committee under this clause shall be either—
(a) a body elected for the purpose in manner provided in the scheme by the local government or parochial electors for the delegation area, women being capable of being elected; or (b) a body consisting of the council of a local government area where that is possible owing to the delegation area being a single local government area, together with additional members if so provided by the scheme, not being more in number than one-third of the whole body and being either common or county councillors nominated by the county council.That will enable women, until the time comes when they can be elected on these bodies, to be added as nominated members of the councils. Then the third alternative is this—A body, the ordinary members of which consist wholly of members of the councils of such local government areas wholly or partly situated in the delegation area as the scheme directs, or partly of such members and partly of members nominated in manner directed by the scheme.That was the third; but there is this important provision which meets the wishes of the noble Lord to a large extent—together with additional members if so provided by the scheme being all or any of the members of the county council representing any electoral division wholly or partly situated within the delegation area or residing in the area; where a local education committee contains nominated members, the scheme shall provide that a certain number of members must be women.All I have to say further is that we quite agree to the permanent elimination of the old sub-section (3). The provisions of this scheme as to the power of deciding shall be uniform as regards all the others. We thought, and still think that some difficulty might be caused by striking out that provision, but the noble Lord makes it a great point that we should agree to leave that out of the 521 Bill. In other respects I hope we are as near to an agreement as the noble Lord believes. If he will move his Amendment now I will accept it on those conditions.
§ * VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he hoped that the noble Earl in considering this matter would remember that the members of county councils were very hard worked persons already. As the noble Lord had said, their experience in educational matters was very valuable, but it would be quite impossible for thorn in many instances to devote much time to these small school areas. Parish councillors or even district councillors might be able to do so, but he did not believe that county councillors could find time in addition to their other duties to do much in these small areas over which these local committees would preside. There was one point in respect to which he would like to ask a question of the noble Earl. There was one matter which admittedly did not come within the province of these local committees which he would like the noble Earl to deal with. Later on in the clause the noble Earl proposed to move an Amendment which would abolish the existing managers to a large extent. Hitherto the managers had had the management and control of these schools, and the question he desired to ask was, who in the future was to control denominational education in the Clause 3 schools? As the Bill now stood it would seem that the owners of the school house would have to settle with the local authority as to the facilities that should be given for denominational education. But who was to control the giving of the denominational education in the Clause 3 schools? Very often the trustees of the school were nonresidents, and they would not be able to attend to it. Who would? Would it not be possible at a later stage of this Bill to insert some provision that the owners of the school house might delegate their power in this matter to some other person, who might be one of the local education committee, who would be able to attend to this matter?
§ LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid he was sorry to hear from the noble Earl that he was unable to meet the views of the noble Lord more than he 522 had done. The composition of these committees was a question in which the county councils were much interested and upon which they felt very strongly. Upon one particular point he extremely regretted that the noble Earl had not been able to meet them. The county council of the district should, he thought, stand on the same footing as representatives of the electorate of the areas as did all other locally elected bodies. They were elected by the same electorate and under the same circumstances as other representative bodies, and therefore it seemed hardly fitting that they should be put on these committees in, so to speak, a subservient position and with something of a less representative character than the district or parish council in the matter. He hoped the House would accept the Amendment of the noble Lord as it was, and that the Government on further consideration would see their way to come a little closer to the Amendment than he gathered from the noble Earl they at present did.
* LORD FITZMAURICEsaid in reference to what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite he desired to make quite clear what the position of the county councillors on these committees would be it was proposed that the county councillors should be given full opportunities of serving on these committees, because in the first place they probably might in many cases desire to do so, and, in the second place, their experience would be extremely useful. At the same time the Government was quite conscious that what had fallen from the noble Viscount opposite was perfectly true; that the work of the county councillors had now become so large and absorbing that it was quite impossible to imagine that they would be able to spare any large amount of time upon these committees for detail work. Nevertheless, the Government agreed with the noble Lord who moved this Motion that it would be desirable to give the county councillors an opportunity. With regard to the other point just raised by the noble Lord, he reminded the House that at an earlier stage his noble friend the Lord President expressed a general readiness to consider the possibility of doing something in the direction of meeting the views of noble 523 Lords opposite in regard to the nomination of a parents' committee with reference to Clause 3 schools. He was perfectly open to consider that matter on the last stage of the Bill. It might be possible, for example, to do something in the direction of forming a parents' committee from the body of the parents of the children who from time to time were making use of the facilities in the particular schools referred to. Beyond that he did not think he could now go, but the question should receive further attention.
§ LORD BELPERsaid he had no right to reply, but he only desired to say that he would like his Amendment to be put now, and that he would consider the words of the Amendment of the noble Earl when they appeared on the Paper.
§ On Question, "That those words be there inserted," resolved in the affirmative.
§
Amendments moved—
In page 14, lines 35 and 36, to leave out the words 'nominated as such additional members' and to insert the words 'members of local education committees'; in line 37, to leave out the words 'so nominated' and to insert the words 'of those committees.'
In page 15, line 25, after the word 'committee' to insert the words 'and in that case no managers shall be appointed under that section.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid the three Amendments of which he had given notice all hung together, and their object was to amend the machinery by which the accounts of the delegated bodies were to be kept. By subsection (1) of Clause 15 delegated bodies were set up, and by sub-section (2) they were given spending powers independently of the local authority. It was quite clear by sub-section (9) as it stood that these delegated bodies would be enabled to keep their accounts perfectly independently of the local authorities, and to furnish only such information as would enable the county council to supply the amount required by them. The result of the clause as it stood was that there would be twenty or thirty accounts kept in connection with the schools of the county, and it would be impossible for the local authority to have knowledge of 524 the money spent in the schools of the area. The object of the words he had placed on the Paper was to enable the county councils to keep one account in respect of all the schools within their area. These words reserved to the delegated bodies all the powers given under the Bill, left them perfectly free to carry out their policy, and merely required that when they had determined what money they should spend they should send on their bills to the county council, who would keep an account and have a record by which they would be able to have control over the money spent in the schools. He hoped the Amendment would prove convenient to the Government and that they would accept it.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 15, line 26, to leave out the words from the beginning of sub-section (9) to the word 'shall' in line 3, and insert the words 'a scheme under this section shall provide for the rendering by each local education committee to the county council of accounts of the expenditure incurred by that body, and all expenditure properly incurred by that body shall be defrayed by the county council and the accounts of that body.'
In page 15, line 31, to leave out the words 'audited as.'
In line 32, to leave out the words 'and in that case' and insert the words 'provided that.'"—(The Earl of Lytton.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWESo far as regards the words of the noble Earl I may say it would be open to every county council, and I imagine it is the course they would take, to provide for such a rendering by any of their schools. But when the noble Lord goes farther and says that all the expenditure should be defrayed by the county council, it appears to me he is undoing a considerable part of what we propose to do by sub-section (2). If he wishes to say that it shall be impossible for these delegated bodies to do anything, even to draw a cheque, and that they shall have to send on their bills to the county councils to be paid by them, it seems to mo he is taking away a great part of the delegated powers. He goes far beyond what he status is the purport of his Amendment, namely, the matter of account keeping. It is perfectly proper and reasonable that the county council should be able to keep a general view over all the expenditure of the delegated bodies, but we are not prepared to hand over this power to them.
§ THE MARQUESS or SALISBURYasked whether the noble Earl realised the very complicated system of auditing which he was establishing under this clause unless some such Amendments as these were accepted. As he understood, the Local Government Board auditor would have to attend each of these schools all through the country.
§ THE EARL OF CREWENo, he may if he thinks it convenient, but he can, if he chooses, have them audited as county council accounts.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid it lay with the Local Government auditor to decide. The only other point to which he wished to draw attention was the great advantage there was in enabling the ratepayers and others to see at once what a particular school in the district cost. If the thing was split up there would be no control or knowledge of what money was spent. The object of his noble friend to concentrate the accounts appeared to him to be of value, and he therefore hoped the noble Earl would reconsider the Question.
§ LORD BELPERsaid he had looked into this matter a little, and it appeared to him that it would be covered by the ordinary procedure of county council government. The county councils would have to keep an account in the future much in the same way as they did now, except that when they delegated certain powers for the purpose of allowing a certain sum to be spent by a district, that district would have to send in an estimate of what they had to spend, and the account would have to be kept by the district. He did not think they ought to legislate in the direction of saying how these accounts should be kept. So far as the county council with which he was connected was concerned they would do it without any direction from Parliament.
LORD FITZMAURICEsaid the Amendment seemed to go beyond what the noble Lord who had just spoken would favour. He knew how dangerous it was to plunge into this question of audit of accounts, because, as those who 526 had to deal with the whole inception of county council accounts would remember, an endless controversy arose with regard to the proper method of keeping accounts between the standing grand committee and the county councils. He took it that under the words as they now stood what his noble friend said just now would really be the case, and that the objection urged by the noble Marquess opposite would be met, because under the words of the Bill these accounts would be brought back into the county accounts, and everything would lead the county council to do exactly what it did at the present time with a great many accounts of county council schools, isolation hospitals, and matters of that kind which were dependent partly on local and partly on county expenditure. He could only speak with knowledge of his own county, where the accounts of the county council were drawn up on the model settled by the Local Government auditors as applying to the accounts of county councils in general, and in those accounts any school, however small or however large, had a place to itself. After an interval of not more than a year every ratepayer who wanted to see what was the expenditure of a particular school could do so by turning up the page in the county council accounts. He could not see anything in the Bill that would prevent that being done, whereas, on the other hand, if the words of the noble Lord wore adopted they would very likely neutralise what the House in general wished, namely, that there should be a saving of time in dealing with the details at the central county council office. Besides that, they would prevent the delegated committee having a spending account, every payment would have to be made from the county office, and they would get once more what they desired to avoid, namely, the block of county business caused by the accumulation of a large mass of small payments which it was desired should be dealt with locally.
THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid he had no intention that the Amendment should go in any way beyond the object he had described in his speech. The only object of the Amendment was that the county council should have some knowledge of the details of the expenditure and the general policy of the school. Of course 527 if it was not thought necessary he would not press it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThe next Amendment deals with quite a small point. Under the Act of 1876 the prosecutions for non-attendance at the schools; had to be taken by direction of two members of the school board. When the Act of 1902 was passed the members of the education committee or some committee appointed by them wore substituted for the members of the school board, and under this clause, as the powers of the education committees are to be delegated, it is necessary to make the substitution of two members to undertake this duty.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 16, line 3, after the word 'area' to insert as a new sub-section:—' In any ease where the powers of the local education authority with respect to enforcing school attendance are delegated to a local education committee under this section, paragraph (3) of the Third Schedule to the Education Act, 1902. shall have effect as if members of that committee were substituted for members of the education committee.'" —(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ VISCOUNT CROSSsaid that on a former stage of this Bill he pressed the House to consider the case of those county councils where they had already made arrangements, and in the case of many county councils arrangements had been made which had been working for the last two years apparently to the satisfaction of everybody. That was the ease in Lancashire. The clause which he moved referred to the county, and its object was this: They do not want the county council to contract out of the Bill, and all he would suggest was that if the Board of Education were satisfied that the plans made by the county councils, and which had worked so well for two years, were satisfactory, then the county councils need not make a scheme under the Act. If the Board of Education wished that they should make a scheme they would make one, but it would cause a great deal of expense, and all the trouble they had taken in the last two years would be thrown away. If the schemes that these county councils worked under now were 528 satisfactory he could not see why they should be put to the trouble of making others.
§ Amendment moved.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI do not think in this case I can accept the scheme of the noble Viscount. He has fought a valiant battle for Lancashire, but even Lancashire is not unanimous, because on a former occasion my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth got up behind me and rather supported our contention as against that of the noble Viscount. We have gone as far as we can in trying to meet Lord Belper and some noble friends of his in the constitution of these schemes, and I hope when the time comes Lancashire will find the matter is not so difficult and that it will not create so much disturbance as my noble friend now fears.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThe next Amendment is a verbal one. In some cases "Board" is the Local Government Board and in others it is the Board of Education, and it is necessary to make the matter clear.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 17, line 7, after the word 'Board' to insert the words 'of Education or the Local Government Board as the ease requires'.")—(The Earl of Crewe).
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThe next is an important sub-section, giving powers to the county councils which are very largely demanded by them, to enable them to get rid of land and buildings used for the purpose of secondary schools when they are no longer required for that purpose. It is a power which does not exist at present and many county councils would be glad to have it.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 17, line 10, after the word 'made' to insert as a new sub-section: '(4) A council shall have power, with the consent of the Board of Education, to alienate any land or buildings acquired or held by them for the purposes of education other than elementary under Part II. of the Education Act, 1902, and in the case of the sale of any such land or buildings, the proceeds of sale shall be applied in such manner as the Board of Education
529
sanction towards the discharge of any loan of the council under the Education Acts, or otherwise for any inn-pose for which capital may he applied by the council under those Acts.'"—(The Earl of Crewe).
§ THE EARL OF CREWEUnder the School Sites Act, 1841, the consent of the Home Department was required in various matters. At the time the Act was passed there was no Education 'Department at all, and therefore the consent of the Secretary of State was required in every matter. The Secretary of State now invariably sends the matter over to the Board of Education, asks their opinion and acts upon it. It is therefore more convenient that the Board of Education should have the nominal as well as the real power.
§
Amendment moved—
To insert as a new clause: the consent of the Board of Education shall be substituted for the consent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in cases where the consent of the said Secretary of State is, at the time of the passing of this Act, required under Section 14 of the School Sites Act, 1841, and Section 1 of the School Grants Act, 1855, which relate to sales, exchange, or mortgages of school premises.'"— (The Earl of Crewe).
§ Drafting Amendment agreed to.
§ *THE EARL OF STAMFORD moved a new clause for the purpose of mooting a slight difficulty which had arisen under the Act of 1902. As the law was now held to stand a scholarship could be held only by a resident within the area of the local education authority. When it happened that the parents of the child moved out of the area it had been held that the scholarship must be discontinued. It was to remove that hardship that he now moved this new clause.
§
Amendment moved—
To insert as a new clause: 'The power of a council to provide scholarships for or pay the fees of students under subsection (2) of Section 23 of the Education Act, 1902, shall include a power, subject to such condition (if any) as may be made by the council, to provide or assist in providing scholarships for, or to pay or assist in paying the fees of, students, if at the time the scholarship is awarded or the payment of the fees is determined upon, the scholar is ordinarily
530
resident in the area of the council, although the student subsequently ceases to be so resident.'"—(The Earl of Stamford.)
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI am prepared to accept the clause. It is no doubt clear that a hardship does arise out of the law as it now stands. I think the word "scholar" in the last line but one of the clause ought to be "student." With that Amendment I accept it.
§ Drafting Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD BELPERsaid he desired to ask one question on Clause 25. That clause was inserted in substitution of one he moved, and once it had been inserted the question had arisen as to the cost of conveying children to school. In some cases the conveyance of children a certain distance obviated the necessity of building a new school. If they wore not conveyed to another school a new school would have to be built in the particular parish, and a certain proportion of the cost of such new school would be put upon the locality. He wished to ask the Lord President whether he would consider in a case of that sort, where the cost of a new school had been avoided and considerable capital saved, that the conveying of the children should be put upon the parish which had saved the expense of building the school. He thought this might be done under Clause 19, which gave power to the Board of Education to declare what expense should be included in capital expenditure. If it could not be done in that way perhaps the noble Lord would bring up the matter on the Third Reading.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThe point of the noble Lord is one of real substance. It is perfectly clear that if a parish has saved the expense of building a school by moans of this conveyance it ought to pay its fair share of that conveyance. Whether it should be done under Clause 19 is a matter we must consider, because it is difficult to imagine that the hire of an omnibus could be regarded as capital expenditure. I will consider the matter.
* THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURYsaid the clause he desired to move was to take the place of one which he had put down previously to safeguard the voluntary schools associations existing at the present time in many parts of the country. It was quite clear that many of those associations must come to an end when voluntary school management ceased to exist. The method he proposed was a very simple one. It was to allow any voluntary schools association to apply to the Board of Education for a scheme. This would not be necessary in every case, but wherever these associations were founded under trust deeds something of the kind was necessary. He hoped the Government would see their way to give this power, which would be much to the purpose in helping them in this matter. He might say, in reference to the remarks of Viscount St. Aldwyn, that these were the bodies to whom the school owners should delegate the control of religious instruction. They were representative bodies of men of expert knowledge, and included many laymen. They were exactly the sort of men to manage that difficult subject. He doubted whether parents' committees were likely to be a great success. He was anxious that parents should have the right to settle the primary question as to what doctrine their children should be taught, but whether they were persons likely to be best capable of controlling the details of religious instruction, he was not at all sure. At any rate he was quite certain that the voluntary schools associations would be bodies in which every one would have every confidence.
§
Amendment moved—
To insert as a new clause: 'An application may be made under Section 14 of the Charitable Trusts Act (32 & 33 Viet. c. 110), 1869, to the Board of Education by the governing body of any association of voluntary schools in respect of any funds or property held or administered by them as it they were the trustees of a charity exempted from the operation of the Charitable Trusts Act.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Salisbury.)
* THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELDsaid that so far as he understood the proposal of the Lord Bishop of Salisbury, it was to deal with existing funds and property in the Lands of these associations. But they 532 wanted a little more extended powers than that. It would be for the general convenience for religious education to be administered by the representatives of the owners, and it would be for the convenience of the Board of Education that some further control should be secured by this Amendment. If the noble Lord would consider the matter, he would like to propose something to the effect that the owners of the school-house of any existing voluntary school, might, with the consent of the Board of Education, delegate any of their powers under this Act, and any powers with respect to endowments or rents held or received in respect of the schoolhouse, to any voluntary association constituted under this section. He would not enlarge upon the subject, but would ask the noble Earl whether, in accepting this clause, he would take into consideration the suggestion proposed, and on the Third Reading see if further extending words could be found.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEWe are anxious to meet the right rev. Bishop of Salisbury on this point. The right rev. Prelate raised this point at an earlier stage with regard to voluntary schools associations and also with regard to what will happen to the amount of the Parliamentary grants which are held by the school managers under paragraph 12 of the second section of the Act of 1902. In that case the funds are to be applied to the repairs of school buildings, and as we relieve these schools of the obligation of repairing the schools it is obvious that the purpose for which these funds wore allotted to the trustees will come to an end. It is stated that the powers of the Board of Education as Charity Commissioners do not extend to dealing with the statutory trusts of the country, and therefore it is necessary to have a clause to deal with the matter. We propose to put that in this form—
The Board of Education may, on the application of the governing body of any association of voluntary schools as respects any funds or property held or administered by that body at the date of the passing of this Act, and on the application of the managers of any existing voluntary school as respects any funds held by them at the date of the passing of this Act on account of payments made to them under paragraph (12) of the Second Schedule to the Education Act, 1902, make an order or scheme under the Charitable Trusts Acts, 533 1853 to 1894, for the administration or application of the funds or property so held, notwithstanding that the whole or any part of those funds or that property may be exempt from the operation of the said Acts.That covers the whole position raised by the Bishop of Salisbury. But the right rev. Prelate who has just sat down opens up a much larger vista. So far as I could gather, he desires to apply it to such schemes as excited such horror in the mind of Lord Barnard, and which were construed by the House as being a serious interference with trusts, a somewhat dangerous precedent from the point of view of noble Lords opposite. I am afraid we can hold out no hope there.
§ LORD BARNARDreminded the right rev. Prelate that the principle of law applied to trustees and that trustees could not delegate their powers to any-body else.
A NOBLE LORDasked whether the objections of the noble Earl to the Amendment wore objections to the essence or the form. He did not understand them to be objections to the essence of the Amendment. What he understood the Bishop of Salisbury and the noble Earl to be dealing with was the money in hand at the time this Act passed.
LORD FITZMAURICEdid not quite see the point. There was no necessity in this Bill to deal with the matter. There was nothing to prevent anybody entrusted with these funds from forming themselves into a trust which would be bound by all the conditions of the law.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment moved—
To insert as a new clause: 'The Board of Education may, on the application of the governing body of any association of voluntary schools as respects any funds or property held or administered by that body at the date of the passing of this Act, and on the application of the managers of any existing voluntary school as respects any funds held by them at the date of the passing of this Act on account of payments made to then under paragraph (12) of the Second Schedule to the Education Act, 1902, make an order or scheme under the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1894, for the administration or application of the funds or property so held, notwithstanding that the whole or any part of those funds or that property may he exempt from the operation of the said Acts.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
* THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKE-FIELDsaid the Amendment he now moved was a very important one. Clause 27 provided under certain conditions for the compensation of certificated teachers who might lose their employment by reason of the passing of this Act. His Amendment was to remedy a great hardship. Besides the certificated teachers, who to a certain extent were provided for by this clause, there was a large class of teachers who were not certificated teachers, some of whom might be thrown out of employment by this Bill. It was hard to see why certificated teachers should be compensated and uncertificated teachers should not. The certificated teachers were well organised, the uncertificated teachers were unorganised, and as a body were inarticulate and voiceless. The certificated teachers were better able to take care of themselves than the uncertificated who were well nigh helpless in this matter of securing immunity from a great hardship. These uncertificated teachers had done excellent service to the State for many years; many of them had been loyal and faithful servants not only to the State but to religion, in which connection their work had had a special attraction for them. He expressed great gratitude to those uncertificated teachers for their ungrudging service. It might be said that the number of uncertificated teachers was so large that the burden thrown upon this Bill would be too great. The number of certificated teachers was 78,734, all other classes of teachers except pupil teachers and probationers amounted to 61,468, that was to say, the certificated teachers formed 56 per cent. of the whole. It was a little difficult to find out what proportion of the 61,468 were teachers in the voluntary schools and would come under the operation of this clause, but he had ascertained the number that might be affected was 34,501, and of that number no less than 90 per cent. were women. That, no doubt, was a large number of persons, but in reality the number who would come in for compensation would be very small. It was computed that only one per cent. of that number. Under those circumstances it might be taken that most of those teachers would continue their employment. But there were cases where 535 compensation would be needed, and those would be the cases of long service. He referred specially to instances of long-service by single women. He thought such cases had been considerably overlooked by this Clause which had been introduced with a considerable amount of haste. If the number to be dealt with was still thought to be too large he would suggest that it might be limited by adding "ten years service" as a qualification, but he thought the number was not a very great objection because it would only be the most deserving who received the modest solatium under this clause. When they looked at the amount, their Lordships would see that in the case of total deprivation of employment no teacher could receive more than three years salary. One other objection might be taken to the proposal. It might be said that it was not within the competence of this House to propose such an Amendment, because being a financial matter it would be an infringement of the privileges of another place. If that objection were raised he would humbly suggest that no new financial issue was raised by the Amendment; that it was only a slight extension of the principle of compensation raised in the other Mouse. He was encouraged to take this view because the Government themselves had made a considerable extension under Clause 10.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 20, line 22, to leave out the word 'certificated,' and after 'teacher' to insert the words 'other than a pupil teacher or probationer.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Wakefield.)
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid he earnestly supported the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate. If it was not agreed to there was no doubt great injustice would be done.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI am sorry not to be able to accept this Amendment, and I am bound to say, speaking for myself, I am as little in love with this clause as any in the Bill. Personally, so far from desiring to extend it, I should have preferred to limit its operation. I am afraid I must, not I think for the first time, take the objection to which the right rev. Prelate has alluded that it is not within the competence of this House to insert in the clause a provision of this kind. I am afraid the right rev. Prelate is not very familiar 536 with the Resolution of the House of Commons which governs; these matters, but if he looks at the Minutes he will find that such a ease as this undoubtedly infringes the privileges of another place in regard to dealing with money matters. But even apart from that, I am afraid I could not agree to the placing of such a burden of an entirely unknown character on the local authority. This was not intended so much as a compassionate allowance as a means of arranging for the distribution of certain efficient people who, owing to the large change in the machinery of the public elementary schools, may be without employment. It is not intended that it should be a means of supplying more or less inefficient teachers with a kind of pension beyond anything they might otherwise be entitled to. I think the right rev. Prelate has rather mistaken the object of the clause in that respect. I cannot accept the modification.
§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThe noble Earl the Lord President objects to this Amendment because, in the first place, it is an invasion of the privileges of the House of Commons. That is an argument we are often favoured with in this House, but I am always struck with the intermittent manner in which it is used. I do not think my recollection plays me false when I say that no longer ago than last Thursday night, the noble Earl moved an Amendment which certainly involved additional expense in lighting and warming the schools.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI merely moved what I believed to be the intention of the Bill when it came up from another place. It did not involve any further charge.
§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI only spoke from memory. Now, speaking on the merits of this Motion, does not this section involve injustice to these teachers? What reason is there for this difference of treatment in regard to compensation? If you look at Clauses of the Bill you will see that all teachers are guaranteed continuity of employment when their schools are transferred to the local education authority. It certainly does seem rather hard that this particular 537 class of teacher should be debarred from compensation which is granted to a teacher of a different sort. Is it not also the case that the hardship on the un-certificated teacher is greater than that on the certificated teacher, the certificated teacher being more likely to obtain other employment than the uncertificated. If he is thrown out of work it may be extremely difficult for him to find further employment. They are people who have done a great deal of work for the elementary education of this country, and they should I cannot help thinking be entitled to compensation if they lose their employment.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEAs a personal explanation I may say I have studiously avoided on all occasions raising the question of infringing the privileges of another place, and I should not have raised it on this occasion had not the right rev. Prelate referred to it.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he had always noticed that the argument as to the infringement of privilege was used in the manner most agreeable to the Party in power. This particular privilege appeared to be of the most elastic character when, in the discussions on the Irish land proposals of Mr. Balfour, a clause which involved expenditure was extended and carried through this House. He endorsed most heartily what had fallen from the Leader of the Opposition. He thought it extremely hard that certain people who had conscientiously discharged their duties as teachers should be treated differently from others simply because they came in a different category. He had had some experience of the manner in which these teachers discharged their duties, and he thought they were justified in asking the noble Earl to reconsider the matter before it came up at a future stage. It might be a matter of privilege, but something ought to be done for this deserving class.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§
Amendments moved—
In page 20, line 26, after the word 'salary' to insert the words 'or emoluent'.
In line 37, after the word 'salary' to insert the words 'or emolument.'"—(The Earl of Grewe.)
§ * VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid they ought to be very particular in these matters of privilege. Were not these Amendments quite as much a breach of privilege as that to which the noble Earl objected just now?
§ THE EARL OF CREWEIf Mr. Speaker thinks so he will bring the matter to the attention of the House of Commons.
A NOBLE LORDThen I think in all cases we ought to leave it to Mr. Speaker to take notice of the breach.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought it was rather hard that the noble Earl should deal with these Amendments in a different manner from that in which he dealt with the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate. He would have thought that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI do not think this is a matter of privilege, and I only mentioned the matter before because the right rev. Prelate laid down the law upon the matter, and as a member of the Government I could not let his opinion pass unchallenged. If noble Lords think it is a matter of privilege I do not press it.
§ On Question, Amendments negatived.
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid the details of his Amendments to the schedule would take some time to explain, and he would not at that hour discuss them unless the Lord President desired him to do so.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI think it would be more satisfactory to postpone the whole question of the schedule until the Third Reading, It would be difficult to deal with it now, and if noble Lords agree I think in view of what has taken place we will have the schedule thoroughly rearranged.
§ Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 224.)
§ House adjourned at a quarter past Twelve o'clock a.m., till half past Ten o'clock a.m.