§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 6:—
§ (9.0.) MR. YOXALL
moved to add after the word "control" in line 35, the words "and regulation" this referring to the control the Clause provides the education authority shall exercise over elementary instruction. He expressed a hope he would not be told that the words were superfluous. In this part of the Bill words were of very great importance and, if his Amendment were accepted, it would imply that the authority would exercise a regulating power over the aided schools of the district. Acceptance of this would achieve something towards the shortening of the Debates on subsequent parts of the Bill. The question was what was intended to be meant by the word "control." Under Clause 15 of the Act of 1870, control and management, were almost identical in their meaning, but now the Government proposed to set up a new meaning of the word "control"—a meaning it had not hitherto had in school law. Having regard to the context, it was almost necessary to add words to convey the new meaning. At present the School Board did exercise over its schools very effective control. It laid down regulations for the guidance of managers, for the management of the schools and for the direction of teachers; and in London, Nottingham, and parts of Lancashire, it shared the management of schools with local managers. But it retained control in two ways—financially and in the issue of regulations. He 184 wanted a similar course to be followed by local authorities under this Bill; he wanted the local education authority to be compelled to make regulations for instruction in secular education in all their schools. He understood the framers of the Bill were willing to give that control, and he, therefore, could not understand why the Government objected to it. The insertion of the words "and regulations" would do away with all chance of misconception. The Bill as it stood was vague to the last degree. What, for instance, were the powers of finance to be devolved on the managers of schools? He could not say, but he gathered, from the Vice President that the local education authority would pay the expenses of the school direct. If not, then they ought to be in a position to make regulations as to the amount and method of expenditure, otherwise if the managers of the schools received a lump sum they might spend it as extravagantly as they pleased. In the interests of popular control, and in the interests of the Bill itself, he urged the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. Finally he asked—did the Board of Education intend to issue minutes on this point?
In line 35, after the 'control' to inset the words 'and regulations.' "—(Mr. Yoxall.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'and regulations' be there inserted."
§ SIR JOHN GORST
said the words which the hon. Member proposed to insert, and which he had spent nearly a quarter of an hour in defending, were words which really did not add anything to the force or sense of the Bill. They might not do any harm, but he had no hesitation in saying that the addition of them would do no good. A body which had a right of control obviously had a right to make regulations. Therefore the Amendment was superfluous; it added nothing but phraseology to the Bill, and it did not produce greater clearness. He therefore thought the Government were bound to resist it.
MR. BEYNMOR JONES
agreed entirely with the right hon. Gentleman that the addition of the words would not 185 in any way aid the object which he understood the proposer had in view. It would not be commended as a matter of draughtsmanship. If the word "control" was to be construed in its ordinary sense, it included the power of making regulations such as the hon. Member had referred to. But he would like to point out to the Vice President that this kind of Amendment was produced by the very vague manner in which the Bill had been drawn. The word "control" was not usual in Acts of Parliament, and its use might give rise to indefinite disputation in the future between public bodies in the royal Courts of Justice. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
§ Amendment negatived.
I do not think the Amendment standing in the. name of the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs, to add after ''control" the words "and management," is in order at this point.
§ MR. BRYCE
said that if reference were made to the fourteenth and fifteenth sections of the Act or 1870, it would be found that the words "control and management" were used together as terms to denote the authority of the School Board. Many hon. Members on that side attached great importance to the word "management." They felt that as the School Board powers included "management." reference should be made to it in this clause also.
§ SIR MICHAEL FOSTER (London University)
pointed out that the phrase "manage instruction" would have a very dubious meaning.
§ SIR JOHN GORST
In the Act of 1870, the words are "the control and management of schools"; in tins case it is "the control and management of instruction." The things are different.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES
said there was a great distinction between the words "control" and "management," "control" had a general meaning, but "management" signified a more definite interference with carrying on operations of any kind. He therefore submitted that the Amendment was quite in order.
It is true, as the hon. Member has pointed out, that "control" has a general and "manage" a special meaning, but if he will look at Clause 6 he will find that is general, while Clause 7 is special. If the words "and management" were introduced in Clause 6 what would become of Clause 7? The Committee would never have an opportunity of considering it.
§ MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire. W.R., Elland)
moved to insert the word "inspection" after the word "control." He said that the object of the Amendment was to make the work of inspection a positive obligation on the new educational authority. This was a most important thing under the new scheme of education which the country was entering upon. It was impossible to conceive that the authorities who had the control of education for a whole county would be able to deal with it properly without the aid of inspectors. However active the members might be it would he impossible for them to visit the very numerous schools under their jurisdiction. For instance, in the case of Northumberland, how could they get to the schools in the out of the way parts of the Cheviots?
Order, order! I notice that the matter which the hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise is provided for in Clause 8. Sub-section (b), which gives the local authority power to inspect.
§ MR. TREVELYAN
That only applies to voluntary schools. It does not deal with schools provided by the local authority. The only clause which deals with these schools is Clause 7.
§ MR. WALTER. LONG
May I submit that with regard to schools provided by the local authority itself it obviously would have powers of inspection. Clause 8 gives the necessary powers over other schools.
§ MR. TREVELYAN
thought his Amendment could hardly be said to be redundant. It would be well to insert those words, for they wanted to encourage local authorities to undertake the duty of inspection. In no other way could 187 they carry out these duties effectually. One of rise most valuable uses of inspection under the London School Board system had been found to be the advice and information available when the question of the selection of teachers for promotion came up for consideration.
In page 2, line 35, after the word 'control,' to insert the words 'and inspection.' "—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I rather hope the hon. Gentleman will see that the words he proposes, not only do not carry out his object, but that they militate against it. The House has decided that the local authority is to be responsible for, and to have control of, elementary and secondary education. Do you strengthen these words, or the reverse? I submit that they are so wide and strong that they are only weakened by any suggestion of the methods by which the control and responsibility are to be exercised. There is absolutely no doubt whatever that the local authority has the power of inspection, and it would be ludicrous to suggest that they had not. I think the hon. Member, from his own point of view, will be well advised not to press the Amendment.
§ MR. BRYCE
did not agree that the matter was so simple. His hon. friend desired to make it perfectly clear that all the powers the authority could want over those schools they should have. This Clause was the only one which dealt with schools provided by the local authority itself, and Clause 8 had no weight at all in determining what could be done here. What was necessary was to define the extremely vague term "control,'' and he held that the Amendment was not unnecessary, as there was doubt as to how far the local authority could go, under the words of the Clause, in dealing with the managers of its schools. What were they to do? The House had just transferred the powers of School Boards. Those powers did not include the appointment of managers, yet by Clause 7 power was to be given to appoint them. While he 188 agreed that in all probability the local authority would have the power of inspection, the Amendment of his hon. friend conveyed a more complete and definite idea of these powers, and it was well that they should be directed to send inspectors into schools managed by local managers. Although his hon. friend might be content with the assurance given him by the right hon. Gentleman he must say he did not think the Amendment superfluous.
§ (9.30.) SIR FRANCIS POWELL
said that the Lancashire County Council, under the Technical Instruction Act, did inspect schools, although he could not discover in that Act any word about inspection. But inspection naturally followed a grant of money—it followed from the power of supervision and control. The remarks which he had made in regard to Lancashire applied also to the West Riding of Yorkshire. They could not supervise education without inspection; and without inspection control would be wholly impossible.
§ (9.32.) MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said he thought the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend was much more important than the right hon. Gentleman had been willing to concede. He had no doubt whatever, in his own mind, that even in the, old days, if an hon. Member had asked the Minister in charge whether the local authority had power to employ and pay inspectors he would have got full assurances from the Minister that they would have ample control. But then a Mr. Cockerton might arise and get the Courts to decide that that was not so. They must have properly appointed inspectors to overlook the education in the schools, and it should be made perfectly clear that the money of the public could be used in the payment of these inspectors. It was true that in the Act of 1870 there were no particular words to show that the School Board had the right to appoint inspectors, although it was constantly done; but it was thought necessary in that Act to provide that the schools should be open to inspection at all times. That was all that they wanted here, and then there would be no doubt that the local authorities would have the right to appoint and 189 pay inspectors. He knew of no decision or any Act of Parliament which entitled the right hon. Gentleman to say positively that the Courts would necessarily hold that control included inspection. Inspection by the local authorities was a most useful and necessary thing, and his hon. friend was quite sound in desiring to put it into the Bill.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES
said the question turned on the meaning of the word "control". By the Amendment to the 5th Clause the School Board of the county borough of Cardiff would be got rid of, and he wanted to ask what would be the position of the County Council under these circumstances. There were many schools in Cardiff provided by the School Board, many voluntary schools, and continuation and higher grade schools. Would the County Council have the right, or would they not, to expend the money in the payment of inspectors? He had done his best to puzzle out what would be the effect of this Bill in regard to Wales. No one on either side of the House seemed to thoroughly grasp the situation in regard to the abolition of such Boards upon Welsh education. Would the County Council have the right to appoint inspectors and pay them out of the rates or out of the money derived from Treasury grants?
MR. BRYNMOR JONES
The Vice-President said, "Certainly": but he was not at all sure of that; and the addition of the words of the Amendment would make it clear without altering the effect of the Clause.
§ MR. M'KENNA
said there were two grounds on which it might be alleged that the local education authority might appoint inspectors—first because they were the successors of the School Boards, and second, because they were responsible for secular education. The words "secular instruction'' applied to the aided schools as well as to the provided schools; but by Sub-section (b) of Clause 8 special power was given to inspect aided schools only; and in view of the Cockerton judgment he did not think it would be wise to refuse to accept the Amendment.
§ *SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)
said that after what they had heard that afternoon there was no proposition so elementary or so simple that was not arguable. He asked if there could be any reasonable doubt that these authorities would have powers of inspection? They were responsible for, and had control of, secular education, they were bound to maintain and pay for the schools, and under these circumstances was it not plain that the local authorities would have to satisfy themselves that the education for which they were responsible, and over which they had control, was being properly conducted and efficient. It really seemed to him that the insertion of the word "inspection" would militate against the earning into effect the wishes of the hon. Member for the Elland Division, and would diminish, by enumeration, the powers of the local authorities.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITE
said he thought that if the Clause as it stood was construed along with Sub-section (b) of the 8th Clause there was no power of appointing an inspector except in the case of aided schools, in the face of an auditor such as Mr. Cockerton. He pressed the desirability of the appointment of inspectors from an educational and economical point of view. There were in hundreds of village schools classes of different standards and one teacher had to deal with the whole of them. In such cases an inspector would insist on co-ordination. The insertion of the words of the Amendment in the Clause would be an encouragement to the educational authorities to take that favourable step forward.
§ MR. ABEL THOMAS (Carmarthenshire, E.)
said that the second sub-section of Clause 8 provided for the inspection of voluntary schools, but did that mean the exclusion of other schools? There was nothing certain in the construction of a statute, and it seemed to him that to pass the clause as it stood there was probability of the Courts of Law holding that they could not have inspection of the schools provided by the local education authority.
§ MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)
said the hon. Member for Oxford University was strongly in favour of the appointment of 191 inspectors. Then why, in Heaven's name, not say so in the Bill and thus leave the matter no longer in doubt? The hon. Gentleman had not the same acquaintance with local bodies as he had. This was a subject which had been administered by Town Councils and County Councils, and these were bodies that were most arguable when it came to be a question of the increase of rates. His opinion was that the definite certainty of the appointment of inspectors would be most advantageous to the education of the country, and economical besides. If the matter was left in doubt, and if each County Council or Town Council were to interpret this Act in accordance with its own inclination, there would be various decisions, and in would come some Mr. Cockerton
§ and upset everything. All that the Amendment meant was to make the intention of the Government more plain and clear.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he wanted to know whether two or three local authorities could combine for an inspection.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he thought they could. The suggestion of the hon. Gentleman was well worth consideration, and he would consider it.
§ (9.53.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 68: Noes, 194. (Division List No. 289).193
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Hayne, Rt Hon. Charles Seale-||Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh|
|Brigg, John||Helme, Norval Watson||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh||Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Kearley, Hudson E.||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Bryce. Rt. Hon. James||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.|
|Burns, John||Levy, Maurice||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Caldwell, James||Lewis, John Herbert||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Lloyd-George, David||Thomas, JA (Glam'rgan, Gower|
|Cawley, Frederick||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J||Ure, Alexander|
|Cremer, William Randal||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall||Wason, John Catheart (Orkney|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||M'Kenna, Reginald||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Edwards, Frank||Mather, Sir William||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Ellis, John Edward||Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Emmott, Alfred||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth|
|Fenwick, Charles||Perks, Robert William||Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund||Priestley, Arthur||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.|
|Foster, Sir Michael (Lond Univ.||Rea, Russell||Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Rickett, J. Compton||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Grant, Come||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Guroon, Sir W. Brampton||Robson, William Snowdon||Mr. Trevelyan and Mr.|
|Harwood, George||Runciman, Walter||Evans.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Bond, Edward||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Bousfield, William Robert||Cripps, Charles Alfred|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex||Crossley, Sir Savile|
|Allhusen, Angustus H'nry Eden||Brassey, Albert||Cubitt, Hon. Henry|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Brotherton, Edward Allen||Delany, William|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Bull, William James||Dickson, Charles Scott|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Butcher, John George||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr d Dixon|
|Balcarres, Lord||Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Doogan, P. C.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Cavendish, V.C. W (Derbyshire||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Duke, Henry Edward|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Chapman, Edward||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Charrington, Spencer||Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Claney, John Joseph||Fardell, Sir T. George|
|Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A.E.||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r|
|Bignold, Arthur||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Field, William|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Finch, George H.|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)|
|Firbank, Sir. Joseph Thomas||Lundon, W.||Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Macdona, John Cumming||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Flower, Ernest||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Flynn, James Christopher||M'Arthur. Charles (Liverpool)||Russell, T W.|
|Forster, Henry William||M'Govern. T.||Rutherford, John|
|Foster, Philips. (Warwick, S. W.||M'Kean, T.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Gardner, Ernest||M'killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Majendle, James A. H.||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Sheehan, Darnel Daniel|
|Gorst, Rt Hon. Sir John Eldon||Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Morgan Hn. Fred-(Monm'thsh||Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Morrell, George Herbert||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Grenfell, William Henry||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Harrington, Timothy||Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Strovan, John|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Myers, William Henry||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Heath, James (Stafford, N. W.||Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Henderson, Sir Alexander||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Thorborn, Sir Walter|
|Higginbottom, S. W.||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Hogg, Lindsay||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Vincent, Col Sir G. EH (Sheffield|
|Hornby, Sir William Henry||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Hoult, Joseph||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm||Parker, Sir Gilbert||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Welby, Lt.-Col A. C. E (Taunton|
|Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Plummer, Walter R.||Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.|
|Joyce, Michael||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-|
|Kennedy, Patrick James||Power, Partrick Joseph||Wilson, A, Stanley (York, E. R.|
|Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.||Purvis, Robert||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.||Randles, John S.||Wylie, Alexander|
|Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Mon.)||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Young, Samuel|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Reddy, M.||Younger, William|
|Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.||Redmond, William (Clare)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Reid, James (Greenock)||Sir William Walrond and|
|Long, Rt Hon. Walter (Bristol, S||Renshaw, Charles Bine||Mr. Anstruther.|
MR. BRYNMOR JONES
said he desired to move an Amendment to leave out the word "secular" in line 35. The effect of the Amendment would be that the, clause would read—The local education authority shall throughout their area have the control of all instruction in public elementary schools whether provided by them or not.As had been said more than once during the discussion of I he clause, the real question turned on the meaning of the, word "control"; and he still invited the attention of the Prime Minister to the meaning of that word. The Committee had settled the religious difficulty with respect of secondary education; and it was now approaching the same difficulty in regard to public elementary education. The School Boards having practically disappeared from the scheme 194 of education which the Government proposed to establish under the Bill, they were face to face with the question as to what should be the powers of the local education authority. All he asked was that the control of all instruction, whatever kind of adjective might be applied to it, should be given under the conditions of the Bill to the local education authority. Supposing the word "secular" was taken out of the clause what would be the power of the local education authority? He did not think that they would, in the least degree, attempt to say what religious doctrine should or should not be taught in schools of which they had the use for the purposes of elementary education. On the other hand if the word "secular" were left in, questions of the very gravest difficulty would arise. What 195 was secular education? The Bill stated that the local education authority was to have control of all secular education in public elementary schools. These schools were of two kinds; schools which had been provided under the Act of 1870 and schools, which might be provided under the Bill. Then there were the voluntary schools which were managed in a different way to the board schools. What did secular education mean as applied to these schools? If the word "secular" were left out there would be really no difficulty whatsoever. He did not wish to argue upon an Amendment of that kind the whole question as to what should be the ultimate system of elementary education in the country. He wished to proceed by steps; but he would take that opportunity of asking once more what was the real and ultimate intention of the Government. He went further and said that if the word "secular" were left out they would have an opportunity of determining once for all, those religious controversies which the Prime Minister had more than once referred to as barren controversies in connection with educational matters.
In page 2 line 35, to leave out the word 'secular.' "—( Mr. Brynmor Jones.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'secular' stand part of the clause."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said, with all respect, that the hon and learned Gentleman found difficulties where they hardly existed, and did not see difficulties which appeared to him, at all events, to stare one in the face. The hon. and learned Gentleman saw great difficulties in distinguishing religious from secular education. No doubt they might argue for ever as to what was secular or religious education; they might argue for ever as to what was education at all. After all, they must use some language in a Bill, and the English language was fairly understood, even by his Majesty's Judges. He would point out a difficulty which the hon. and learned Gentleman had ignored. The hon, and learned Gentleman said if the local authority dealt with education all round, no controversial 196 questions would arise, because they would not trouble themselves about religious controversies. Under the clause as it stood, they were responsible for and had full control over secular education, but if the Amendment were adopted, they would be responsible for and have full control over religious instruction. Then questions of dogma must come in. The Act of Parliament would throw on them full responsibility and full control; they could not avoid it; and the result would be that every education authority throughout the country, if the Amendment were embodied in the Bill, would be responsible for these dogmatic controversies which, he agreed, were sometimes carried to excess, and which could not be avoided, if religion were to be dealt with at all. He could not imagine anything more fatal to the local education authority than the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was quite true it had been found possible in Scotland to throw that responsibility upon the local authorities, but in Scotland they did not avoid all these dogmatic questions. The system worked well in Scotland; but they were a remarkable nation. He really did not think it would work in England. It was hardly a practicable proposal to say that every education authority in counties and boroughs was to have brought under its control the religious teaching to be administered in every school in the country.
§ MR. BRYCE
said that the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to have quite grasped the meaning of his hon. and learned friend's Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that his hon. and learned friend's intention was, at that stage, to discuss the religious question. The view of his hon, and learned friend was that, at the present stage, it would be premature to determine that the local authority should have no control whatever over religious instruction. His hon. and learned friend felt as much as any hon. Member the extreme gravity and difficulty of dealing with these religious questions. He agreed that in Scotland they had succeeded in dealing with the question. That was due, not only to the admirable qualities of the nation, for the right 197 hon. Gentleman's reference to which he was grateful, but also to certain happy circumstances which occurred in the sixteenth century, and which made the Reformation in Scotland a morel borough-going piece of work than it was in England. He passed away from that tempting theme to the practical question of the Amendment. If they put in the word "secular" in the clause they would determine, the question, because they would declare that the local authority should have nothing to do with religious instruction. They would be face to face with the Question on Clause 8; and they ought not, at that early stage, when they had had no opportunity of considering the various solutions which might be suggested to tie their hands in that way. If the clause were passed in its present form their hands would be tied. The local authority would have two kind of schools to deal with the schools it provided itself and the schools it found provided by someone else. These latter schools would be dealt with under Clause 8. The natural construction of this clause, if they left in the word secular, would be to exclude the local authority from having any control over the religious instruction to be given in elementary schools. The Vice President shook his head, and perhaps he might have some subtle argument to cover that point. The right hon. Gentleman might say that that would be one of the powers to be handed over; but there were powers now possessed by the School Boards, such as the power of managing the schools themselves without appointing a manager, which would not be handed over to the education authority. The natural construction of the clause would be that the general power possessed by the School Boards of providing for religious education would be negatived by the fact that secular education only could be given under this clause. It was clear that that ambiguity should be removed, and the natural and simple way to effect that, would be to use words covering all kinds of instruction, letting subsequent clauses limit, in any way that might be necessary, that general power. He did not think his hon. and learned friend thought that they could solve the religious 198 difficulty with his Amendment. Far from it. It would only mean taking one stop on the path loading to that quagmire, but they would not help themselves by leaving in the word "secular." He was not going into the various solutions which had been suggested. One was that the local authority should have power, as in Scotland, to give or not to give religious instruction in the schools provided by itself. In Scotland some of the School Boards gave religious instruction and some did not, and he believed that in some of the western islands Roman Catholic instruction was given because the population was almost entirely Roman Catholic. Another solution was that there should be power to give unsectarian instruction, as was now given by most of the School Boards under the Cowper-Temple Clause. There was a third suggestion that the local authorities should have the duty imposed on them of giving some kind of religious instruction with a conscience clause; and there was a fourth suggestion that the local authorities should be responsible for providing different kinds of religious instruction. He was not at all without hope that, in spite of the difficulty of the question, if they gave themselves a little time before they entered on the discussion of that thorny matter, they might arrive at a solution which would greatly diminish the difficulty. All that the Amendment said was that they should not, at that initial stage, tie their hands, or in any way preclude themselves from coming to an ultimate decision on the question. All the Amendment meant was whether, at that stage, they ought to decide to restrict the powers of the local authority; and he hoped the Committee would regard the matter from that point of view.
§ SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N. E.)
said the hon. and learned Member moved his Amendment with an air of simplicity which was very amusing. From end to end of the country they had schools attended by the majority of the school-going population for the sake of the religious instruction given in them; and in his own constituency it was well known that the people were so much attached to schools in which a definite religious education was given that, in spite of the severe competition of the Board Schools supported out of the rates, the majority of the children attended the 199 voluntary schools. If the Amendment were passed, it would appear as if the local authority, which had no definite religious character, were to control religious education in all classes of schools. It would be better to leave the question open by enacting that the local authority should control secular education; and then the schools not managed in connection with any denomination might be arranged for afterwards. He objected to the Amendment because it would impose on the denominational schools, of which he had been a supporter during all the years he had been in Parliament, an authority which had no claim to control religious education at all.
§ SIR WILLIAM MATHER (Lancashire, Rossendale)
said he wished to ask the Vice-President whether, under the Clause as it stood, it would be competent for the local authority, who were to be the heirs of the School Board, to give unsectarian religious instruction. If not, then it amounted to this—the local educational authority in the future could give no religious instruction whatsoever unless in denominational schools, which instruction might be dogmatic and purely sectarian. The speech of the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen was a very important one, and the Amendment was not, as the last speaker appeared to think, a quibble, nor an attempt to get rid of the religious question altogether. It was a practical question affecting the proper education of all children in this country who did not go to denominational schools. It was a common opinion, held by all Members of that House, that some form of ethical training, which was often in the best sense of the word religious training, should be given to the children, and he asked the Vice-President whether the new local authority under that Bill, if it became an Act, would be able in the presence of that word "secular" to conduct unsectarian religious education.
§ SIR JOHN GORST
said that in the course of the debate that evening he had been repeatedly astonished at the ingenuity of hon. Members in raising objections to the words of the Clause; but he though the most extraordinary objection which had yet been raised was that contained in the speech of the right 200 hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, which, however, he answered himself. As far as the Government were concerned they had no doubt that by the transference of the powers of School Boards to local authorities the latter would be able in the schools which had been provided by the School Boards or by themselves to give such religious instruction as was permitted by the Elementary Education Acts—that was to say, religious instruction which did not contain any catechism or formulary distinctive of a particular religious denomination.
§ (10.35.) MR. MELLOR (Yorkshire, W. R., Sowerby)
said he wished for many reasons to controvert the statement of the Vice-President. If the Vice-President were right in his view, he could not understand why they should have provided that the local authorities should have all the powers and duties of the School Boards, and then proceed to state that they should have the control of all secular education. Was that reasonable? If the Clause as it was now worded were to be construed by any court of law, it would, in his opinion, hold that the powers and duties of the School Boards which were transferred were confined to secular instruction, and that the local authorities had not the power which the Vice President thought they ought to have. He wished to ask the Committee, Was it wise, at that stage of the Bill, to tie their hands in regard to the matter? Surely they ought to provide that the local education authority should have some control over religious instruction. That power ought to be lodged in some authority, otherwise there would be absolutely no control under the Clause with regard to religious education in these schools. That ought not to be and was never intended to be. Surely it was not necessary at the present moment to lay down any particular line with regard to any particular instruction to be given in these schools. It seemed to him to be very desirable that the power of giving unsectarian religious instruction ought to be clearly preserved by the terms of the Clause, and the easiest way of effecting that was by leaving out the word "secular." That would give the local education 201 authority all the power necessary without laying down any particular kind of treatment in regard to the matter, or determining at the present moment what kind of religious instruction should be given. Unsectarian religious instruction had worked remarkably well in this country, and School Boards had succeeded, by means of it, in doing enormous work. He challenged anyone who had taken the trouble to examine the condition of education now as compared with thirty years ago, to deny that proposition. In the large towns, where unsectarian religious instruction had been mostly given, crime had diminished to an extent which was somewhat startling, and the general condition of the people had vastly improved. When he first went on the Midland circuit he remembered seeing from 90 to 100 prisoners at the Nottingham Assizes; but the School Boards had gradually brought down crime—mainly by means of unsectarian education—to such an extent that there were now only three or four prisoners at every assizes. The School Boards had brought the people in many places from being little better than savages, into a condition of law-abiding, industrious people. In London an enormous amount of good work had also been done by the School Board. They had succeeded in doing that, because they had appealed for and received the assistance of the parents, and in that way they had been able to bring London into the satisfactory condition it was today. They could not in this country work a system of education unless they enlisted the sympathy of the parents, and unless the parents were given an interest in the education of their children no system would work. He appealed to the Vice-President to consider whether he would not make some suggestion in regard to this matter. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would; because he thought it was of the greatest importance that they should be able to offer, in elementary schools throughout the country, as part of their system of education, Biblical teaching to all children whose parents desired it. The right hon Gentleman the Member for North-East Manchester said that he and the majority of the people in Manchester were in favour of denominational 202 schools. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman knew the condition of things in his own constituency, and had said that there was there a very strong feeling in favour of denominational schools; but Mr. Mellor earnestly desired that in all schools where the parents wished it, there should be some unsectarian religious instruction. When they came to deal with the kind of religious education to be given in the denominational schools, they would have to be very careful to see that the particular doctrine taught in a school was the doctrine which that school was intended to teach. If a school professed to teach the doctrines of the Church of England, there ought to be some authority to see that those doctrines were really taught. That was a very serious and important matter, because if they set up, or allowed others to set up, denominational schools, they ought to see that those who taught in the schools acted fairly and behaved honestly. If they empowered a set of people to teach a particular doctrine, they ought to have some means of ascertaining that that doctrine was taught. They ought not to allow a clergymen or any one else to receive money for teaching one doctrine, and then deliberately to set to work to teach another. Doctrines contrary to the Church of England had already been introduced into the Church schools, and when the proper time came, on Clause 8, he hoped the Committee would be able to devise some means of preventing that. If the Amendment were accepted, the result would be to empower the local education authority to give unsectarian religious education, and in these circumstances, he hoped the Committee would accept it.
§ MR. H. C. RICHARDS (Finsbury, E.)
said that the right hon. Gentleman challenged any lawyer to get up and explain what he would have understood himself if he had had any practical School Board knowledge. He spoke, not as a lawyer, but as having served on the London School Board, and as knowing something of how the work was carried on. If the right hon. Gentleman could not find time to wade through the reports of the School Board, he would recommend him to read the life of the late W. H. Smith, 203 and in Volume II. he would find that the very first duty the London School Board, other and School Boards in the country, under the Act of 1870, had to undertake was to determine, first, whether they would have any religious instruction at all in their schools, and secondly, if so, what it should be. If that had been the work of the School Boards under the Act of 1870, what was there in this Bill to prevent the bodies which took the place of the School Boards from exercising the same powers and duties in this respect? As to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, if he had, any difficulty in deciding what were the doctrines of the Church of England, he would find them set forth in the Prayer Book. When any difficulties arose among the members of the oldest educational society in this country as to what the Prayer Book did or did not teach, those difficulties were settled by three Episcopal referees, and he himself would much prefer the Episcopal referees to the august wisdom of the House of Lords or the trained intellect of Cambridge. As the challenge had been thrown out, he simply desired to say that the proper persons to decide any such differences which might arise were the Bishops of the Church, and not any lay tribunal in the House or elsewhere.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said that the Vice-President had complained of the ingenuity of hon. Members in raising difficulties, but he thought the Committee had a right to complain of the ambiguity of many Clauses in the Bill, and if the right hon. Gentleman would bend his acute intellect to removing that ambiguity, it would tend to the better transaction of business. As he understood the Clause, it was to provide that the local authority, in its own schools and in the schools wholly transferred to it, should have entire control of the secular and religious instruction, the latter of which should be subject to the Cowper-Temple Clause, and therefore unsectarian. But in regard to denominational schools, the purport of the Clause, he gathered, was that the local authority should have entire control of the secular instruction, but no control of the religious instruction. For his part, he was not prepared to 204 upset, through this Bill, the system of denominational religious instruction in the denominational schools. He did not think they could do it, and if they attempted it they would simply go back into the wilderness for another twenty years, and nothing would be done to tackle this crying evil. If they were beginning afresh, he would have un-sectarian religious instruction universally, which he believed satisfied the bulk of the parents of the country, and which, if they were left alone, they would acclaim. But they were not beginning again, and they had got to do the best they could with the existing system. But the Clause, did not give what its authors desired, because of its ambiguity. It was no part of the duty of a School Board to give religions instruction of any sort. Therefore, if the Clause were left in its present form, and the word "secular" emphasised, what would be the result? They would emphasise the fact—a fact not generally known, even to School Boards—that they could confine themselves to secular instruction alone. That he would deplore. But unsectarian religious instruction would not be secured in the schools of the local authority by simply leaving the first part of the Clause as it stood. The whole difficulty, however, would be removed, and they would arrive at what the Government themselves desired, if the Clause were to run in this way —The local education authority shall, through-out their area, have the powers and duties of a School Board and a School Attendance Committee under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1890, and the control of all secular instruction in the public elementary schools not provided by or transferred to them.A sharp distinction would then be drawn; and while, in the publicly maintained schools, the local authority would have control over the secular instruction, with power to give unsectarian religious instruction, their powers in the other schools would be confined purely to the secular instruction, and the denominationalists would be free to give their own denominational teaching.
§ MR. ABEL THOMAS
thought the Vice - President could hardly have considered his own Bill. The first part of the Clause clearly and distinctly gave the local authority all the 205 powers of the School Board, but the commencement of the next sentence showed that something was intended contrary to that provided in the previous sentence. He could not follow the argument that, secular instruction meant unsectarian religious instruction. Unless this Amendment were adopted, the Clause would state that the authority, which had the powers of the School Board, would be able to give, not un-sectarian religious instruction, but secular instruction, and that meant that they could not give the other. He was inclined to think it would be unwise to interfere with the old arrangement under which the denominations had power to deal with the religions instruction given in the schools provided by themselves; but it was clear that by this Clause the new authority would be prevented from dealing with schools provided by itself. The word "secular" clearly limited the power, and he should, therefore, vote for the Amendment.
§ (11.0.) MR. LYTTELTON (Warwick and Leamington)
thought the interpretation of the word given by the Vice-President was perfectly sound. He contended that the control of unsectarian religious instruction was not excluded, because by the first part of the Clause; the new education authorities were given the entire powers of the School Boards, and those powers were not limited by the words of the second part of the Clause.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)
said there was no difference of opinion as to what was desired; the only question was whether the object was secured by this Clause. It was agreed that such, religious instruction as the School Board might now give should be permitted in the future, and that the local education authority should have power to control that religious education. According to the Vice President, the word "secular" meant religious instruction, provided it was undenominational.
MR. BEYN ROBERTS
thought the right hon. Gentleman argued that it included unsectarian religious instruction.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS
said that at any rate the right hon. Gentleman recognised that the local education authority should in the future have the same power as the School Boards had had in the past in regard to the giving of unsectarian religious instruction. Unless the word "secular" included such religious instruction, it was clear that by this Clause they would be precluded from giving it. The word "secular" was used in contradistinction to the word "religious," and secular instruction meant instruction which was not religious, if that was so, how was it possible to argue that by giving the control of secular education they did not withhold the control of religious education? And if the control of religious education was withheld, they also withheld the control of undenominational religious instruction. The only way out of the difficulty was that suggested by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, viz., to confine the operation of this sentence to schools not provided by the local authority.
§ MR. CHARLES McARTHUR (Liverpool, Exchange)
thought there was no difference of opinion as to the merits of unsectarian teaching; the difficulty had arisen entirely out of the slipshod way in which the Clause had been drafted. It would be a most dangerous and unfortunate thing if, through any doubt in the wording of the Bill, the excellence of unsectarian religious teaching should be imperilled. All that was desired was fair play between denominational and undenominational schools. That the Christian instruction given in board schools was excellent, was shown by the fact that scholars belonging to the board schools in Liverpool had again and again won prizes for Biblical knowledge over the heads of scholars who had been taught in the denominational schools. It was said that that teaching was not imperilled, because the School Board had the power at present to give this undenominational religious teaching, and that power was to be continued to the new authorities But he believed it was the case that in 207 the construction of Acts of Parliament general words were limited by particular words that followed. In that case, was there not some danger that, although a Court of Law might find that it was in the power of a School Board to give undenominational instruction, yet when it came to the words that the education authority was to have the control of secular education it would find that the latter words limited the former? As a layman, he was afraid there was a danger of that construction being placed upon the word. Unless some assurance was given that, either in this Clause or in some other part of the Bill, this doubt would be removed, he would be compelled to vote for the Amendment.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE
suggested that the clause would read a great deal better if the words "and the control of all secular instruction in public elementary schools, whether provided by them or not" were left-out. The clause would then simply become a clause to transfer to the new authority the existing powers and duties of School Boards and School Attendance Committees. The hon. Member who had just sat down agreed that the words introduced a certain ambiguity about the religious instruction. The words either added or subtracted from the powers transferred, and they had to ask themselves very closely what the words really meant. If there was something which the Government wished to insert which was not contained in Section 8, would it not be better to put some general words at the commencement of Section 8? He had the advantage not long ago of hearing this question discussed by the members of the County Councils Association of England, and they were of the opinion that these words were unnecessary.
§ SIR JOHN GORST
appealed to the Committee whether it was worth while to go on discussing questions of drafting when they were practically agreed as to the lines on which they wished to proceed. Before the Report stage, the questions raised would be considered by law officers of the Crown and 208 draftsmen and people of authority of that kind, and he had no doubt the result would be that the Government would be able to meet the House with either an official legal defence of the clause as it stood, or with such modification as would bring it into accordance with what were the wishes of both government and Committee.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said that he had always understood that the Committee stage was the proper time to thresh out questions of this kind. Because they had been discussing this matter for about one hour cran hour and a half, the right hon. Gentleman now asked the Committee to proceed to a division. He wished to know what they were going to divide upon. The point they had to decide was whether they were agreed about the substance of this proposal, and the very thing they ought to do was to put that substance in appropriate Act of Parliament, phraseology. The clause was very clumsily worded. With regard to the powers of the authority over secular instruction, he would vote for the exclusion of the word "secular." Where did the Government get it from? It was not in the Elementary Education Act of 1870. He disliked the word in respect of instruction, just as much as he disliked the distinction drawn between sacred and secular music. This provision would not shut out from aided schools any definite religious instruction at all. Suppose the managers of a particular school believed in high Ritualism, which would be obnoxious at any rate to one of the hon. Members for Liverpool, and the hon. Member for the Sowerby Division. In such a case surely the local education authority ought to be able to exercise some control over the religious instruction in that school. In this instance the managers might decline to interfere because they did not wish to make themselves disagreeable to the teachers. He went so far as to say that in all schools there ought to be a certain amount of control by the local authority in regard to all the instruction. They might, nevertheless, say that, with regard to aided schools within certain lines, certain definite religious formulæ might be taught, but that was not sufficient to take away entirely from the local authority all control. The 209 drafting was bad, and some control and supervision ought to be retained over all the schools by the local authority, and for those reasons he should support the Amendment.
§ SIR RICHARD JEBB (Cambridge University)
suggested that the wording of the clause might be made perfectly clear if it provided that the local education authority should have "the control of all instruction in public elementary schools provided by themselves and of all secular instruction in schools not so provided."
§ MR. CORRIE GRANT
said the Amendment just suggested did not cover the real difficulty put forward from that side of the Committee. What was really wanted was an Amendment to read in this way—"and the control of all secular instruction in public elementary schools not provided by them." That would cover denominational schools, which was, as he understood, the intention of the Government.
§ (11.25.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University was a considerable improvement, for it cleared up the point as to whether the new authority would be deprived of the powers exorcised by School Boards. To his mind, however, there was a deeper point than that. The words "responsibility for and control of had been introduced into the clause, by the Prime Minister, and that made a considerable difference. He should like to know it the new authority was to have any responsibility at all in regard to religious instruction in the denominational schools. Control and management might be a different matter, but was the local authority to have no responsibility whatever for religious instruction in British schools or even in Anglican schools? The hon. Member opposite had told the Committee that the scriptural instruction in some denominational schools was very deficient, and they had heard that in Liverpool the scriptural instruction in the board schools was superior to that given in the denominational schools. It was a fact that in some denominational schools 210 there was hardly any scriptural instruction at all. Was the local authority to have no responsibility for quickening the efforts of voluntary schools in regard to religious instruction? More than half the children of the land were taught in these schools, and they were constantly being told by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich that religious education was by far the most important part of the instruction of a child. Was it suggested that religious education should be withdrawn from the cognisance of the local authority? Were they going to confine the local authority to secondary instruction, and give it no power to make any suggestion with regard to the religious instruction in denominational schools? Was the local education authority to have no restraining influence upon the religious instruction given in denominational schools? As far as England was concerned, the local authorities would be dominated by men who believed in denominational instruction, and they would simply have the lay element instead of the clerical element. At a Church of England school in Cardiff the pupils were taught a form of catechism highly offensive to the vast majority of people who maintained the school, and the Town Council should have some control in a matter of that kind. That catechism would be taught in the school he had alluded to, and he wished to know whether the Town Council of Cardiff, under this Bill would have the right to restrain the teaching of a catechism of that kind which was offensive to the vast majority of the people who maintained the school. Therefore, this question went much deeper than a purely drafting question. All they sought was that in this country the local education authority should have that power which was given to it in every other country in the world. There was not another single case in the world where the control and management of denominational education was not subject to the control of the education authority. In Germany, Switzerland, Ontario, Quebec, and in every other country except England, the municipality controlled the instruction, even where it was purely denominational; and why were they not 211 allowed in this country to have a voice in the denominational and the religious instruction which was considered by some hon. Gentlemen opposite to be more important for the training of the
§ character of the children than any other kind of education.
§ (11.33.) Question put,
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 228; Noes, 96. (Division List No. 290.)213
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.||Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Fisher, William Hayes||Maconochie, A. W.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Flower, Ernest||M'Govern, T.|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.||Flynn, James Christopher||M'Kean, John|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Forster, Henry William||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.||Manners, Lord Cecil|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W||Martin, Richard Biddulph|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Galloway, William Johnson||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.|
|Bagot, Capt. Joseline FitzRoy||Gardner, Ernest||Milvain, Thomas|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn||Morgan, Hn Fred. (Monm'thsh.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gorst, Rt Hn. Sir John Eldon||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Mount, William Arthur|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Green, Walford D (Wednesbury||Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute|
|Beach, RtHn. Sir Michael Hicks||Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Gretton, John||Myers, William Henry|
|Bignold, Arthur||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Hall, Edward Marshall||Newdigate, Francis Alexander|
|Bond, Edward||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Brassey, Albert||Harrington, Timothy||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Harris, Frederick Leverton||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Bull, William James||Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley||O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)|
|Butcher, John George||Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||O'Malley, William|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Higginbottom, S. W.||O'Mara, James|
|Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hogg, Lindsay||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Chamberlain, J Austen (Wore'r||Howard, Jn.(Kent, Faversham||Penn, John|
|Chapman, Edward||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Percy, Earl|
|Charrington, Spencer||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Plummer. Walter R.|
|Claney, John Joseph||Joyce, Michael||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Kennedy, Patrick James||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Cochrane, Hn. Thomas H. A. E.||Kenyon Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Kenyon Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.||Purvis, Robert|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Kimber, Henry||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Randles, John S.|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Ratchff, R. F.|
|Cox, Irvin Edward Bainbridge||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.||Reddy, M.|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th||Redmond, John E. (Waterford|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Lawson, John Grant||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Dalrymple. Sir Charles||Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Delany, William||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Renshaw, Charles Bine|
|Digby, John K. D. Wingfield||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Doogan, P. C.||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Ridley, S. Forde(BethnalGreen|
|Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Lowe, Francis William||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Lundon, W.||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Fergusson, Rt. HnSir J. (Mane'r||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Field, William||Macdona, John Cumming||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Finch, George H.||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Maclver, David (Liverpool)||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Simeon, Sir Barrington||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East||Ure, Alexander||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)|
|Smith, HC (North' mb. tyneside||Valentia, Viscount||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Walker, Col. William Hall||Wylie, Alexander|
|Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)||Warde, Colonel C. E.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart||Warr, Augustus Frederick||Young, Samuel|
|Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.||Webb, Colonel William George||Younger, William|
|Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley||Welby, Lt. Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n|
|Sullivan, Donal||Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-|
|Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.||Whitmore, Charles Algernon||Sir William Walrond and|
|Thornton, Percy M.||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Tollemache, Henry James||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Helme, Norval Watson||Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford|
|Brigg, John||Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Kearley, Hudson E.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh||Labouchere, Henry||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Lambert, George||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Langley, Batty||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Burns, John||Layland- Barratt, Francis||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Caldwell, James||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Tennant, Harold John|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Leng, Sir John||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Cawley, Frederick||Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Levy, Maurice||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Lewis, John Herbert||Thomas, J A (Glamorg'n Gower)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Lloyd-George, David||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen||Lough, Thomas||Toulmin, George|
|Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||M'Kenna, Reginald||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Edwards, Frank||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||White, Luke (York, E. R.|
|Elibank, Master of||Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William||Whiteley, George (York. W. R.)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Partington, Oswald||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth|
|Gladstone Rt Hn. Herbert John||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Priestley, Arthur||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Grant, Corrie||Rickett, J. Compton||Wodehouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd|
|Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)||Rigg, Richard|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Robson, William Snowdon||Mr. Brynmor Jones and|
|Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil||Runciman, Walter||Sir William Mather.|
|Harwood, George||Russell, T. W.|
§ (11.45.) MR. PRIESTLEY (Grantham)
, in moving an Amendment providing that the local education authority should have the control of all secular "and physical" instruction, said that if justification for introducing this subject into the Bill was required, it would be found in the omission from the Bill of any clause dealing with a subject which to him, and, he thought, to many in that House as well as in the country, was one of some importance. In applying the term "physical," he thought it was essential that it should be differentiated from any form of military training. He did not think the education authorities would be justified in employing public funds for the purpose of 214 establishing in public elementary schools any form of military training. His object was to see the application of a system of scientific physical instruction that had for its purport the efficient development of the physique of the child, and the consequent higher standard of general health and vigour. It was an opinion held by many to whom the subject was one of interest that the physique of our town-bred population was, if not seriously deteriorating, at least not maintaining that satisfactory standard of capability which it is highly desirable it should possess. The English people were generally supposed to be a very practicable people, but in many respects we entirely failed, or refused to 215 attempt, to apply to the ordinary conditions of life many necessary and beneficial methods of action, and he thought that in the case of our neglect to afford physical as well as intellectual instruction to the masses of the children of the nation was found a forcible illustration. In Sweden, a country which possessed possibly the healthiest people in Europe, the question of the scientific physical education of the youth of the country was considered, and rightly so, most necessary to the general well-being and happiness of the people. In New Zealand also, only recently a Bill had been introduced into their Legislative Assembly, a Bill dealing with this question on the lines he had suggested. Amongst what was termed the upper and the wealthy classes in England, this question of physical development was considered to be a very necessary portion of the child's education, but so far as those in the future would form the large wage-earning classes of the community, we entirely ignored the necessity of affording them, during the years of their growth, the best guarantee from a physical point of view of future energy and efficiency. The State had taken upon itself the responsibility of providing to some extent for the intellectual and moral training of its children, and he thought that it should also recognise that it owed at least a similar duty to the bodily health and physical strength of those whose circumstances in life did not enable them to participate in those forms of physical training and recreation which others more favourably placed were enabled to enjoy. The industrial future of this country would possibly necessitate a greater display of energy and vitality on the part of the labouring classes in the country than had been the case during 216 recent years, and he thought the State would not be doing full justice to its future citizens if it neglected, as far as legitimately lay in its power, to equip them with every weapon intellectual, moral, and physical, to enable them to maintain that position among the nations which it was now our proud privilege to possess.
In page 2, line 35, after the word 'secular,' to insert the words 'and physical.' "—(Mr. Priestley.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. WHITLEY
trusted that the Government intended to make some reference to this subject. Possibly it might be better dealt with by a subsequent Amendment, or a clause might be introduced, dealing with it by itself—
§ It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.