§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 8—1080
Another Amendment proposed—
In page 3, line 17, after the words 'out of,' to insert the words 'suscriptions, donations, income from endowment, or other."—(Mr. A. K. Loyd.)
§ Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ (2.25.) LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)
said he had an Amendment further down on the Paper with regard to the question of endowment, and the hon. Member for the Abingdon Division, when he moved his Amendment at a very late hour on the previous night, intimated quite accurately that it raised the same point only in a different manner. Now he was anxious to insert a proviso to make it perfectly clear that these endowments, which were very numerous in connection with elementary schools, should not be appropriated by the managers of the schools and carried to the buildings and repairs fund, but that they should be used for educational purposes, and go in diminution of the rates and burdens thrown on the general body of taxpayers. This matter was very important in itself, and it became doubly important by reason of the decision which the Committee unfortunately came to on the previous evening with regard to paying a rent for the teacher's dwelling-house, because, in consequence a large county authority would, in future, have to hand over a very considerable sum from the rates to the managers in relief of the burden they would otherwise have to bear themselves in regard to the upkeep of their buildings. It was impossible, of course, to state exactly what the sum would amount to, but one might gather from the concessions made by the Government to the friends of the so-called denominational and voluntary schools, coupled with the present Amendment, that there was a great desire, on the Ministerial side of the House, to constitute, out of the rentals paid by the local authorities, an endowment fund which would very largely, and, in some cases, almost entirely, relieve the supporters of these denominational schools from the necessity of finding money by voluntary subscriptions, for the maintenance of the fabric. It might appear 1081 the most just and rational thing in the world that, if there were endowments attached to a denominational school, they should necessarily go in support of the fabric of the school. But it was not enough merely to state a general proposition of that kind. They had to ask themselves how, in a great number of cases the endowments came to belong to the Church of England. We unhesitatingly say that, if they examined the records of the Charity Commissioners, they would find that, in a vast number of instances, the denominations, and more especially the Church of England, had become possessed of funds which the pious founders never intended them to have. In the early days of the history of these endowments, before the Charity Commission came into existence, it was an exceedingly common thing for the Court of Chancery to assume that silence on the point in the trust deed implied an intention on the part of the founder that the charity should go to the Established Church. In the century before last enormous charities were handed over to the Church of England, although the scheme was never stamped with any denominational desire at all. And even when the Charity Commission came into existence the same process continued, and there had been numerous cases in which endowments given for purposes which had ceased to exist, and which were in no way connected with education, were handed over in support of the National school. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Abingdon Division were adopted in all these cases in which the Church of England was enabled to take possession of the endowment, simply because at the time it owned the only school in the parish, it would be enabled to appropriate it in aid of the denominational side of school management. Lookingat the broad aspect of many of these educational endowments which dated from a very remote period, they said that there were among them large funds which, from time to time, had been found to have no use at all under the original trust deeds—funds larger than any purely local funds. There was, for instance, the case of Betton's Charity, from which almost all the Church schools in the south and west of England received a 1082 small sum every year. In passing, he might observe that, in his opinion, its value was frittered away by this method of distribution. Betton was an excellent person who left a large sum for the rescue of people, especially children, who had been captured by Algerine pirates in the days when those pirates devastated the English and Irish Channels. They were not graced, he believed, at that time with the presence of the Irish Members of the House, but he was sure they would endorse his statement that the Roman Catholic inhabitants of Ireland suffered quite as much as other people from the depredations of these pirates. The fund was left for the rescue of these children equally with those of the children of Anglicans and Nonconformists. After a time, of course, the pirates disappeared, and the charity became useless, and the fund was devoted to education, and mainly distributed among Church of England schools. Why, in such a case, should funds which were never left to the Church of England be used for anything except for the benefit of the people of the district generally? He might mention a more extreme case as showing the absurdity of devoting these endowments to Church of England schools, which, after all, would be the principal beneficiaries under the Bill if it were amended as suggested by the hon. Member for the Abingdon Division. There was the famous old lady who figured in the early records of the Charity Commission, as, animated by a splendid spirit of piety, leaving a considerable sum to buy wood in order to burn heretics—Anglicans and Nonconformists, no doubt. He was informed that even that charity had somehow or other been diverted into the ever-gaping coffers of the Church of England schools. He repeated that a very large proportion of these endowments came from sources which were in no way whatever denominational, and therefore the ratepayers of the country, and not any particular denomination—Church of England or Non conformist, or Roman Catholic—ought to become the beneficiary of the charity. He sincerely hoped that after the great concession yesterday of the rental of the schoolmasters' dwellings the Government would not make any additional concession by accepting this Amendment, but that, on the contrary, if the Bill were 1083 not quite clear on the point, they would at the proper time accept an Amendment in a contrary sense, so as to make it certain that the ratepayers of our towns and country districts should reap the advantage of these funds which were left by the wisdom of our ancestors for the benefit, not of any particular denomination but of the people at large.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)
said he had listened with great interest to the erudite speech of the noble Lord, which recalled to their memories, or rather, he should say, gave them information on the subject with which, he confessed, he personally was very imperfectly acquainted; but he did not really think that the speech had much bearing on the Amendment. The Government held that they must deal in a separate Clause with the whole subject of endowments. He did not think that this difficult and complicated subject could be summarily disposed of either by the Amendment of his on, friend or by the Amendment of the noble Lord, which came lower down on the Paper. He would, of course, on behalf of the Government, absolutely refuse to accept the noble Lord's Amendment which, if carried, would as he understood it prevent any endowments now used for voluntary schools from being continued to be used for that purpose. That was a quite inadmissible proposition. On the other hand, he thought that if his hon. friend's words were accepted they might lead to the erroneous conclusion that all the endowments now used for voluntary schools were to be transferred to the party concerned in their future maintenance, which would be represented by the managers, in other words, that all the endowments now used for the schools should be at the disposal of the managers for that school, and in relief of the obligations of the managers. That would be going too far on the other side. Speaking generally, he thought the equitable plan would be that where an endowment was left for what might be generally called, in an untechnical sense, the maintenance and upkeep of the school, that should be divided between 1084 the education authority and the managers, and that, so far as it went to the managers, it should, of course, go in relief of the obligations of the managers under the Bill. On the other hand, where it went to the local authority it should go in relief of the rate papers of the parish. The Government were clearly of opinion that it would never do to use these funds to diminish the general burden of the rates under the local education authority. It was, he would not say always, a parochial charity, but at all events a charity restricted in its area, and they did not propose that its benefits should go beyond that area. That portion, therefore, which would go to the education authority would be properly used for the diminution of the education rate in the area for the benefit of which it was originally left. He was not at all disturbed in his view that this was an equitable plan by the noble Lord's historical proof that the voluntary schools, and the Church schools in particular, had absorbed in the course of centuries some endowments which were originally devoted to purposes probably now entirely obsolete. The general policy he recommended the House to adopt could not be dealt with in this Clause. As regarded the Amendment to the Clause which his hon. friend had moved, he thought it would be misleading to insert the words proposed. He believed they would be interpreted as the noble Lord himself had interpreted them, as meaning that every endowment now used for aiding voluntary education in a parish should go entirely to the managers of the voluntary school in that parish. That, he thought, was going too far. Though he did not believe that the words necessarily carried that interpretation, he thought they would mislead hasty readers of the Bill. He would suggest, therefore, that the words should not be inserted. As to the question of personal liability, it was distinctly understood that there was no personal liability on the part of the managers. They could only use the funds at their disposal. They were not under any personal or individual obligation to find funds from their own resources, if other resources should fail them. He hoped he had 1085 made quite clear what the Government were aiming at. Their policy followed a middle course between two extremes. It could only be dealt with in a separate section, and he trusted the Committee would wait until that section was before them before discussing the matter in detail.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)
said he would like to point out that Clause 13, sub-Section 2, provided that all receipts in respect of any school maintained by a local education authority, including the annual Parliamentary grant, but excluding sums specially applicable for purposes for which provision was to be made by the managers, should be paid to that authority. The President of the Local Government Board, when in charge of the Bill, referring to the words "all receipts in respect of any school," said that every farthing of income derived from endowments would pass beyond the managers and go into the coffers of the County Council. He would like to know whether the Prime Minister authorised that statement or approved of it now. It was not creditable to the House that they should be working their way through this complicated Clause dealing with trust deeds and endowments without having a single syllable of information as to the number and character of them, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would lay before them full information as to their extent and character, and accelerate the laying of the trust deeds on the Table.
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford)
said he did not think his hon. friend, in whoso absence and at whose request he had taken charge of the Amendment, would desire to press it after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. But he would like to ask the Attorney General if he were satisfied that the words "provided by them" allowed the managers to make use of any moneys which might eventually come into their possession, such as endowments, rents, donations, or subscriptions. If the hon. and learned Gentleman could give him that assurance, he thought he might ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)
said 1086 he thought it was quite clear that these words would enable the managers to defray the cost of repairs or improvements out of any funds which might be at their disposal from whatever source.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
thought it would be difficult to reconcile that with the words of the sub-Section to which he had referred.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)
said it was quite clear Clause 13 did not meet the point, but as the Prime Minister had promised a new scheme, they could hardly discuss the matter now. He wished, however, to utter one word of protest on the part of parishes which had very large endowments. It would not be fair to the parishes or groups of parishes for which these endowments had been provided that the endowments should become purely national or county gifts. These funds were given before there was any public assistance to education, and they were the gifts of the patriotic inhabitants who desired to benefit a parish or group of parishes. To ensure that they were not lost to that parish or group of parishes, an important change in the Bill was required, and when it was submitted they could discuss it.
§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)
said they were not proposing to discuss the whole question, but there could be no impropriety in calling attention at that stage to the fact that this was one of the most important questions in the Bill. There were a great many endowments, many of which had gone into the hands of the secondary schools, and they had been misapplied in this sense, that they had not given any greater benefit to the parish than they would have received without it, because the money had been appropriated to the relief of the wealthier inhabitants of that liability they would otherwise have been under for rates or voluntary subscriptions, and the poor for whose benefit the charities were really left had not been helped at all. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended, on behalf of the Government, to lay before the Committee a Clause.
§ MR. BRYCE
said he thought he might assent, subject to certain qualifications, to the proposition that these endowments should be applied, not to the relief of the county ratepayers, but the local ratepayers. But he took exception to the contention that the managers were proper objects for the benefit of these charitable funds. He repeated that these charities were given for the education of the people, and they ought not to be appropriated in order to relieve the managers of their obligation, either in a personal capacity or as representing a body of the subscribers, to maintain the school. They were not given to relieve them of obligations which would otherwise have fallen upon them. He desired at the present moment to enter a caveat against any scheme which would, in defiance of what he thought was the policy of the law, in defiance of the intention of the pious founders, and in defiance of the bargain suggested by this Bill, apply those charity funds to the relief of the pockets of those who ought to pay.
§ *(3.0.) MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tunbridge)
said the question of the endowments was a very difficult one, because they had been left under different circumstances and for different reasons. There were some endowments which had been left for education in connection with a particular denomination. In dealing with these it seemed to him that they should properly be given to the managers, because there was no doubt about the intention of the founders. There was another class of endowments which had been left for the benefit of the education of the poor generally in the parish. There he thought they were left for education simply, and for that reason he did not think they should go to the managers. They ought to go to the local authority for the parish in some such way as that indicated by the First Lord. Then there was a third class which had been diverted by the Charity Commissioners to a particular local elementary school. Since the passing of the Endowed Schools Acts and the Elementary Education Act of 1870, it had been the custom of the Charity 1088 Commissioners in nearly all cases to make such diversion to secondary education. Roughly speaking, there were very few such cases since 1869 or 1870. The suggestion he would make was that some body, such as the Board of Education or the Charity Commissioners, probably the Board of Education, should have power to go into every single endowment in order to ascertain the purpose for which it was originally left, and how it had since been applied, and to decide whether it should be paid over to the managers in future or to the county authority for the maintenance of a school in that particular parish. Unless they did that he did not see how they would arrive at any fair or satisfactory solution of the case. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the endowments were being misapplied. When they were left the State did not supply education at all, and unless these endowments had been left there would have been no school for the people.
§ MR. BRYCE
said he was speaking from the experience he had thirty-five years ago when he was Assistant Commissioner examining into the condition of those endowed schools. What he then found was—he did not say misapplication in the sense that there was anything criminal—that there were a great many rural parishes in which there were these old endowed schools. Where there was one of these parishes, the local people, the local magnates, who would otherwise have subscribed to establish a National, or perhaps a British school were relieved of the necessity of subscribing. Therefore they were able to be relieved of burdens which their neighbours in the adjoining parishes were bearing.
§ MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN
said that very often a rich man instead of giving an annual subscription had capitalised his subscription by way of an endowment. Surely it was perfectly fair in that case that the interest of the endowment should go for the benefit, either of the subscribers or ratepayers as the case might be. He did not think there was very much difference between Members of the Committee on this 1089 question. He made this suggestion, because he felt that it was a matter that must be dealt with later on when the First Lord submitted his proposal.
§ MR. M'KENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)
said there were two questions raised here, firstly, what endowments were to be paid to the local authority, and secondly, what use was to be made by the local authority of the money after it had been paid over. The first question was already decided by sub-Section 2 of Clause 13, and they ought not to go back upon that provision. On the second point he thought they were all agreed. When the endowment had been paid to the local authority, they should be paid out by the local authority of the particular parish for the use of which the endowment was given. The Government would not be dealing fairly if they proposed another Clause to go back on the provision made in sub-Section 2 of Clause 13.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
May I venture to suggest to the Committee that we ought not now to discuss this? I stated that I should indicate the scheme of the Government, but if any endeavour to meet the mind of the Committee on a subject like this is to be followed by a long discussion, not on the Amendment but on a matter not absolutely germane to the Amendment, I shall be obliged to cut off the information I give to the House to limits which I think would be convenient to the House.
§ MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomeryshire)
said that formerly there had been an unsatisfactory system of dealing with disputed points in regard to endowments, that, namely, of bringing them up for decision by a more or less Party vote after twelve o'clock in a jaded House. He hoped the First Lord would make provision in the new scheme which would obviate the injustice which had occasionally happened under the existing practice.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax) moved to leave out "them" and insert "foundation managers" in line 18 of Clause 8. The hon. Member on the other side 1090 appeared to be afraid that the words "provided by them" would put some liability on the managers as individuals. He certainly took the same view on reading the words "provided by them." He understood the First Lord now to say that that was not so, and that they would have, and could have, no financial responsibility themselves. He moved this Amendment simply to protect the two elected managers against any possible financial liability which it would be unjust to place on their shoulders. The First Lord's Amendment so farmet the difficulty, but he wanted to know what would happen in this case. Suppose that the four foundation managers and the two elected managers acting together gave orders for the enlargement of a school at a cost of £500, they employed a contractor, and the work was done before they had raised subscriptions for the purpose; suppose further that they failed to raise the sum by subscriptions and the contractors sued the managers, was it not a fact that the two elected managers would have to share the responsibility for the liability incurred? That was a danger which he wished to avoid, so that if poor men were elected managers they would have no possible burden resting on their shoulders.
In page 3, line 18, to leave out the word 'them,' and insert the words 'foundation managers.'"—(Mr. Whitley.)
§ Question proposed. "That the word 'them' stand part of the Clause."
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
Of course the question of personal liability to the builder must in every ease depend on the terms of the contract. There are many cases in which a committee is formed for a declared purpose. They might be considered to have pledged their personal liability, and to have taken the chance of getting the funds by subscription or elsewhere to defray it. I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it would not be reasonable to put in "foundation managers," because the intention is that the managers should execute the repairs out of funds provided by them for the purpose as a whole.
§ MR. WHITLEY
said the explanation was not entirely satisfactory. It would be possible for the four foundation managers to enter into a contract for 1091 which the whole six would be liable, and in that way liability would be cast on the shoulders of the two elected members. That would be a serious thing for a poor man acting as one of the elected managers.
§ DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)
objected to the introduction of the words proposed by the Amendment on the ground that he desired the managers here and everywhere to act as a whole. The obligation to keep the school in repair was placed on the whole of the managers, and he believed it was the intention of the Government that the two public managers should have as much voice in the matter as the four foundation managers.
§ The Amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.
§ *MR. LEVY (Leicestershire, Loughborough) moved to insert after "them" in line 18 of Clause 8 the words "which shall average not less than seven shillings per pupil in average attendance per annum." His object in moving the Amendment was to ensure that the managers would keep the schools in a proper state of repair and in a sanitary condition. They would be told that the question of the state of the schools could be controlled by the local education authority, who could require that the schools should be maintained in an efficient and sanitary condition, and that if the buildings were not so maintained the managers could be made to put their schools into a proper state of repair and sanitation by the Board of Education. At the present time the Board of Education possessed these powers, yet it was common knowledge that in the rural districts the instructions of the Board of Education were frequently disregarded, and the schools were often in a very unsatisfactory condition. It was to safeguard the interests of the people that he proposed the Amendment.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he would express no comment on the announcement of 1092 the intentions of the hon. Gentleman except to say that it was obviously absurd to lay down that in every school—whatever its circumstances, whether it was large or small, new or old, whether it belonged to the State or not—the managers must spend the same amount per child in average attendance.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he could not see how anything could be gained in enforcing the managers to spend money if it was not required.
§ MR. CHARLES MORLEY (Brecknock)
pointed out that there appeared to be some misapprehension in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, for there was nothing in the Amendment to compel managers to spend not less than 7s. per pupil. The Amendment merely enforced the provision, and not the expenditure, of the money.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that that made it almost worse. Was the hon. Gentleman by the greatest effort of imagination to put himself into the position of insisting that the managers were to spend at the rate of 7s. per child per annum, whether it was wanted or not?
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said he quite agreed with the First Lord of the Treasury that such a proposition would be impracticable. But, on the other hand, it was essential that the Government should see that the provisions of Clause 18 were carried out. He did not think that the proposal that the managers were to keep the buildings in a proper state of repair and sanitation was likely to be carried out. As a matter of fact, the money spent on repairs in many schools was entirely inadequate, as was shown by the return giving the particulars of such money spent on every school in the kingdom. In one school, with an average attendance of fifty children, the total amount of money spent on fuel, light, cleaning, rent, and taxes, etc., was 1s. 6d. per child; and when they took that off the contribution 1093 there was nothing left for repairs. And that was not an old school. The same argument applied to many schools in the country of which he could give details. A good standard had been set up in the Code recently issued in regard to sanitation rules. And, by the way, he would like to know how, for some mysterious reason, these rules had been dropped out of this year's Code. He suggested that the Government should undertake that the moment this Bill became law, the Board of Education should send out as a matter of information to the local education authorities throughout the country, a memorandum as to what they considered to be a reasonable standard of sanitation, cleansing, lighting, fuel, etc.
§ THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University)
said that the demand of the hon. Gentleman was a reasonable one and he would undertake that it would be satisfied.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
said that the point of his right hon. friend had not been met. There could be no doubt that a large number of local authorities would insist on repairs to the school premises being carried out, and that the managers would say that they had no funds to do so. It would therefore take years to carry them out. He thought there was substance in the Amendment, and that if something were not done to compel the managers to provide the funds for repairs these would have to be carried out by the local education authority.
§ (3.30.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)
said it was very desirable that there should be some guarantee that the repairs would be carried out by the managers. A large number of the schools were not at present in proper repair; and, therefore, he thought they wore justified in regarding, with some amount of suspicion, the mere words which declare that the schools should be kept in repair. He was not quite sure, however, whether his hon. friend's Amendment would meet the difficulty. The great difficulty was to know exactly what was meant by the word "repairs." On the face of it, the word seemed very simple; but there had 1094 been such litigation over it, that he was not quite sure it was clear what responsibility would be cast on the managers. It would be better to strengthen the Bill in the direction of making it clear what "repairs" would mean, rather than have the guarantee which was proposed. Would any part of the duty of keeping the building in good order be cast on the local authority? Would painting or papering for instance? That was the direction in which they should proceed; but the point could be bettor raised on a subsequent Amendment.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said he agreed that the matter could be more conveniently discussed on a later Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, E.)
in moving an Amendment to provide that the managers should insure the school buildings against fire, said the buildings might very easily be burned; and at present the managers in many cases neglected to insure them. Unless the Amendment were accepted, a very heavy liability might be thrown on many rural parishes. If a school which was not insured was burned down, the local authority would have to provide a new school, almost entirely at the expense of the persons living in the parish. The Bill was being discussed almost solely from the point of view of the theologian and the educationalist; and the heavy burden which would be placed on the local taxpayers was forgotten. The Bill should be considered not only from the standpoint of the large towns, where a man only paid rates on his house, but also from the standpoint of the rural districts where a man paid rates on his entire income. If a school were burned down in a small parish, it might result in an excessively heavy rate being imposed on the ratepayers.
In page 3, line 18, after the word 'then,' to insert the words 'insure against fire and.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment. It rested with the managers 1095 to insure the schools; and they could not impose on them by Act of Parliament an obligation to do that which related to their own business. If the managers desired the voluntary schools to be kept up then they would insure them against fire. If they did not insure schools, and they were burned down, the result would be that they would be succeeded by provided schools. That might be a good or a bad thing; but surely it was a little childish to suggest that managers should be compelled, by Act of Parliament, to do that which was entirely within their own province.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
said he wished to know if the cost of the insurance would fall on the rater. If it did, it would be a heavy burden. If the managers did not insure, would the local authority be saddled with the expense. That was the important point. As far as he was concerned, he was not anxious that the non-provided schools should be insured, because if they were not, they would, in the event of being burned down, be replaced by provided schools. What he wished to know was, would the education authority be expected to insure the non-provided schools?
§ Question put and negatived.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.)
said he desired to move an Amendment providing that the managers should discharge all liabilities incurred in connection with the school existing at the passing of the Act. At present a very large number of denominational schools were in debt; and that was a fact which would have to be faced in connection with the passing of the Bill. In August last the First Lord of the Treasury informed him that the local authority would have nothing to do with any such liabilities, and he now moved his Amendment in order that words might be incorporated in the Bill which would make that perfectly clear. He would put a concrete question to the Attorney General. If the local authority was not to be responsible for these liabilities after the passing of the Bill who 1096 would be responsible for them? Further, he wished to know if the additional managers to be elected would be responsible with the existing managers? He thought the Amendment should be accepted in order to avoid friction. There was no doubt in the mind of the Government about the matter; why, therefore, should it not be made plain in the Bill? Again, if the Attorney General would refer to Section 1 of the second schedule, he would see that the liabilities of the school attendance committees were to be transferred to the County Councils. He wished to know how that would affect the existing law, which laid down that the expenses of the attendance committees should be met by the guardians.
* THE CHAIRMAN
I do not see what bearing that has on the hon. Member's Amendment, which deals with the liabilities of managers.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS
said that the point he wished to make was that the Government should make it clear in the Bill that the local authority would not be responsible for existing liabilities.
In page 3, line 18, after the word 'them,' to insert the words 'discharge all liabilities incurred in connection with the school existing at the passing of the Act."'—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
§ Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said the Amendment of the hon. Member was based on a misapprehension. The hon. Member appeared to think that the local education authority took over the school building and by so doing stood in the place of the school managers, taking over all the assets and becoming responsible for all expenditure. That was not so. The local education authority was only bound to maintain the school. The debts incurred by managers in the past would have to be discharged by the managers who took their place. The hon. Member asked who would pay their debts if the managers did not. He (Sir William Anson) might as well ask who would pay his own personal debts if he did not pay them. 1097 He could only say he did not know. He only knew that the local education authority would not relieve the managers of their liabilities.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
did not think the hon. Gentleman had seen the important part of this Amendment. As he understood the Amendment, it sought to ensure that they should begin the new condition of things with a clean slate; that in return for the privileges which were to be given to the managers there should be handed over to the State a school with a mortgage on it, but a free school; that the managers should provide it, and ought to provide it, free of charge. A similar condition had, he believed, been insisted on by the Education, Department itself in dealing with building grants. When building grants were given, the fundamental condition was that the ownership of the land was to be provided by trust deed. He had often asked for those deeds, but had never succeeded in getting them; but he believed that when they did see them they would find that those deeds provided that the buildings should be absolutely unencumbered. This Amendment practically suggested the same thing with regard to the schools.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
pointed out that if there was a mortgage over the school the mortgagee might foreclose, and when he took possession of the school what would be the position? Or supposing the gentleman who owned the school had an execution put in, whether in secular or religious hours, what would be the position? It would be a very inconvenient thing to have a man in possession.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
Under those circumstances they would cease to be non-provided schools, if their proceedings are interrupted by the action of the managers.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said the managers ought not to be placed in a position of that kind. They desired to have the schools placed in a position that was quite clear, so that the local education authority might 1098 feel secure. If the parties who were the proprietors of the school could call upon the local education authority to carry on the education in the school, it was necessary that the local education authority should have some security.
§ MR. PYM (Bedford)
said he thought the object of this Amendment was sufficiently indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen when he used the words ''handed over." These schools were not provided for the local authority, they were lent to the local authority. The result was that, if these schools were broken up because they were not maintained by the managers who represented the trustees, then the county would have to provide schools in their place. It was absurd to talk of going into the question of the financial condition of these schools, which did not belong to the county. Every argument of the Opposition all through the Bill had been based upon the assumption that these schools belonged to the county, every Amendment had been made with the object of placing the local authorities in a position to deal with these schools as they pleased, and they could not do it. The Government were indebted to the Church for the saving of a large expense, and in return for that they were obliged to make certain conditions.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON (Yorkshire, W.R. Morley)
understood from the speech just previously made that the County Councils would have nothing to do with any of the financial arrangements of the schools. Supposing the opposite point were taken, and instead of having any financial control the County Councils had been so careful as to have no control whatever. If the school got a balance of a grant left over, would that go into the public exchequer of the county or to the managers of the school? He only desired to put the question.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
asked, supposing there was a sum of money due from the old managers, whether that liability would, as he assumed it must, be transferred to the new school managers under 1099 this Bill. If it was a liability incurred purely on account of the trust, and that liability was transferred to the new trustees, ho would like to know could any one distrain on the school assets—on the furniture, books, or apparatus of the school—for the purpose of discharging the liability incurred in connection with the trust itself.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
The law would remain as it is. You cannot seize one man's property for the debts of another.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
pointed out that this was a trust liability; the liability could not remain where it was. The creditor surely could follow the trust assets.
§ learned Gentleman into these abstruse questions, which had nothing to do with the Amendment.
§ MR. LLOYD GEORGE
contended that if the liability incurred was in connection with the trust, or if it was in connection with the school—it was the same thing—the creditor could follow the books, furniture and apparatus if the money was not paid. What he desired to know was, would he be able to do so in the future, Would he be able to distrain for a liability incurred before the passing of this Bill, because if that were so this Amendment certainly ought to be adopted.
§ (3.58.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 113; Noes, 197. (Division List No. 434).1101
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Price, Robert John|
|Allan, SirWilliam (Gateshead)||Helme, Norval Watson||Rea, Russell|
|Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Horniman, Frederick John||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Rigg, Richard|
|Bell, Richard||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Brigg, John||Jacoby, James Alfred||Runciman, Walter|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Joicey, Sir James||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Jones David Brynmor (Swansea||Shackleton, David James|
|Burns, John||Jones William (Carnarvonshire||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Burt, Thomas||Kearley, Hudson E.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Caldwell, James||Labouchere, Henry||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Cameron, Robert||Lambert, George||Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Langley, Batty||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Cawley, Frederick||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings|
|Cremer, William Randal||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Thomas, J A (Glamorgan Gower|
|Crombie, John William||Leng, Sir John||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Levy, Maurice||Tomkinson, James|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan||Lewis, John Herbert||Toulmin, George|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Logan, John William||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Lough, Thomas||Wallace, Robert|
|Edwards, Frank||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T|
|Ellis, John Edward||M'Kenna, Reginald||Weir, James Galloway|
|Emmott, Alfred||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Markham, Arthur Basil||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Mather, Sir William||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth.|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Morley, Rt. Hon John (Montrose||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Grant, Corrie||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Woodhouse, Sir J T, (Huddersfd|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||Nussey, Thomas Williams||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Partington, Oswald||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Harwood, George||Paulton, James Mellor||Mr. Herbert Roberts and|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Philipps, John Wynford||Mr. Lloyd-George.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Aird, Sir John||Anson, Sir William Reynell.|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden||Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick;||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Gore, Hn C. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Parker, Sir Gilbert|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc.)||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Balcarres, Lord||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Pease Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon A J (Manch'r||Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nds||Percy, Earl|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W, (Leeds||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Groves, James Grimble||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Bignold, Arthur||Gunter, Sir Robert||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Hain, Edward||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Purvis, Robert|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Pym, C. Guy|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Heaton, John Henniker||Rankin, Sir James|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Higginbottom, S. W.||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Campbell, Rt Hn J.A.(Glasgow)||Horner, Frederick William||Renwick, George|
|Carew, James Laurence||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hoult, Joseph||Ridley, Hon. M.W,(Stalybridge|
|Cavendish, R F. (N. Lanes.)||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green|
|Cavendish, V. C. W, (Derbyshire||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Johnstone, Heywood||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.||Kemp, George||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J.A (Worc.||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Chapman, Edward||Kennedy, Patrick James||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isleof Wight|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Coddington, Sir William||Knowles, Lees||Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Lawson, John Grant||Spear, John Ward|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Cust, Henry John.||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Stone, Sir Benjamm|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Stroyan, John|
|Davenport, William Bromley-||Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Talbot, Rt Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lucas, Reginald. J (Portsmouth);||Thompson, Dr E C. (Monagh'n N|
|Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Macdona, John Cumming||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Fabor, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Valentia, Viscount|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Malcolm, Ian||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn, Sir J, (Manc'r||Maxwell, Rt Hon Sir H. E (Wigt'n||Welby, Lt-Col. A.C.E.(Taunt'n|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Middlemore, John Throgmort'n||Welby, Sir Charles G, E. (Notts.)|
|Finch, George H.||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropslure)||Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Morgan, David J (Walthamstow||Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Morrell, George Herbert||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Mount, William Arthur||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.|
|Flower, Ernest||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Forster, Henry William||Myers, William Henry||Younger, William|
|Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S, W,||Newdegate, Francis A. N.|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Nicholson, William Graham||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Garfit, William||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Sir Alexander Acland-|
|Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torreus||Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
§ (4.12.) MR. WHITLEY
said that the Amendment standing in his name dealt with one of those matters which the Prime Minister regarded as details, but which gave rise to much controversy in the country. He had several times been 1102 asked who, under the new conditions, would pay the caretaker. The duties of this official would be largely concerned with the use of the school on Sundays and for parochial purposes, and it was desirable that it should be clearly laid 1103 down whether the managers or the local authority were responsible for his salary. If the local authority paid, would they also appoint? If the managers paid, would they be able to apply the usual teat as to the man being a frequent and early communicant? It was only reasonable that the caretaker should go along with the free use of the building, and the words he proposed to insert would make it quite clear.
In page 3, line 18, after the word 'them,' to insert the words 'pay the caretaker.'"—(Mr. Whitley)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted"
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the hon. Gentleman was quite right in his conjecture that he would regard this as a rather trifling matter. He did not know why the Amendment should deal only with the caretaker. Why should not the man who swept the chimneys also be brought in? These points must clearly be matters of arrangement between the local authority and the managers.
§ MR. M'KENNA
said the local authority had only got the use of the school during certain hours of the day. What happened afterwards was no concern of the local authority.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
* THE CHAIRMAN
The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Islington, deals with a question which has already been disposed of. It has already been decided to hand over the school free of any charge, and therefore the Amendment is not in order. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden also raises a question which has been disposed of.
MR. LLOYD MORGAN (Carmarthenshire, W.)
said the Amendment he wished to move was to the effect that the managers should supply all the educational 1104 appliances for the carrying on of the school. Many of the voluntary schools were badly equipped, and the apparatus at present provided by them was very much behind what was required now to carry on efficient work. It was quite clear that as the control of secular education had been handed over to the local education authority, they would insist upon voluntary schools bringing up their apparatus into line with the other schools of the country. His Amendment provided that, in a case of that kind, the managers should be responsible for the expense necessary to equip the school. The ownership of those schools would remain with the trustees, except when being used for the purposes of secular education. He begged to move his Amendment.
In page 3, line 18, after the word 'house,' to insert the words 'and all its educational appliances.'"—(Mr. Lloyd Morgan.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words do there inserted."
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said he hoped the hon. Member would not press this Amendment, because they were now dealing with the question of the building.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that in the case of desks they would be used not merely for secidar education, but also for Sunday school purposes, and for what the Prime Minister had called social purposes, by the Church managers for denominational purposes. Surely these ought to be supplied by the managers. There was nothing in the Bill to indicate who had to supply these things.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said the managers had to keep up the building, but as regarded the furniture required, that would be supplied by the local education authority. If the furniture was to be used for other purposes, then the expense could be divided amongst them. This Amendment would throw upon the managers the burden of providing, all the educational appliances.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said there was hot a single Word in the Bill to indicate that. The local education authority had to maintain the staff and provide the 1105 salaries and books, but there was nothing in the Bill about providing the furniture. The Attorney General said they could divide the cost of the furniture amongst them if they wished. Could the local education authority say to the managers—"We will not allow you to use the desks for the purposes of a Sunday school." If they could not do this, then they could not impose any charge.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said the local education authority had to provide the furniture for secular instruction. They could remove their furniture if they liked, but no doubt they would leave it there. This Amendment would throw upon the managers the burden of providing the whole of the furniture, which was to be mainly used for secular education.
§ MR LLOYD-GEORGE
contended that that was precisely what the voluntary schools did at the present time, and the Attorney General now thought it was a gross and iniquitous thing that they should be asked to continue to provide the furniture. The hon. and learned Gentleman had skilfully evaded the question he put to him. If the managers refused to pay for the use of the furniture they could continue to use it unless the local authority took it away. It was a preposterous suggestion to say that the local authority could cart away the furniture. The local education authority were to take over the whole charge of maintaining the school for sectarian purposes; last night the Committee passed a resolution enabling the managers to make a profit out of the school-house; and now they were being asked at the expense of the State to equip Sunday schools and provide furniture for the richest denomination in the land.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON
thought the answer given by the Attorney General showed that there were still one or two points which wanted clearing up. He said that the furniture, books and apparatus would be the property of the local authority. Did he mean that in the case of all these schools the local authority would have to purchase the existing apparatus from the present managers? If that were so it meant that they were giving another very large endowment to the schools. It could not be argued that the local authority were to come into possession of 1106 simply an empty house and would have to provide all the books and apparatus. Everybody thought that the schools were going to be taken over as a going concern. He should like some information upon this point because it was very germane to the Amendment under consideration. The managers would have to repair the building, but would they have to put the furniture and apparatus into a proper state of repair? Was it the idea of the Government that the local education authority would simply come into the possession of an empty building and have to buy all the books and apparatus from the existing managers of the schools?
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said that as regards the furniture in the schools there was nothing in the Bill about transfer to the local education authority, but he should think himself that in most cases the managers would allow the old furniture to go on being used. Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that there was nothing too bad to be imputed to the managers of the voluntary schools.
§ MR BRYCE
said that the more they avoided imputations on each side the better. This was a matter that ought to be settled in case there should be friction. Would it not be better to deal with it in the Bill? It could not be beyond the resources of the Attorney General to find words which would meet the point and be accepted by each side defining the legal rights of the local authority.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said ho did not think there was any obscurity whatever about the point. The managers were to provide the buildings, and the furniture would remain the property of the managers, or trustees, or whosoever in whom it was vested. If they agreed to allow the local authority to use it they might do so, and if they chose to make the local authority buy the furniture they might do so. As regards any new furniture, that, of course, must be provided by the local education authority, for they were to maintain the school. There was nothing to put the managers under any obligation except with regard to the buildings. The law was clear. He thought sometimes quite as much mischief was done by an overplus of legislation, as by a want of legislation.
§ MR. BRYCE
asked if it was to be understood that it would be in the power of the managers to carry away the furniture, the benches, maps, globes, ink bottles, and everything else which were now in the school and used for educational purposes, and then to say to the local authority that if they wanted those things they must pay for them.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said the right hon. Gentleman had drawn a lurid picture of what might happen. Of course, if the managers chose to do that, they could.
§ MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Eland)
said it was perfectly true that they did not want an overplus of legislation, but legislation was to keep people in order who were not going to be reasonable, and what they complained of in this case was that something of this kind might happen. There would be a lot of old furniture, partly bought out of public grants, in a school, and if the managers chose to be unreasonable, it could be removed into the parish room. Then the school would be entirely fitted up again by the public authority, and the new desks and other furniture which the public authority had provided could be used in the evening by the very people who were keeping the old furniture.
§ SIR JOHN DORINGTON (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury)
said he thought a protest should be made on the Government side of the House against the view stated by the Attorney General. If it was in the power of the managers throughout the country to refuse the use of the furniture now in the schools the position would be an in tolerable one. He thought that would be very unfair and unjust, and that it would do a great injury to the reputation of the denominational schools. Therefore if the position was as stated by the AttorneyGeneral—and he had no doubt the lion, and learned Gentleman was correct—some words should be introduced in the Bill that the furniture and apparatus now in use in these schools should be at the disposal of the local authority in future.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said that if those interested in the voluntary schools desired that some such words should be inserted in the Bill the Government would certainly have no objection. The legal position was as he had stated it, and he believed that owing to the action of the voluntary school managers no such discredit would be brought on the schools as his hon. friend apprehended. Could the Committee imagine for a moment that there would be any of those scenes which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had conjured up? He believed that in the actual working of the Bill none of those vagaries would arise. He thought the real danger sometimes was occasioned by being too fussy in these matters and in conjuring up objections instead of leaving people to act according to their own instincts of what was right.
§ MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE
said he wished to support the appeal made by his right hon. friend the Member for the Tewkesbury Division from the ratepayers' point of view and in the interest of the Bill itself. He could not conceive a worse start for a Bill of this description in a county than that the county authority should have to begin by paying a very large sum out of the rates of the first year for the purchase of a large portion of the existing furniture. The Attorney General said that a large number of the managers would take a liberal view, but, after all, the county authority would not be able to stand on liberality alone. They would have to consider the ratepayers, and also how they could deal fairly with all the managers. The question was whether or not they were bound in law to pay for the furniture. He could not think in the interest of the Bill itself, or in the interest of the voluntary schools, the county authority should have to start with a large burden caused by having to purchase the existing furniture.
§ MR. WALLACE (Perth)
said the managers would be acting in breach of duty if they did not as trustees demand the price of the furniture if the law had not laid down anything contrary to the view stated by the Attorney General. Therefore it seemed 1109 to be absolutely necessary to have the law so framed that no opportunity would be afforded for any dispute to arise.
§ LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)
said he thought the proper course to pursue was to postpone the discussion until a new Amendment could be brought forward at a later stage.
§ MR SYDNEY BUXTON
said that what was wanted was that the Government should introduce an Amendment which would meet the views of all those who had spoken, and he asked the Attorney General to give a promise to that effect.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said that two things were perfectly clear—first, that the Amendment now before the Committee would not meet the desire of every Member who had spoken, and second, that this was not the place to insert words dealing with the matter, because they were now dealing with the buildings. In accordance with what seemed to be the general wish of the Committee the Government would most carefully consider the point and see whether words could not be introduced which would give effect to that desire, although personally he did not think an Amendment was necessary.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE
said he wished to point out that there was a large portion of the contents of the schoolrooms which was not movable furniture at all, but fixtures screwed to the floor, or otherwise.
§ MR. WHITLEY
said that many of the school managers had very heavy debts, and if they had a right to claim compensation for furniture there would be a great temptation for them to do so in order to clear off their debts.
MR. LLOYD MORGAN
said that after the promise the Attorney General had given, he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ (4.43.) SIR JOHN DORINGTON
said he had been struck with what the 1110 hon. Member for North Camberwell; had said in regard to the amount of repairs, and he could not help thinking that there should be some discrimination in regard to repairs. Hence he proposed that after the word "good," there should be inserted "structural." That would indicate what the landlord should do, and what a tenant should do. The tenant surely should replace a broken pane of glass, or any of the small daily repairs of a school; but on the other hand larger repairs, for instance in regard to the roof or the outside doors, should be paid for by the managers. He understood from the Secretary to the Board of Education that some general rules would be laid down under the Code. That would be quite satisfactory, but the Government should clear the matter up.
In page 3, line 18, after the word 'good,' to insert the word 'structural.'—(Sir John Dorington.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'structural' be there inserted."
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said that the meaning of the words in the Bill "in good repair" was that it was intended to include all repairs necessary to adapt the buildings for the purposes for which they were to be used. It was perfectly clear that the words as they stood included structural repairs outside the building as well as keeping the paint and the windows in order. He thought it was better therefore to adhere to the words of the Bill, by which the responsibility was thrown upon the managers of doing all that was necessary to keep the buildings in a condition suitable for the work of a school. If they began to dissect the amount of repairs which the managers should provide in making the buildings suitable for use as a school, and the amount to be done by the local authority, he thought they would open up a very difficult subject.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE
said this Amendment had been moved in a very quiet way, but they knew that it was an Amendment to which the Archbishop of Canterbury, judging from recent speeches of that Prelate, attached great 1111 importance. He was glad that the Attorney General had taken a very different view of the Amendment from its mover. If the Amendment were to be accepted by the Committee it would be as gross a breach of the understanding as was that of which they had complained on the previous night.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said he was very glad to hear the speech of the Attorney General, because it conveyed what was thoroughly understood by the Committee, viz., that it was undoubtedly the duty of the managers to keep the school buildings in a condition suitable to the purposes for which they were intended. He had received the other day a leaflet which was being printed and circulated for the Primose League by a Cambridge Newspaper Company. He did not know whether it was edited by the late Secretary to the Board of Education; but the leaflet set forth the merits of the Bill and the reasons why the public, should place confidence in it. One of the arguments was that the supporters of the voluntary schools would have to provide for all repairs, but any enlargement which might be necessary would be paid for out of the local rates. It seemed to him that in proposing this Amendment an endeavour was being made to take off certain liabilities which everybody understood had been undertaken by the managers of the voluntary schools.
§ * SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)
said that the right hon. the Member for Forest of Dean had stated that this was a small matter. [Sir C. DILKE: "No, I never said so."] The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Archbishop of Canterbury's speech, in which the Archbishop attached some importance to the definition of repairs. He could say that he was acquainted with a number of denominational schools which were kept open with the greatest difficulty, and only by the generous subscriptions often of very poor people who wanted to keep up the denominational character of the schools. To his knowledge the Roman Catholics had been most liberal in their contributions to the upkeep of their schools. He thought it would be most unfair to 1112 handicap the voluntary schools by compelling them to provide for repairs which in the case of board schools fell upon the rates. Why was secular education to be handicapped in voluntary schools because religious instruction was given in them? Hon. Members opposite had such a prejudice against definite religious instruction that as they could not do as was being done in France, viz., drive the denominational schools out by force, they were trying to obtain their end by the process of placing every possible burden upon them. It was no more than common fairness that those parents who desired their children to be religiously instructed should be put on the same footing as the parents of other children. Ho thought it was not much to ask that the local education authority should maintain the equipment for educational purposes. This Amendment was a fair one, and if they did not limit the denominational liability to structural repairs, they ought to try to define the furniture to be provided by the local authority, which he had endeavoured to do by an Amendment lower down on the Paper.
§ DR MACNAMARA
thought the hon. Gentleman made a mistake in endeavouring to minimise the obligations of the managers in this way. The question had been asked why should not these buildings be kept in repair out of the fund, like the School Board schools, in the future? For a very simple reason, because it was now decided that the whole cost of the education should be charged on the public fund. They had got four-sixths of the management of the schools, and in return for that it was an exceedingly small consideration that they should keep the buildings in repair? What were the figures? The voluntary subscriptions last year amounted to £840,000, It was exceedingly difficult to get definite figures, in fact it was impossible, for the cost of repairs, but gathered together were a number of items—fuel, light, cleaning, repairs, rent and taxes, and miscellaneous, expenditure—and the total of those items came out at £908,700. In some cases the rent charges were very high, running up to as much as £500 a year. From those figures it was plain that the existing voluntary contributions would (have nearly met not only the repairs but 1113 all these other charges as well. Supposing the voluntary contributions fell to half that amount—fell to £450,000—he still thought they would be sufficient to meet the repairs if they took the repairs at half the entire expenditure. That he thought was a fair estimate. The voluntary subscriptions amounted now to 6s. 5d. per child. If they fell to 3s., and that was the reasonable return which the voluntary subscribers might be asked to make, they would still have sufficient. He did not think it would do the denominations any good to make a huckstering bargain in this matter. For the concessions made of four-sixths of the management, the head teacher always, and the right to give denominational teaching out of public funds, this was a very small return.
§ *(5.10.) MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Brightside)
expressed the fear that the statement made by the Attorney General would give anxiety and disappointment to the managers of voluntary schools. He thought it was inconsistent with the main tenor of this Clause which put the managers in the relation of landlord and tenant, with the exception that the tenant paid no rent. It should at least be construed in such a way that the whole of what were known as tenant's repairs should be borne by the local authority which had possession of the building. If the Committee referred to sub-Section 3 of Clause 13 it would be seen that in the relations between the local authority and the parish, where there was a provided school, all the capital expenditure, and the capital expenditure alone, was to be borne by the parish. He asked that that principle might be adhered to in; this case; the capital repairs, the "land lord" repairs, should be borne by the denomination, and the "tenant" repairs by the local authority. This point unfortunately was complicated by the fact that the practice of the Department in the past had not been invariable. A number of items had been allowed to be paid by the managers out of Parliamentary grants which under this definition they would be obliged to pay out of their own resources. He thought that what before they had been allowed to pay out of Parliamentary grants should now be paid by the local authority. Those were in this opinion the lines upon which a fair settlement could be effected. The 1114 right hon. Member for North East Manchester had appointed out that the minor repairs were trifling amounts, but he (Mr. Hope) had the accounts of a West-leyan school in one district, which showed that in the last two years the minor repairs amounted to £last year. He earnestly hoped that before the debate closed the Attorney General would at last in dicate that the Government had the intention of reconsidering this matter.
§ * SIR BRAMPTON GURDON (Norfolk, N)
on behalf of the Owners and managers of the voluntary schools said they had no desire to shirk their responsibilities in this manner and get rid of the expenditure they had hitherto been put to, by putting it on public funds. They had heard too much of the Church in this debate, and how it would profit by the Bill, but the right hon Gentleman of the Member for Wolverhampton was right when he said that it was not so much a matter of the Chuarch as a matter of the Church as a matter of the owner of a property. He believed that the number of schools that were said to belong to denominations was largely exaggerated. There were a great many schools which appeared in the Education Reports as Church of England schools which had no connection with the Church at all They were "Squire's" schools, built by squires, and maintained by them. It was quite true that the squires had in times past expected the clergyman of the parish to manage the school and give the religious instruction, and it was only in latter days that the action of a section of the Church had obliged them to withdraw that duty from the clergymanm, or only to allow it under conditions. But it was quite open to a squire to withdraw any of his schools from the denominations, and convert them into sectarian schools, or pull them down, or turn them into cowsheds, or do anything he pleased with them. This concession must go, therefore into the pockets of the landlords, and he thought it was a mean of the landlords to accept it.
§ LORD HUGH CECIL
said the speech of the hon. Baronet strengthened the force of the argument that he was about to use, that from the ratepayers'. 1115 point of view it was not wise to drive the voluntary school managers into bankruptcy, because then the ratepayers would have to pay the whole cost of the school buildings. It was quite true that many of the schools were in the hands of the landowners, and had no strict connection with the Church in any way, and, while it was perfectly true that many religious bodies would make great sacrifices to prevent the schools going away from the denomination, there was no reason why the squire should do as he pleased with regard to them. He suggested that a middle course might be taken in this matter by enacting that, in respect of repairs, other than structural, the County Council should have a discretion to contribute if they liked. There would be no unfairness in giving a free choice to the body which the ratepayers elected.
§ * MR. M. WHITE RIDLEY (Stalybridge)
sincerely hoped the Government would see their way to consider the suggestion: of the noble Lord. As the hon. Member for North Camberwell had pointed out, taking it over the whole of the schools of the country there would probably be no difficulty in finding the money required; but to find the money in some districts would be impossible. There was no desire on the part of the voluntary school managers of any district to back out of the bargain, but there had always been an understanding that they should not run into greater liabilities than they had been able to pay out of the Government grants. In his own constituency there: were twenty voluntary schools and the annual expenditure they would have to pay under the Act amounted to £1,600. The annual subscriptions amounted roughly to £800. They had been able out of the Government grants to supply the rest of the amount required for maintenance and repairs. It would be hard in that case for the managers to find more money than they had had to find in past years. Those schools were not Church alone but schools of all denominations.
§ MR. W. F. LAWRENCE (Liverpool, Abercromby)
had no desire to ignore the real hardships shown in the speech of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division. There were certainly already efficient 1116 schools with regard to which considerable cost would be thrown upon the management. He did not think this Amendment met the case so well as that of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division, lower down on the Paper. He would like to know what provision was made for the upkeep of playgrounds. In country districts they were frequently put to considerable expense in restoring the level of play-grounds. He would also like to know what provision was made for the upkeep of outside walls. He thought it should be clearly set out in the Bill whether the upkeep of playgrounds and outside walls would come in under the head of buildings.
§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)
thought it would be most desirable to prevent any friction arising between the local education authorities and the managers of voluntary schools on the question of repairs. If the Committee tried to separate the repairs he thought they would do a great deal of harm to the voluntary schools themselves, because they must bear in mind that the use of the school was not limited to the hours of secular teaching, and they would have friction and disputes as to whether the damage took place at the time when secular or religious instruction was in progress. He thought the position of the Government should be maintained.
§ MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)
said before the Bill was introduced they heard a great deal of the intolerable situation of the managers of the voluntary schools. Now that the Bill had been brought in they were told by a noble Lord opposite that some of these schools would be driven into bankruptcy. The last stage was therefore worse than the first, and it was very strange that the Diocesan Councils all over the country should, under these circumstances, be in favour of the Bill. For the last three hours attempts had been made to do away with the bargain which was the basis of this Bill The previous night the denominations were presented with the rents of their school-houses. That afternoon the attempt was made to give the schools the endowments which they now enjoyed. Now 1117 there was an attempt to whittle down the repairs. He was glad the Government was firm as to that, but he wished to know how many attempts were going to be made to whittle away the bargain. They had heard a great deal of this bargain, and he would be glad to know by whom it was made. It was certainly not made between one side of the House and the other. The real fact of the matter was that it was made between the Government, as trustees for the people, and the owners of the Church schools. It would be interesting to know at that period how the profit and loss account stood. So far the public got the use of the school dining school hours and on three evenings in the week. Against that the denominations had first, two-thirds of the managers. Secondly, the appointment of all the teachers, and secured the religious atmosphere which they wanted. Thirdly, they had the use of the school buildings outside school hours. Fourthly, they bad the use of the buildings for Sunday school purposes. Fifthly, they got the rent of the school-house, a not inconsiderable asset; and, lastly, they could, if their schools were wanted for technical instruction for more than three days a week, take a share of the whiskey money. It seemed to him that the policy was a one-sided one, and he trusted that, if if any further proposals were made of this "kind, the Government would remember they were the trustees of the people, and would deal with Convocation in a stronger manner than they had hitherto done.
§ MR. CRIPPS (Lancashire, Stretford)
quite agreed that the question of repairs was a very important one, which ought to be dealt with according to the lines laid down in the Bill. Here they were not dealing particularly with Church schools or denominational schools, but with all the schools not provided by the local authority, many of them being schools in private hands. He admitted that there was a heavy burden cast on the owners of the schools, but according to the principles of the Bill, they should bear it in return for certain advantages obtained. It would be a great mistake to attempt to make the burden too light, and certainly nothing could be 1118 worse than the recurrence of constant friction as to repairs. He supported the position taken up by the Attorney General, that no one except the owner should deal with the fabric of the schools, and that it should be his duty to maintain the fabric in such a condition as to be fitted for educational purposes.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said he was speaking of repairs. So far as repairs were concerned, both inside and out, the managers should keep the schools in a condition fit for educational purposes. So far as cleaning was concerned, that was a different matter altogether.
§ * MR. TALBOT (Oxford University)
said he wanted to know, what the bargain was. He understood that all external repairs were to be done by the representative managers of the school, but the Attorney General rather frightened him by speaking of inside as well as outside repairs. In keeping the building in repair, one important point was to keep it clean. Who was to provide the cleaning of the school, which could hardly be called "repairs" in the ordinary sense? If the walls became dirty, who was to whitewash them? Those were points which, perhaps, might sound trivial to the Committee, but they were points on which friction might arise, and it was desirable to clear them up. Again, what was to happen in the case of a broken window? Whether they differed or not, it was most desirable that they should know what the provision meant. What he had understood was that the fabric and its repairs were to be maintained by the owners, but that all else would be left in the hands of the local authority. That, however, was now to be pressed further, and the owners were not only to maintain the walls, chimneys, and other parts of the fabric, but to maintain the inside of the building, to do the painting, whitewashing, glazing, and so forth. He was not saying that he objected to that, or that it was an unfair bargain, but he wanted to know what the bargain really was, and then he would be able to form an opinion about it.
§ MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR (Liverpool, Exchange)
repudiated the idea of there 1119 being any bargain in this matter. What they were trying to do was to act fairly between the local authority, as representing the ratepayers, on the one side, and the trustees of the school on the other. The Liverpool Public Elementary School Managers Committee, a body representing all the schools, both voluntary and board, in Liverpool, had resolved—That the reasonable cost of the wear and tear of the buildings should, as at present, be included under the head of maintenance, and allowed accordingly.The ground of that view was that if the use of the school was given free of charge it was surely only fair that the local authority should bear the charges incidental to use. A school could not be used without a certain amount of wear and tear, and to make good that wear and tear was just as much a part of the cost of maintenance as teachers' salaries. In the past it had always been allowed by the Education Department under the head of maintenance. It was a mistake to try to drive too hard a bargain with the school managers. If Members desired to put an end to voluntary schools let them do so boldly, but they ought not to subject the schools to a lingering death
§ by placing upon the shoulders of the managers a burden heavier than they could bear.
§ MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)
reminded the Committee that at present voluntary school managers had to distinguish between two sources of revenue when meeting a demand for repairs. Structural repairs had to be met out of capital expenditure, so that in that respect the managers under the Bill would be in no worse case in the future. The cost of small internal repairs might, by leave of the Board of Education, be charged upon the maintenance fund. But at present, the managers had some £800,000 in voluntary subscriptions. In future that sum would not have to be raised for the general expenses of the schools, and so would be applicable to these internal repairs. Therefore the Bill would not injure the managers in either respect.
§ (5.38.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 35; Noes, 337. (Division List No. 435.)1123
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Ridley, Hon. M.W (Stalybridge|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green|
|Bond, Edward||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Round, Right Hon. James|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Carew, James Laurence||Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside||Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Kennaway, Rt. Hn Sir John H.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Malcolm, Ian||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Myers, William Henry||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Faber, Edmund B (Hants, W.)||Nolan, Col.-John P (Galway, N.)||Sir John Dorington and|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Richards, Henry Charles||Sir James Fergusson.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Banbury, Frederick George||Bryce, Rt. Hon. James|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Barlow, John Emmott||Bull, William James|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Barran, Rowland Hirst||Burns, John|
|Aird, Sir John||Bartley, George C. T.||Burt, Thomas|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead||Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Butcher, John George|
|Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud||Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Buxton, Sydney Charles|
|Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden||Beresford, Lord Chas. William||Caine, William Sproston|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Caldwell, James|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Bignold, Arthur||Cameron, Robert|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Campbell, Rt Hon JA (Glasgow|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.|
|Arrol, Sir William||Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Causton, Richard Knight|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Brand, Hon. Arthur G.||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Brigg, John||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Broadhurst, Henry.||Cawley, Frederick|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Cayzer, Sir Charles William|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Brotherton, Edward Allen||Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc.|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Brown, Alexander H (Shropsh||Channing, Francis Allston|
|Chapman, Edward||Hain, Edward||Manners, Lord Cecil|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Hall, Edward. Marshall||Mansfield, Horace Rendall|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe|
|Coddington, Sir William||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Mather, Sir William|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H.E(Wigt'n|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Heaton, John Henniker||Middlemore, John Throgmort'n|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Helder, Augustus||Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G|
|Cremer, William Randal||Helme, Norval Watson||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)|
|Crombie, John William||Henderson, Sir Alexander||Morgan, David J(Walthamst'w|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Morley, Charles (Breconshnre)|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Hobhouse, C.E.H. (Bristol, E.)||Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Holland, Sir William Henry||Moulton, John Fletcher|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Horniman, Frederick John||Mount, William Arthur|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan||Hoult, Joseph||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute|
|Denny, Colonel||Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmund||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Batn)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Newnes, Sir George|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Jacoby, James Alfred||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Doughty, George||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Nussey, Thomas Williams|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Johnstone, Heywood||Palmer Walter (Salisbury)|
|Dunn, Sir William||Joicey, Sir James||Parker, Sir Gilbert|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea||Partington, Oswald|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Kearley, Hudson E.||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Edwards, Frank||Kemp, George||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Kennedy, Patrick James||Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley|
|Ellis, John Edward||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Emmott, Alfred||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop||Percy, Earl|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Kimber, Henry||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Pickard, Benjamin|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Kitson, Sir James||Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard|
|Finch, George H.||Knowles, Lees||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Labouchere, Henry||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Lambert, George||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Langley, Batty||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Price, Robert John|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Lawrence, William F (Liverpool||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Lawson, John Grant||Purvis, Robert|
|Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Pym, C. Guy|
|Flower, Ernest||Lecky, Rt Hon William Edw. H.||Rankin, Sir James|
|Forster, Henry William||Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick. S. W||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Rea, Russell|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Leng, Sir John||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Garfit, William||Levy, Maurice||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries|
|Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)||Lewis, John Herbert||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Gladstone, Rt Hon Herbert John||Lloyd-George, David||Renwick, George|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Rigg, Richard|
|Gore, Hn G. R. COrmsby-(Salop||Logan, John William||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Runciman, Walter|
|Grant, Corrie||Lough, Thomas||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Greene, Sir. EW (B'ry S Edm'nds||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Macartney, Rt Hn W.G. Ellison||Shackleton, David James|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||Macdona, John Gumming||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Groves, James Grimble||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall||Shipman, Dr. John G|
|Gunter, Sir Robert||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||M'Kenna, Reginald||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Guthrie, Walter Murray||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm|
|Soares, Ernest J.||Tritton, Charles Ernest||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth|
|Spear, John Ward||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants||Valentia, Viscount||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset||Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)||Wallace, Robert||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Stevenson, Francis S.||Walrond, Rt Hon Sir William H.||Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)|
|Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Stone, Sir Benjamin||Wanklyn, James Leslie||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)|
|Strachey, Sir Edward||Warde, Colonel C. E.||Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd|
|Stroyan, John||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C B. Stuart-|
|Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley||Weir, James Galloway||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Taylor, Theodore Cooke||Welby, Lt-Col. A.C.E.(Taunt'n||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E)||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts||Younger, William|
|Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr||White, Luke (York, E. R.)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.|
|Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower||Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne|
|Thomson, F. W. (York. W. R.)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Thorburn, Sir Walter||Whitmore, Charles Algernon||Sir Alexander Acland-|
|Tomkinson, James||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer||Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
§ (5.55.) DR. MACNAMARA
said he imagined that there could be no doubt that the managers would have to find the heating apparatus, but the local authority would have to find the fuel. He wished to have the views of the Government on the matter.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said the managers would have to arrange for the apparatus for warming and lighting, but the local authority would have to provide the fuel and lighting.
§ MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN
said the matter was not so easily disposed of. There might be a question whether "lighting" meant artificial lighting.
§ MR. CORRIE GRANT (Warwickshire, Rugby)
thought the local education authority ought to be entitled to see whether the buildings were in good repair or not. It was desirable that at the outset there should be something like a standard of repair set up covering all buildings, and the standard ought to be fixed by the local authority and not by the managers.
In page 3, line 18, after the word'repair,' to insert the words 'to the satisfaction of.'"—(Corrie Grant.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said the words proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman made the local authority the final judge in any dispute which arose between them and the local managers. Although he was certain that that was not the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that would be the effect of them, and the hon. and learned Gentleman was certainly mistaken if he thought that with these words in there would be any appeal to the Board of Education. There would be nothing of the kind.
* THE CHAIRMAN
I find on looking back that the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division was right. In the proposal of the hon. Member for East Somerset to insert the words "so long as" this point was dealt with. That Amendment would be applicable to all the conditions. The question raised by this Amendment therefore is already decided.
* THE CHAIRMAN
said the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Somerset would apply to all the conditions, and therefore he thought this Amendment ought not to be pressed. The question had already been decided.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.1125
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS
said the object of the Amendment he now proposed to move as again to avoid, if possible, the friction which must inevitably take place between the local authority and the managers if the word" reasonably was not omitted from the Bill. They had passed from "repairs" to 'improvements and alterations "which were to be made at the instance of the local authority. This question of improvements and alterations was a very important factor in the situation. He deeply deplored the arrangements made in this Bill, and did not think it would be possible to maintain them for any length of time, but that was not the point which was now at issue. They had to accept the policy of the Bill, and all they had to decide was the form. The Government were as anxious as anybody that the denominational school buildings should be in a satisfactory condition structurally, but the Committee were aware that when the Bill passed considerable alterations and improvements would be made in them. It would be only human nature on the part of the managers to cut down as far as possible the expenses in connection with these required alterations, and the result might lie to lower the standard of excellence of the buildings and cause a certain amount of friction between them and the local authority. The question raised by the Amendment was whether the local education authority could be trusted. It ought to bring to its service the best elements of the county; it would represent the judgment and opinion of the majority of the inhabitants, and he could not see any reason why in a matter of this kind they could not be trusted to say what was to be done to these buildings in order to bring them tip to the required standard of excellence.
In page 3, line 20, to leave out the word 'reasonably:'"—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'reasonably' stand part of the Clause."
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said the Attorney-General and the First Lord of the Treasury had consistently stated that they regarded the local education authority as a reasonable body and one fit to act in matters far more important than this, and, when the Opposition had 1126 alleged any difficulty with regard to the machinery, asked why it should not be left with the local authority. It was assumed that this great authority, the basis of education in this country, might act unreasonably. Sub-Section 2 gave all the powers that were required. They had in that sub-Section the power to settle a question by reference to the Education Department, and it was not necessary to go further. This was not a question of a reasonable dispute, but a question of this Government authority having acted unreasonably. It was most humiliating to the local authority. A great dispute might arise between the managers and the education authority as to whether a school should be whitewashed or not. The local authority might make a demand that the managers should whitewash the school, then there would be correspondence and a reference to the Board to determine whether, in deciding that the school was not to be whitewashed, the Borough Council had acted unreasonably. Such a course would only be humiliating and cause reasonable irritation. The Secretary to the Education Department would be the final judge as to whether the whitewash should be applied or not. These disputes would occur every day, and the use of the word "unreasonable" would be nothing less than a gross insult. The Committee knew; perfectly well that whenever the authority made demands of this kind there was a fighting party on the other side which would always take them before the Department, and all this would raise totally unnecessary friction. The education authority was the only body chosen for the purpose of being afflicted with this expression. He very much regretted that the Government would not trust the local authority to decide in the matter instead of putting it out to be dry-nursed. The one thing that divided mankind more than anything else was the expenditure of money, and in this case those who would desire to reduce the expenditure would be the managers. Everything that cost 6d. would be declared to be unreasonable, and a coat of whitewash would be represented as putting on an intolerable strain. He believed that the effect would be to cause unnecessary friction between the parties, and he asked why in the name of common sense and good feeling it could not be left to the County Councils not to make unreasonable demands.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said the Government could not possibly accept this Amendment. He did not for a moment believe that the local authority in any part of the country would administer the Act in an unreasonable spirit; but, after all, local authorities were but human.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said local authorities were liable to an occasional lapse; and with regard to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom he had a great respect, he should be sorry to say that he had never been unreasonable in his demands on the Government in this and in many other matters. With every respect to the local authorities, there might be occasions when their requirements would be of a very offensive character with regard to a particular school, and when the alterations and improvements in the school might involve amounts of money which the managers had not at command, and thus sink the school as a voluntary school altogether.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
said that if the lion, and learned Attorney General would refer to sub-Section (a), he would see that the managers were compelled to carry out the direction of the local education authority as to the secular instruction of the school. If the principle was to apply in such an important matter as secular instruction, why should it not apply to this? The Amendment was a perfectly sound Amendment, and if the Government were consistent they would accept it.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON
said that, as he understood the position taken up by the Government, if they did not put in the word "reasonably" there could be no appeal to the Education
§ Department. He submitted that that was not so, because under Clause 10 there would be an appeal.
§ MR SYDNEY BUXTON
did not see the difference. It seemed to him that if the word reasonable was required in one ease it should be required in the other. This was casting a very considerable reflection on the local education authority in whom, it was understood, the Government had the fullest confidence and to whom they wished to give the fullest possible power. He would support the Amendment.
§ MR. LAWSON WALTON (Leeds, S.)
said he accepted the Attorney General's construction of the Section, but he thought sub-Section 2 was so wide that it might with great advantage be restricted. Ambiguity would be avoided if, for the words "If any question arises,' they substituted" If any question whether the conditions above-mentioned have been complied with arises." Then the only question which could arise would be a question between the managers and the local authority as to whether or not the managers had complied with the conditions which created an obligation on the education authority to maintain, the schools. If the word "reasonably" was left out of sub-Section (d), the only questions which could arise would be whether the school house was in good repair and whether alterations and improvements were in fact required. If the word "reasonably" was kept in, there would be an appeal to the Board of Education.
§ (6.33.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 247; Noes, 121. (Division List No. 436.)1131
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bain, Colonel James Robert||Bentinck, Lord Henry C|
|Aird, Sir John||Balcarres, Lord||Beresford, Lord Chas. William|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Baldwin, Alfred||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Balfour, Rt Hon. A. J.(Manch'r.||Bignold, Arthur|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W (Leeds||Bigwood, James|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Balfour, Kenneth K. (Christch.||Blundell, Colonel Henry|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Banbury, Frederick George||Bond, Edward|
|Arrol, Sir William||Bartley, George C. T.||Boulnois, Edmund|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)||Greene, W. Raymound-(Cambs)||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Groves, James Grimble||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Gunter, Sir Robert||Parker, Sir Gilbert|
|Bull, William James||Guthrie, Walter Murray||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n|
|Butcher, John George||Hain, Edward||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley|
|Campbell, Rt Hn.J.A.(Glasgow||Hall, Edward Marshall||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Carew, James Laurence||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Percy, Earl|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Pilkington, Lieut. -Col. Richard|
|Cavendish, R F. (N. Lancs.)||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Heaton, John Henniker||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.||Helder, Augustus||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J A (Worc.||Henderson, Sir Alexander||Purvis, Robert|
|Chapman, Edward||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Pym, C. Guy|
|Charrington, Spencer||Higginbottom, S.W.||Rankin, Sir James|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H.A. E.||Hogg, Lindsay||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Coddington, Sir William||Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside||Renshaw, Charles Bine|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Hoult, Joseph||Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Johnstone, Heywood||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Kemp, George||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Davenport, William Bromley-||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm||Kennedy, Patrick James||Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside|
|Denny, Colonel||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Kimber, Henry||Spear, John Ward|
|Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-.||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow||Stanley, Ed ward Jas. (Somerset|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Lawson, John Grant||Stewart, Sir MarkJ.M'Taggart|
|Doughty, George||Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Stroyan, John|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Durning-Lawrence. Sir Edwin||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Lockwood, Lt-Col. A. R.||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.(Oxf'd Univ.|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Fellowes, H on. Ailwyn Edward -||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J.(Manc'r||Lowe, Francis William||Valentia, Viscount|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Vincent, Col Sir C. E. H (Sheffield|
|Finch, George H.||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth)||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Macdona, John Cumming||Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C. E (Taunt'n|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts.|
|Flannery, Sir Forteseue||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne|
|Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Flower, Ernest||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Forster, Henry William||Malcolm, Ian||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W||Manners, Lord Cecil||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E. (Wigt'n||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.|
|Gardner, Ernest||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.|
|Garfit, William||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-|
|Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Gore, Hn. G R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Morrell, George Herbert||Younger, William|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Mount, William Arthur|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute||Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nds||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Helme, Norval Watson||Price, Robert John|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Rea, Russell|
|Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Holland, Sir William Henry||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Horniman, Frederick John||Rigg, Richard|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Runciman, Walter|
|Barran, Rowland Hurst||Jacoby, James Alfred||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Joicey, Sir James||Shackieton, David James|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Kearley, Hudson E.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Brand, Hon. Arthur G.||Kitson, Sir James||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Brigg, John||Lambert, George||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Langley, Batty||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants|
|Burt, Thomas||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Caine, William Sproston||Leng, Sir John||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Caldwell, James||Levy, Maurice||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Cameron, Robert||Lewis, John Herbert||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lloyd-George, David||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Logan, John William||Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower|
|Cremer, William Randal||Lough, Thomas||Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)|
|Crombie, John William||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Tomkinson, James|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||M'Kenna, Reginald||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Wallace, Robert|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Markham, Arthur Basil||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Mather, Sir William||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Dunn, Sir William||Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William||Weir, James Galloway|
|Edwards, Frank||Middlemore, John Throgmort'n||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Ellis, John Edward||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Moulton, John Fletcher||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Newnes, Sir George||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Norman, Henry||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Grant, Corrie||Norton, Captain Cecil William||Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersfd|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Partington, Oswald|
|Harwood, George||Paulton, James Mellor||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Philipps, John Wynford||Mr. Herbert Gladstone|
|Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Pickard, Benjamin||and Mr. Causton.|
§ (6.52.) MR. ALFRED HUTTON
said he wished to move an Amendment to provide for cases where there was a division of opinion between the local authorities and the managers, and where the managers declined to carry out any reasonable requirement in regard to the improvement of the school buildings. Supposing that an appeal had been made to the Education Department, that the Department had given its decision in favour of the local authority, and that the managers found that they were unable to carry out the improvement, or that the people interested in the school refused to carry out the structural alteration of the school. The purpose of the Amendment was to settle that point. Suppose a school was satisfactory for ordinary purposes, but that it was desirable to add another class-room on an adjacent piece of ground which was suitable and available. If the managers refused to add the class- 1132 room would it be necessary for the education authority to build an entirely new school? He thought his Amendment was very reasonable and would prevent any unwarrantable addition to the expenses of the managers. He begged to move.
In page 3, line 20, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words 'and if the managers are unable or unwilling to carry out these requirements, or fail to carry them out with due despatch, the local education authority shall have the right themselves to make such repairs, alterations, and improvements as are sanctioned by the Board of Education, and any school thereafter maintained in such buildings shall be held to be a school provided by that authority."—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted'
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he could hardly believe that the hon. Gentleman had fully realised the effect of his Amendment, which amounted to this, 1133 that if the local authority was not satisfied with the speed with which the repairs were carried out, they could hecome owners of property which did not belong to them. Anybody could see for himself that the deduction of the hon. Gentleman was monstrous, and he hoped that a proposal so repugnant to the most elementary principles of justice would not be pressed.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid)
said it might be that the remedy suggested by his hon. friend was a drastic remedy, but the difficulty contemplated in the Amendment might easily arise. The remedy provided in the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman was no remedy at all, and the First Lord had really given no answer to his hon. friend. He was willing to consider any counter-suggestion of the Government, and reason with them in regard to the remedy which ought to be provided in the case stated. He had a perfectly open mind on the subject; but there could be no doubt that a remedy ought to be provided, because it might be that it was desirable that certain things should be done in the schools, but that the managers had not the money to put the buildings in repair. The repairs ought to be carried out either by the local authority, or by decision of the Board of Education in London. What was to be done in cases where the managers would do nothing at all? Hs asked the Attorney General whether there was to be a mandamus, and if the managers did not carry out their duties were they to go to prison, and was the school to be allowed to get out of repar? The local education authority would eventually have to undertake the work, and, knowing that, the managers would say, We won't trouble about the matter, we won't do anything at all." Unless the proposal of his hon. friend were amended, it would by implication say that the subject of repairs, as well as the question of improvements, and so forth, was to be a matter of appeal. But it was really necessary that the Prime Minister should explain his remedy for this difficulty, which not only might but was almost bound to arise.
§ SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)
hoped the Committee would 1134 forgive him for referring to the Education Bill of 1896, but that measure contained a remedy for this very difficulty. By a Clause in that Bill the managers were enabled to borrow, and the local authority might lend sums of money for the purpose of repairs and structural improvements, the loans being secured by a mortgage on the buildings. Some such provision as that would meet the difficulty now raised. If the managers had not the funds to carry out certain alterations, they would then be able to borrow from the local authority, and make the necessary improvements. When, by means of a bazaar, subscriptions or collections, the managers were able to repay the money, the loan would be returned, but until then interest would have to be paid. If it ultimately became impossible for the managers to repay the money, the local authority would foreclose. The building would then be sold, the local authority would probably purchase it for a school, they would repay themselves the loan, and hand over the balance to the trustees for the purposes of the trust. That Clause, at the time, met with a great deal of approval on all sides, and possibly something of the kind might be proposed now.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that whether or not the proposed remedy was the best was a subject for discussion, but it was clear that a real difficulty existed. Personally he preferred the remedy appearing lower on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick, and which met the objection raised by the Prime Minister as to the proposal being one of confiscation. The supporters of the Amendment had no confiscatory intentions; they desired to meet the difficulty by giving fair compensation. The Prime Minister must surely realise that something ought to be done. One constantly heard of buildings, especially in rural districts, absolutely unfitted for young children to be cooped up in for several hours per day. It was really atrocious that they should be drawn to them, and inasmuch as they were compelled by law to attend, the law ought to protect their health. Buildings which would not be tolerated under a School Board were passed over when in the 1135 hands of voluntary managers, because the inspector knew perfectly well that to insist on the necessary alterations would mean bankruptcy and a School Board. He hoped all that would be changed when this Bill came into operation. If a means of meeting the difficulty were provided there would be no inducement to inspectors to pass the matter over in the future. The first condition of efficient education in the rural districts was to have schools fitted for the purpose, and he hoped the Prime Minister, before the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet came on, would consider the difficulty and how to meet it. As a point of order, he asked whether the discussion in the present Amendment would preclude the consideration of the proposal standing in the name of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick.
§ SIR EDWARD GREY (Northumberland, Berwick)
explained that what he intended was to insert a provision which would apply to all the conditions, whereas the present Amendment applied to only one condition.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
was of opinion that the plan of the Government did provide a remedy. It penalised every voluntary school which refused to carry out the reasonable instructions of the education authority in this matter of buildings by practically depriving them of maintenance. They would cease to have any right to be maintained as voluntary schools, and then, no doubt, it would be the business of the local education authority to find accommodation for the children. It might be said that that would throw a burden on the rates. That was so. It was one of the reasons why the Government had been anxious to preserve the voluntary schools that their preservation would prevent a very great additional burden being thrown on the ratepayers of the country. No doubt, if in any district the voluntary schools were incapable of bearing the burden which this Bill would throw upon them, the consequence would be that in that district a burden would be thrown 1136 on the rates. But they did not remove that evil by robbing the owners of the voluntary schools.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he knew that that was not the intention, but though the word "compensation" appeared in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick, he thought that word would have to be interpreted in a somewhat different manner if it was not to inflict hardship on the owners of voluntary schools. The case had been considered by the Government, and, in their view, if the managers of voluntary schools could not do the work that this Bill threw upon them, there was no choice but that the local education authority should do it.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said his right hon. friend's suggestion was well worthy of consideration, but that Clause occurred in a Bill which did not provide that the rates should maintain denominational schools. The two Bills differed fundamentally, and he thought there might be certain objections, from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee, to enabling the managers of the schools at a particular moment to engage in financial operations and impose on themselves financial obligations which might, at no distant date, have the effect of transferring those schools from the denomination to the local authority. He would, however, consider the matter.
§ (7.15.) MR. BRYCE
said he thought the right hon. Gentleman was mixing up totally different cases. Many of those denominational schools belonged to private owners. Everybody agreed that the private owner was entitled to sell his school at the best market price, for he was as much the owner of the school as he was of his watch, and could make any terms he pleased. In the case of a trust it was entirely different, because the trustees were not beneficial owners. 1137 With regard to the difficulty raised by the right hon. Gentleman, he wished to state why the remedy suggested was not sufficient, and why he preferred the remedy suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, and the hon. Member who had moved this Amendment. The proposal of the Government involved two difficulties. In the first place, it involved delay in providing another school and leaving the children without a school meanwhile. In the second, place it threw upon the ratepayers the necessity of erecting another school. The remedy the right hon. Gentleman appealed to was not the one which best met the case.
§ MR. LAWSON WALTON
said that there was one observation made by the Prime Minister which ought not to pass unchallenged. The right hon. Gentleman had stated there was a section which enforced compliance with these conditions in the nature of a penalty upon the denomination in the event of the conditions not being com plied with, the penalty being that the premises which were devoted to the purposes of a school ceased to exist, and financial support was cut oil, the school building being left in the hands of the trustees and no longer available for the purposes of an elementary school. That was said to be a penalty, but that seemed to him to be a very handsome bonus to the denomination. Take, the ordinary derelict parish school, which could not carry out the repairs required. Suppose this school refused to give effect to the directions issued by the local education authority, and the Education Department decides the question against the school and the grant was consequently cut off. The First Lord said there was a penalty upon the denomination, because the school could no longer be used for the purposes of education. But that enabled that property generally to be applied to ecclesiastical purposes. If they had a school impressed with a trust deed in favour of education, and the local authority provided other buildings,
§ how could they give effect to that trust. The answer would be that the Act of Parliament had relieved the trust of the bligation, and that the property in their hands would be applicable to other purposes. That appeared to be a handsome inducement to the denomination not to carry out these onerous requirements in order that the property might remain in their hands, and be applied to other purposes. He only pointed this out at that stage because, when the Committee came to the question what was a fair compensation, some of them on the opposite side of the House would be prepared to submit that there could be no compensation at all in the case of a school protected by an education trust deed. In such a case there was no authority to receive compensation in the event of a trust property being applied to such purposes.
* THE CHAIRMAN
We cannot discuss compensation until it is proposed, and there is no compensation proposed here.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said he wished to point out the direction which he thought the remedy ought to take. He believed that a more suitable remedy could be found. Instead of having mortgages and foreclosures, they ought to pursue the analogy provided by the Public Health Act. Under that Act if certain improvements were required to make buildings sanitary, and the owners failed to carry out those improvements, the local authority could carry them out and make the cost a charge upon the owners. In the case of this Bill he thought the best way would be to enable the local authority to effect the improvements and make it a charge upon the premises. When they were dealing with trust estates he thought the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman was not the light remedy. There were ample precedents for the course he had suggested, which was perfectly reasonable in its character.
§ (7.23.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 101; Noes, 241 (Division List No. 437.)1141
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud||Barlow, John Emmott|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Ashton, Thomas Gair||Barran, Rowland Hirst|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Horniman, Frederick John||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Jacoby, James Alfred||Shackleton, David James|
|Brigg, John||Joicey, Sir James||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Kitson, Sir James||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Lambert, George||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Burns, John||Langley, Batty||Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants|
|Burt, Thomas||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Caldwell, James||Leng, Sir John||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Cameron, Robert||Levy, Maurice||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Lewis, John Herbert||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Cawley, Frederick||Logan, John William||Thomas, DavidAlfred (Merthyr|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Lough, Thomas||Thomas,JA(Glamorgan, Gower|
|Cremer, William Randal||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall||Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)|
|Crombie, John William||M'Kenna, Reginald||Tomkinson, James|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Markham, Arthur Basil||Wallace, Robert|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Mather, Sir William||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.|
|Dunn, Sir William||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Edwards, Frank||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose||White, Luke (York. E.R.)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Newness, Sir George||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Norman, Henry||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Grant, Corrie||Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Partington, Oswald||Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Philipps, John Wynford||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Pickard, Benjamin||Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersfi'd|
|Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Price, Robert John||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Rea, Russell|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Reckitt, Harold James||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.||Rickett, J. Compton||Mr. Alfred Hutton and|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Rigg, Richard||Mr. Samuel Evans.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Manc'r|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst|
|Aird, Sir John||Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc.||Finch, George H.|
|Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden||Chapman, Edward||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Charrington. Spencer||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Churchill, Winston Spencer||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Clare, Octavius Leigh||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Clive, Captain Percy A.||Flaunery, Sir Fortescue|
|Arrol, Sir William||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Atkinson, Rt Hon. John||Coddington, Sir William||Flower, Ernest|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Forster, Henry William|
|Balcarres, Lord||Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W|
|Balfour. Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Compton, Lord Alwyne||Gardner, Ernest|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Garfit, William|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Cranborne, Viscount||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Gore, Hn G. R.C. Ormsby-(Salop|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton||Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon|
|Beresford, Lord, Chas William||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Gochen, Hon. George Joachim|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Bignold, Arthur||Davenport, William Bromley-||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)|
|Bigwood, James||Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham||Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS, Edm'nds|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Denny, Colonel||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury).|
|Bond, Edward||Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Gretton, John|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Greville, Hon. Ronald|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Disraeli, Coninngsby Ralph||Groves, James Grimble|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Gunter, Sir Robert|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Guthrie, Walter Murray|
|Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Doughty, George||Hall, Edward Marshall|
|Bull, William James||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.|
|Butcher, John George||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x|
|Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow||Duke, Henry Edward||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfrd|
|Carew, James Laurence||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Cavendish, R, F. (N. Lancs.)||Fardell, Sir T. George||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Helder, Augustus|
|Henderson, Sir Alexander||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel||Malcolm, Ian||Sassion, Sir Edward Albert|
|Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Manners, Lord Cecil||Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(lsle ofWight|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E(Wigt'n||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Smith, H. C. (North'b. Tyneside|
|Hoult, Joseph||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.||Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.|
|Howard. J. (Midd., Tottenham)||More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Morgan, David J(Walthamst'w||Spear, John Ward|
|Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Morrell, George Herbert||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Mount, William Arthur||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Johnstone, Heywood||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Kemp, George||Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham(Bute||Stone, Benjamin|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir. John H.||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Kennedy, Patrick James||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. Denbigh||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)||Thompson, DrEC(Monagh'n, N|
|Keswick, William||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Kimber, Henry||Parker, Sir Gilbert||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour||Parkes, Ebenezer||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Pease, Herbert Pike Darlingt'n||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th||Pemberton, John S. G.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Percy, Earl||Vincent, Col. Sir CEH(Sheffield|
|Lawson, John Grant||Pierpoint, Robert||Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.|
|Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Pilkington, Lieut.-Col Richard||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton|
|Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Plummer, Walter R.||Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.|
|Lockwood, Lt. -Col A. R.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Whiteley, H(Ashton-und. Lyne|
|Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Pretyman, Ernest George||Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm|
|Long, Col Chas. W. (Evesham||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Purvis, Robert||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Pym, C. Guy||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Lowe, Francis William||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert||Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.|
|Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)||Rankin, Sir James||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Wrightson, Sir Thomson|
|Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft||Ratcliff, R, F.||Wylie, Alexander|
|Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth||Rattigan, Sir William Henry||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison||Renwick, George||Younger, William|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Richards, Henry Charles|
|MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Sir Alexander Acland-|
|M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W||Round, Rt. Hon. James||Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
§ It being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.