Page images
PDF
EPUB

THE O'CONOR DON did not see the | regarded the Act of 1870? The Parobjections to the clause in the same liament of that day had municipal corlight as his right hon. Friend. This porations and Boards of Guardians all clause would not apply to cases where over the country, and if they thought sufficient provision was made for educa- proper they could have adopted the retion. These school boards were called commendations of this Bill and have into existence when there was no other given school powers to committees of local machinery for enforcing education; corporations and Boards of Guardians; but now other local bodies had powers but they thought it much wiser to have similar to those of school boards. If the a special board for the purpose, and proposals contained in this clause were that special board was the School Board. adopted the school boards would not be The hon. Member said there were 530 done away with, and it was only in cases school boards without schools. [Mr. where they had not been successful that PELL: 530 where they have no schools.] the provisions of the clause would apply. He trusted the Government would not reject the clause.

MR. J. G. HUBBARD said, it was right that where it was found that a school board was not wanted, power should be given to get rid of it. He believed that applications had been made to the Education Department, but the answer had been, "No, the school board is there, and it is eternal." Why should such boards be continued when they did not serve any useful purpose? In many cases school boards had been originated from merely party motives, and without reference to the professed object. There were, he believed, many school boards which did their duty well; but, on the whole, he believed there was great dissatisfaction throughout the country, and it was time to give the public power to dispense with them when they did not fulfil the objects for which they were appointed. He could not conceive what there was in this proposal to excite a feeling of alarm.

MR. JOHN BRIGHT said, he was surprised to hear an hon. Member opposite say that this proposition was not at all of a re-actionary character. He was sorry that hon. Gentlemen did not understand what they were supporting. The right hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken had told them the whole story. He condemned school boards because he thought that they were not sufficiently religious, although he admitted that in some cases they were not doing so badly in regard to religious instruction. It was quite clear that if there was any force in his argument he would want to carry it much further, and propose the dissolution of all school boards. ["No."] That was the clear tendency of his argument. Could there be anything more absolutely and completely re-actionary as

There were a great many of these school boards which had not been at work sufficient long to provide the schools which were necessary in their district. There were many other school boards who had not thought it necessary to build schools because they could take them over all ready. In Rochdale, where he lived, the school board had not had occasion to build a single school, though it had been in operation since the Act of 1870, but it had taken over several schools. These schools were under board management, and were practically board schools. If they adopted this clause they would hand over the powers of the school board to committees of corporations or committees of Guardians; but these would not have power to take over schools. It would therefore be a great misfortune to take away the boards. The right hon. Member who spoke last said there was great dissatisfaction throughout the country with the working of the school boards. [Cheers.]

MR. J. G. HUBBARD: I do not think I said that. On the contrary, I said that there were school boards which discharged their duties well.

MR. JOHN BRIGHT said, it was clear from the cheers which had been raised on the benches around the right hon. Gentleman that he (Mr. Bright) was not alone in his conception of what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Bright) did not think that it was possible to prove that there was any great dissatisfaction, any general dissatisfaction, or any dissatisfaction worth while to name in connection with school boards. There might be Gentlemen who complained of the rates. Hon. Gentlemen had for the last five or six years exercised their political influence in stimulating hostility to the rates. Though there might be a feeling

was

SIR WALTER BARTTELOT rather surprised that the right hon. Gentlemen, with all that clearness of perception he generally displayed in that House, had failed to appreciate the real question before the House. It was not that school boards should be got rid of absolutely and compulsorily. He could not support a clause having that object in view. He agreed that the Act of 1870 had done a great deal of good, and the school boards in many places had proved of inestimable value; but if the majority of the ratepayers should come to be of opinion that a school board had done its work, or that it would be better for the parish that it should be dissolved, why should they not have power to get rid of it, it was simply a question for the ratepayers.

of that kind, there was a general ad- which might be very unwise, and almost mission that the institution of school oppressive. He did think they had boards was the right thing for Parlia- adopted a system which had produced ment to do, and was one of the best great good, and from which the next things Parliament had ever done. It generation would gather enormous fruits, might be admitted that there were many and he hoped the noble Lord would not school districts which would rather like assist in strengthening prejudices which, to get rid of school boards, and run their in obedience to the interests of the counchance of whatever might happen, to try, he ought to the last resist. save a halfpenny or three farthings on the rate, and under this clause they would have the whole question re-opened in every district where the smallest minority was dissatisfied. Was it worth while, was it necessary to try and overturn-for what was the real object of this clause the system which Parliament deliberately adopted in 1870, which was in concurrence with all that they had done with regard to their municipal institutions, and which, he held, had worked admirably throughout the country? The enormous value of the school boards had been shown by the statements of the noble Lord, and he confessed he was astonished, considering how much hon. Members were now prepared to support public and national education, that an attempt should be made to overthrow that system which was deliberately established in 1870, and which the universal concurrence of opinion throughout the country and all the facts and figures before Parliament had shown to be so good. He would undertake to say-without desiring to state what hon. Gentlemen opposite would say was a menace or an expression of undue indignation-that he believed if the clause were to pass it would be felt throughout the country by the warmest supporters of education that a great blow had been struck against the Act of 1870, and that the noble Lord had, in obedience to influences which he ought to have resisted, consented to what he ought never for a moment to have thought of surrendering. He hoped the Government Bill might do the good which the noble Lord expected. He (Mr. Bright) was not what might be called a fanatical supporter of very strict and rigid compulsion. He sometimes was of opinion that there were persons so enthusiastically in favour of education that they worked-he did not wish to call it their hobby-because it was a great wish for the public good which actuated them --but he sometimes thought they were too strenuous in urging a compulsion

Mr. John Bright

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR had no doubt that school boards at present produced a good deal of agitation in the election of members. What was proposed to be substituted would increase that agitation ten-fold, for minorities in the course of time became majorities, and they would have another fight, and thus there would be an incessant agitation throughout the country for school boards or no school boards.

VISCOUNT SANDON said, he had listened to the discussion with great interest, and he did not think that was one of those occasions on which it was necessary for any one to get excited. If the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) thought they were going to abolish school boards, he could understand his feelings; but the Government never entertained any such idea, and they would not think of assenting to it. There was no reason, however, why the place which had once elected a school board should be saddled with it for all time. If they wanted to get rid of it they ought to be allowed to do so, and to act otherwise would be to go contrary to all their English ideas of reform. The result would be that if this power were not granted in the Bill that the minority

would govern the majority, and they think that the Motion involved a comwould compel people to elect a board plete dissolution of school boards, but they did not want to elect. He held that was not the case. He quite agreed they ought to consolidate and strengthen with the right hon. Gentleman that the existing local authorities, whether they thing must be worked gradually; but were Boards of Guardians, Improvement was greatly surprised to hear him speak Commissioners, or Town Councils. He so warmly in favour of the present school might illustrate what would happen if boards. He was not at all surprised a remedy were not applied by relating a that the right hon. Member for Bradford story of what happened to him soon (Mr. W. E. Forster) should have done after he came into office. An hon. Mem- so, because school boards were his own ber opposite came to him in great per- creation, and he (Viscount Sandon) adturbation, and said that in his little mitted that they had done a great deal village of about 200 or 300 people they of good. He would remind the right had elected a school board and put a hon. Member for Birmingham that in school under it, but they had got tired the year 1873 he had condemned the of this, taken away the school, but they mode of electing school boards, and could not get rid of the school board. added that no free breeze of public "There it is," said the hon. Gentleman, opinion passed through them, but only "and they all attack me for having set the unwholesome atmosphere of secit up in the village." The Act of 1870 tarian exclusiveness. That was impordid not give any power to deal with the tant testimony. He (Viscount Sandon) case; but at last the members of the confessed that although he stood up for school board absented themselves for six school boards where they had work to months from the board, so that all the do, and had done it in Sheffield, in Lonnotabilities of the village were disquali- don, in Liverpool, and in several other fied for all time from sitting on a school places he could not put his hand upon board again. When the three years then, yet if he found that there were expired, however, they had to go through some boards in the country which the the farce of an election, and they had to ratepayers wished to get rid of, and work the Act although opposed to com- where the existing local authorities pulsion. Having adopted the principle would carry out the work better, he of popular consent in governing all these should not think the proposal of the matters as the basis of the Act of 1870, hon. Member for South Leicestershire he did not see how in opposition to popu- could be fairly objected to. The Golar feeling they could persist in uphold- vernment were prepared to accept the ing machinery which had been already first part-but only that-of his hon. superseded. The first part of the proposal Friend's clause. of the hon. Member for South Leicester- MR. JOHN BRIGHT explained, in shire (Mr. Pell) was one deserving of reference to his speech delivered in 1873 the greatest attention. He was not that his objection to the mode of the afraid of being told that this was a re-election of school boards was confined to actionary measure, for it was no such thing. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had alluded to the fact that he (Viscount Sandon) had defended school boards. He had done so, but it was not necessary that he should champion unnecessary school boards. Two years ago he had stood up for many school boards in the exercise of the principle of compulsion, and he had resisted the attempt to forbid a locality to have a board which desired it. What he said was this, that the popular voice that created the board should have the power to dissolve itbut only in case the board had no school of its own, and, in short, no duty to perform. The right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) seemed to

the cumulative vote. He regretted that the noble Lord had attempted no reply to the objection he (Mr. Bright) had made, that the authority which would be substituted in all places where school boards would be abolished would be an authority that could not build a school if one was wanted, and could not take over any school which the authorities connected with that school might think it desirable to hand over to a public authority. The noble Lord was proposing to substitute a partial and incompetent power for that which was competent and impartial, and on that account the Committee should not support this Amendment, which, so far, was clearly re-actionary.

MR. C. HOWARD thought it would be a great misfortune if they were to impose the task of dissolving school boards upon persons appointed for a very different purpose, and who might be very fit to perform the duties connected with the vestry or country district for which they were elected, but who might not necessarily be most interested in conferring the benefits of education upon their neighbours.

SIR HENRY JACKSON said, that although the Amendment had stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Pell) for some time, it had only just been accepted by the Government. It was, therefore, to some extent a surprise upon the Committee and the country, and as it was desirable that the Committee should have longer time to consider it, he moved that the Chairman report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."-(Sir Henry Jackson.)

VISCOUNT SANDON said, that at that hour he would not oppose the Motion. He wished to repeat that the Government had only accepted half the Amendment-namely, that which allowed a school board to be dissolved where they had no school. The other half of the Amendment they had refused to adopt.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

POLLUTION OF RIVERS BILL.

(Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Salt.)
[BILL 186.] SECOND READING.
ADJOURNED DEBATE. [22nd June.]

MR. SCLATER - BOOTH proposed that the Bill should be read a second time pro formá, and added that he would then place upon the Paper certain Amendments which he believed would meet the objections to it which had been raised on behalf of the manufacturing interest.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE said, he did not think that this course ought to be assented to, and therefore he moved that the debate be further adjourned.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, whilst sympathizing with the President of the Local Government Board in his desire to pass the Bill, could not agree that what he proposed would be a proper way of dealing with so important a subject. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think it was only a matter affecting a few manufacturers, and that because he had made an arrangement with them, the nature of which was not known, the House had no further concern in the question. The Bill, however, was one involving the interests of the public. It proposed to create a new local authority, as if we had not enough of local authorities already. That was a principle which the House ought not to assent to without further discussion. In his opinion, it was utterly impossible that a question of so much importance could be treated in that manner.

House being now asked to assent to a meaMR. DILLWYN protested against the

formity with some Lobby arrangement.

sure which had been re-modelled in con

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE

QUER maintained that the course proposed by his right hon. Friend was not an unreasonable one, unless there was a desire on the opposite side of the House to obstruct the Bill. This matter had

been long under the consideration of Parliament, and a very considerable amount of time and attention had been

bestowed upon it. Objections to the Bill had come from a particular class of persons in the country, the Government had endeavoured to meet these objections; and all that was now asked was that they should simply place upon the Table the Bill in the form in which they intended to proceed with it.

MR. GOSCHEN reminded the Chancellor of the Exchequer that very little time had been spent on the Bill in the way of debate and discussion in that House. If the Government chose to give precedence to the Prisons Bill over this measure, they could not fairly charge the Opposition with wishing to obstruct Public Business.

MR. RIPLEY remarked that the President of the Local Government Board was willing to grant such concessions as would tend to make the Bill beneficial to the country, at the same time that it would not injure manufacturers; and he therefore trusted that the debate might not be adjourned.

MR. TENNANT trusted that the Bill would be read a second time, its principle having been repeatedly discussed.

MR. MACDONALD supported the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

on the Report. He thought that the cost of this inspection should be borne by some general fund, and not at the expense of the unions.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH assured the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Biggar) that there was no intention on the part of the Government to place on the Boards

Debate further adjourned till To-mor- of Guardians the duty of paying Portal row, at Two of the clock.

CATTLE DISEASE (IRELAND) BILL.

[BILL 94.]

Inspectors, though he did not know that he could hope for aid from the Imperial Treasury. The powers given to the Boards of Guardians were distinctly powers in addition to those already pos

(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Solicitor General sessed by the Lord Lieutenant.

for Ireland.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 5th May.]
Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

MR. BIGGAR asked, Whether, since there were Amendments to this Bill, it could be proceeded with now, after halfpast 12?

THE CHAIRMAN said, that it was quite competent to proceed with the

Bill.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH said, that many Irish Members, including the hon. and learned Member for Limerick had expressed themselves as willing that the Bill should be proceeded with that evening.

On Motion, That Clause 5 (Effect of order) stand part of the Bill?

MR. BIGGAR said, this Bill was not at all called for. It was only supported in Ireland by the large graziers and cattle salesmen, and it would injure the interests of small farmers. As this clause would put the Bill in operation by means of the Poor Law Guardians, he would move its rejection.

MR. BUTT said, the hon. Member was mistaken in thinking that the large graziers in Ireland wanted this Bill. It had been seen in Ireland that it would be of great advantage to them if they could establish confidence in England in the store cattle exported from Ireland. This would be the result of the Bill, and he was especially anxious that one of its objects-the establishment of an efficient inspection at the ports of debarkation in Ireland-should be attained. This might lead to the abolition of inspection in English ports. He had some Amendments himself, which he would reserve,

THE O'CONOR DON never liked this Bill, and in Ireland there was no demand for it. The greatest hope he had in regard to it was that in nine-tenths of the country it would be a dead letter.

MR. MURPHY conceived that the Bill would achieve for Ireland a vast advantage in restoring confidence in Irish cattle in English markets. Six hundred thousand cattle were annually imported into England from Ireland, and Englishmen would be satisfied if they knew that in Ireland the same precautions would be adopted under this Bill as were now adopted in England.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »