HC Deb 25 February 1897 vol 46 cc1153-243

Order for Committee read.

The following Notices of Motion stood upon the Paper:—


To move— That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert Clauses in the Bill to provide that the schoolrooms in schools that receive an aid grant, on such occasions as do not interfere with the educational purposes of the schools, and under the condition of payment of all reasonable expenses by the conveners of the meeting should be at the disposal of the inhabitants of the district in which such school is situated for the purpose of holding public meetings.


To move— That it he an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert Clauses in the Bill to provide that in schools receiving aid grant no teacher shall be required to perform any extraneous duty, that is to say, any duty other than those of teaching in the school and instructing the pupil teachers therein.


To move— That it he an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert Clauses in the Bill to provide that in school districts where there is no Board School it shall not he required as a condition of any pupil teacher being appointed in a public elementary school in such districts that such pupil teacher shall he or not be a member of any particular religious denomination, or shall attend or abstain from attending any particular place of religious worship.


To move— That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert Clauses in the Bill with a view to making provision for insuring adequate representation of local authorities or parents on the management of the schools in receipt of the aid grant.


To move— That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to enable the managers of Voluntary Schools to contract with School Boards for the supply of the education required by the Education Code to such children and on such terms as to payment, inspection, representation or otherwise as may be agreed between them.


To move— That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert Clauses in the Bill to create elective authorities in districts where there is no School Board, to prepare schemes from time to time for the apportionment of the aid grant, and to give power to School Boards to prepare such schemes for their districts.


There are several Instructions to the Committee on this Bill on the Order Paper. The first is in the name of the hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert). It introduces a subject that appears to me to be foreign to the subjects dealt with in the Bill, and on that ground it is out of order. The next Instruction stands in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith). That proposes to provide that as a condition for receiving the grant no teacher in a Voluntary School shall be required to perform any extraneous—i.e,. non-educational—duty. Such a proposal would be in order as an Amendment to the Bill, and therefore it is out of order as an Instruction. The next Instruction which stands upon the Paper is also in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey, and proposes to make provision for the absence of religious tests for pupil teachers in Voluntary Schools. That appears to me to enter upon matter which is foreign to the whole scope of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] The Bill is one for affording relief to Voluntary Schools. The term "Voluntary Schools" is substantially convertible with the term "denominational schools," and to give an Instruction to a Committee on a Bill for the relief of Voluntary Schools to undenominationalise them would be not only foreign to, but contrary to, the whole scope of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] The next Instruction stands in the name of the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd-George). He proposes that the Committee should have power to insert clauses in the Bill for making provision for insuring adequate representation of local authorities or parents on the management of schools in receipt of the aid grant. That appears to me to be in order as an Instruction. The Bill proposes that certain associations representative of the managers of the schools associated together should be the machinery for distributing the grant in aid, and the Instruction proposes to alter and amend the constitution of these managing bodies. As this is a very large proposal, which only bears indirectly on one of the subjects of the Bill, and as it raises a new principle not hitherto brought under the consideration of the House, it cannot be entertained without an Instruction. The next Instruction stands in the name of the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Gedge). It proposes to enable the managers of Voluntary Schools to contract with School Boards for the supply of the education required by the Education Code to such children and on such terms as to payment, inspection, representation or otherwise, as many be agreed between them. That does not relate, it appears to me, either to the relief of Voluntary Schools or to the distribution of the grant in aid. Whether it is a matter that requires legislation or not I do not know, but if it does require legislation it will have to be done by a separate Bill. The next Instruction stands in the name of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing). That Instruction in effect proposes to destroy altogether the existing form of management of Voluntary Schools, and to set up in its place elected authorities in districts where there is no School Board. It also proposes to give powers to the School Boards, with which this Bill is not concerned, to prepare schemes for their districts. Both branches appear to me to be outside of the scope of the Bill and out of order. Therefore the only Instraction which is in order is that of the hon. Member for Carnarvon.

MR. LEONARD COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

asked as a point of order whether it would be competent without an Instruction to move an Amendment in Committee proposing to add some representative element to the existing managing body of a Voluntary School in order to make that school eligible to receive the grant.


Such an Amendment would require an Instruction, and the Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Carnarvon covers the case.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

moved:— That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert Clauses in the Bill with a view to making provision for insuring adequate representation of local authorities or parents on the management of the schools in receipt of the aid grant. He said his object in moving the Instruction was to enable the Committee to provide for some form of popular representation on the management of schools which received a grant in aid. The figures before the House showed that a large percentage of the income of Voluntary Schools was derived from public funds. He contended that upon the broad principle that representation should follow taxation, which was ingrained to such an extent in the British nation, a certain amount of public control in the management of these schools should be given. In the year 1870 the bulk of the financial support of these schools was derived from local sources, and under the Act of 1870 the principle was recognised that Voluntary Schools should find, at any rate, one half of their incomes locally. That was changed in 1876, when the 17s. 6d. limit was fixed. In 1891 there was a further change made by the addition of the 10s. grant, and now it was proposed to abolish the 17s. 6d. limit altogether, and to give an additional grant of 5s. from the Exchequer. So that, practically, it would be possible in future for a school to derive the whole of its income from public sources, without any provision whatever from public control. ["Hear, hear!"] How that worked in certain cases was best shown by illustrations. In the parish of Llandwrog in Carnarvonshire there were nothing but Voluntary Schools, The grants to the schools in that parish amounted in the aggregate to £264, and the subscriptions and endowments to £21; that was the amount of voluntary support was something like l–14th of the total income of the schools. Four-fifths of the children who attended the schools were children of Nonconformist parents, and the schools being Church schools, their parents had no voice in their management, and no Nonconformist child had a chance of being promoted to the position of a pupil teacher. These children were compelled to attend the schools, and if the Nonconformist parents attempted to set up another school or to get a School Board, under which their children would get equal treatment, it would be open to the Education Department to say that the ground was already covered. He submitted that that state of things was exceedingly unfair. ["Hear, hear!"] He would go to another parish in the same county—Criccieth. There there was a School Board, and probably four-fifths of the population were Nonconformists. There was a Churchman on the Board, the headmaster was a Churchman, and one or two of the teachers were Churchmen also. Here was a case in which a School Board treated Churchmen in exactly the same way as it treated Nonconformists, and yet that parish was not to receive a penny of relief, though it would have to contribute to perpetuate the unfairness which it declined to imitate. ["Hear, hear!"] He would take another School Board district with Voluntary Schools side by side with the Board Schools. In Liverpool, two-thirds of the children attended Voluntary Schools and about one-third attended Board Schools. The grants to the Voluntary Schools amounted to £70,000, the fees to £11,000, and the subscriptions and endowments to £10,600. Thus the subscriptions amounted to something like one-ninth of the total income. ["Hear, hear!"] The parents contributed more than the subscribers, and yet they had no voice in the management of the schools. The subscribers who only contributed one-ninth of the income got the whole of the control, while the taxpayers and parents, who contributed eight-ninths got no voice in the control. ["Hear, hear!"] It might be said that one-third and two-thirds fairly represented the division of opinion in Liverpool, and that the Nonconformists had put their schools under the control of the School Board; but that was not so, for he believed that three-fourths of the members of the Liverpool School Board were denominationalists, so that the result was that all the schools in Liverpool were controlled by the denominationalists. He maintained that that was absolutely unfair. But he commended this Instruction to the House, on the ground of efficiency also. He contended that it would conduce to the increase of efficiency. There were Board Schools with popular control, and Voluntary Schools with no management at all, except that of the clergyman. ["No, no!"] He knew subscribers had nominally a voice in the management, but practically it was left entirely in the hands of the clergyman. ["Hear, hear!"] He would compare the work of the two systems. The grants earned by Board Schools were considerably larger, and that would be seen if the House would deduct from the average grant the amount which did not depend at all on merit. He found that the Board Schools earned 6s. 11½d. per head, and the Voluntary Schools 5s. 5¾d.; so that the Board Schools, who were subject to popular control were superior, so far as the grant earned was concerned. But he maintained that their education was more efficient. The managers of Board Schools were selected on the ground of some peculiar qualification, and if at the end of three years it was shown that they were not capable or competent the ratepayers of the district could dismiss them. That was not so in the case of the managers of Voluntary Schools. They were not selected on the ground of efficiency. They might be efficient or they might not. The fact that a man was a clergyman was not necessarily a qualification for managing a school. Clergymen were not, as a rule, very capable administrators; they were not men of the world, not men of affairs. Therefore, he thought that, as school managers, their ranks ought to be supplemented by men who were men of the world, who knew something about business, and who had an insight into human nature. If six or seven men were elected by the ratepayers on account of their peculiar qualifications for the position, they would collectively make good one another's deficiencies. As long as they continued to make the clergy practically the sole managers of the Voluntary Schools they would find that teachers were selected for other reasons than that of educational fitness. At present a teacher who was a good organist, or was likely to make a good lay preacher, stood a far better chance of appointment than one who was a much more capable educationist but who had not those other extraneous qualifications. It was natural that, when a clergyman had to select between two such men, he should choose the man who would serve the interests of the church best. The present system tempted him to do it, and it ought to be changed, for the most important element in the success of a school was the appointment of a good teacher. If a body of lay managers were appointed, even if they were Churchmen, they would, he believed, control the action of the clergy in respect of these appointments; and so teachers would be chosen for their educational competency, and not for other reasons. By increasing the circle of control they would also widen the circle of school subscribers. The greater the control given to the general public the greater would be the number of the subscribers, and the result of that would be greater educational efficiency. When it was argued that Board Schools were better schools than Voluntary Schools, hon. Members opposite always replied that more money was spent upon the former. That was true; and he maintained that any system which would bring in more money in subscriptions for Voluntary Schools must result in greater educational efficiency, and therefore was desirable from the point of view of the supporters of denominational schools themselves. One way, then, to achieve that result was by enabling local authorities to appoint representatives upon the managing bodies, for that would increase the general interest taken in the schools. But as a rule, the clergy tried to keep the whole management in their own hands. [Ministerial cries of "No!" and "Hear, hear!"] Then, why did they object to parental control? Either they objected to control from the outside or they did not; but if they did not, why should hon. Members opposite oppose this Instruction? What he and his Friends said was, that as long as the taxpayers of the country contributed five-sixths of the income of the Voluntary Schools they were certainly entitled to some share in the management of those schools. On these grounds he begged to move the Instruction standing in his name. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

seconded the Motion. He did not agree that complete control over Voluntary Schools ought to be given to an elected body, but he did hold that the people who paid for these schools ought to have some share in the management of them. There was no doubt that enormous advantages would accrue to these schools if there were one or two elected managers on their boards of management. The educational efficiency of the schools would be greater, and the subscriptions would probably increase, because there would be an extension of the interest taken in these institutions. He had taken considerable pains to ascertain the views of different denominations in his constituency on this subject, and he found that, although the Roman Catholics objected strongly, and naturally, to the exercise of complete control over their schools by elected bodies, objection was very seldom expressed by them to the presence of one elected member on a board. He should not himself object if the power of election were restricted to the parents of the children attending a school. He believed that the presence of even one elected manager would inspire confidence, and render a school ten times more popular than it was before. They often found distrust among the people of any institution over which there was no popular control. At present the accounts of most of the Voluntary Schools were not submitted to the people of the district, so as to enable them to make their voice heard respecting them. If the people were represented by even one elected manager it would give them confidence and a feeling of security that the money subscribed for a school was being properly spent. The school would become much more popular, and parents would be more inclined to send their children to it. By making this slight concession hon. Members opposite would not only reduce the opposition to this Bill, but would strengthen the position of the Church of England by increasing the popularity of Voluntary Schools. If the people gained greater confidence in these schools more Dissenters' children might be expected to go to them than went to them now.


The hon. Member who moved this Instruction based his Motion upon two grounds—first, on the abstract right to have representation wherever there was taxation, and, secondly, on the ground of expediency—at the same time endeavouring to show that the alteration of the kind he proposes would add to the efficiency of the Voluntary Schools. In so far as the hon. Member's first argument is concerned, I think he must himself feel that this much quoted maxim has very little application to the particular case to which he ventured to apply it, [Cheers.] Because the public Exchequer contributes money to the Voluntary Schools, what right do those who live in the same parish gain to obtain representation on the board of the Voluntary Schools? The two propositions have no congruity; they have no relevancy one to the other; and by no logical process can they be deduced one from the other. Parents in most cases contribute nothing to the Voluntary Schools. There are a certain number of cases in the north where fees are still paid voluntarily for the most part by the parents, but over the larger part of the country, as a matter of fact, education is free, and parents no more than the rest of the ratepayers of the district are called upon to contribute one farthing to the maintenance of the schools. My hon. Friend the Member for the Cambridge University, who spoke on the first night of the introduction of the Bill, put the whole argument in a nutshell when he reminded the House that the contribution from the rates was a good reason for giving ratepayers control, and that contribution from taxes was a good reason for giving the representatives of the taxpayers control, but that contribution from taxes gave no right to the ratepayers and contributions from the rates gave no right to the general taxpayers. That is the whole philosophy so far as the first branch of the hon. Member's argument is concerned. The hon. Member left in absolute vagueness the particular form of control which, if this Instruction were passed, he would desire to see. He expressed at intervals a personal preference towards ratepayers' control, but he interspersed with those expressions of personal predilection the statement that he and ms Friends would be content with parental control. I do not think it would be possible to argue those two kinds of control on their merits and detail until we know which of the two kinds the hon. Member desires to see introduced. I shall not go into any general discussion on the question, but I may say that I am informed by those more intimately cognisant with the Education Acts than I can pretend to be, that while they never discourage parental control, their observation to its effects does not lead them to believe that any results of great magnitude to the benefit of the schools have accrued in any special cases where that system has been tried. I deal next with the second branch of the hon. Member's argument—that of efficiency. The hon. Member appeared to be of opinion that one immediate result of giving local control over the Voluntary Schools would be that voluntary subscriptions would largely increase. [Opposition cheers.] A more amazing conclusion from such premises surely was never advanced in the House of Commons. [Cheers.] Persons have been found to contribute the necessary funds for building a school and the funds for aiding in support of the school solely on the ground that the school belonged to the denomination of which they were members, and is it to be supposed that their liberality would be stimulated by handing the school over by hypothesis to certain Members of the Opposite Party? The hon. Member moves from one control to another as it suits the particular argument with which he deals; but let us take parental control. He gave us the instance of a parish within his personal knowledge, and said, "What a monstrous thing that the parents have no control over the schools." The hon. Member went on to explain that four-fifths of the parents were Nonconformists, and his desire is to hand over the control of the school to the management of parents, four-fifths of whom do not belong to the denomination which has built the school or to the denomination which supports it,


I expressly disclaimed that, I said that parents ought to have a voice in the management but could not claim the complete control.


I do not understand the hon. Member's view. He wants to establish such a constitution of the school, situated as the school described, that the parents shall always take one side, but always be outvoted. ["No, no!"] Are they to have control or not? [Cheers.] If they are not to have control, they are a kind of official Opposition who are never allowed to become a Government. [Laughter.] If, on the other hand, they belong to a minority which may become a majority, what amount of denominational control of the school are they to have? There is no answer to the dilemma in which the hon. Member is placed. If the hon. Member carried out his own principles to their logical conclusions and gave to the parents or the ratepayers complete control over the schools—" No, no!"]—the dominating control—" No!"]—then you do want them to be in a permanent minority? [Laughter.] I cannot conceive machinery less calculated either to promote the efficiency or increase the amount of subscriptions, or bring that harmony into parochial life which the hon. Member would desire to promote. The hon. Member contrasted the efficiency of the two systems, and, by a method of calculation which he did not fully explain, he made out that the Board Schools in the country earned what he called a merit grant—a phrase not known to the Education Code—of a substantial amount per head over the merit grant earned by Voluntary Schools. I do not know what is meant by "merit grant." The phrase was in the Code at one time, but it has disappeared. I am perfectly ready to admit that if you take the Board Schools all over the country and the Voluntary Schools all over the country you will probably find in the Board Schools a higher amount of grant earned than in the Voluntary Schools. It follows probably from two reasons. In the first place, in the country districts the Voluntary School system predominates, and in the towns as well as in the country the Board Schools have behind them the resources of the rates, and the Voluntary Schools have behind them no such resources. Is it not absurd to say that the comparative inefficiency of the Voluntary Schools is due to their management when its real cause stands in such plain characters that anyone can read it? [Cheers.] I do not know that it is necessary to discuss at any greater length the particular merits or demerits of the vague proposal before us. There is in truth an initial objection to the acceptance of this Instruction, the force of which the House will see. We have not brought forward this Bill, and have not pretended to do so, as one dealing with all the difficulties of our present educational system in England. We have not included all the subjects we think ought to be dealt with. We have deliberately, and from the beginning, said that this is not a complete but an incomplete instalment. [Cheers.] We have learned from experience, and in bringing forward this Bill we avowed it to be limited in scope and, because limited, therefore imperfect. Our limitation has been largely dwelt upon in the earlier stages of our Debates—namely, that it excludes poor Board Schools. That cannot be referred to now at any length; and I plainly say that if we are to assent to the scope of this Bill being widened I should prefer to enlarge it in order to include poor School Board districts rather than give "ample room and verge enough" to discuss any possible or probable schemes in the management of Voluntary Schools. I do not believe that the House could touch with advantage the management of Voluntary Schools without there being the very greatest danger of destroying their voluntary character altogether. [Cheers.] I observe that those who are most anxious to deal with the constitution of the Voluntary Schools are those who make no secret whatever of approximating the constitution as far as they can to Board Schools, squeezing them out of existence altogether. The avowed policy of hon. Members is not one which is pretended to benefit the Voluntary Schools. I beg the House not to assent to this Instruction, because I am convinced that the only path of safety which lies before us is to rigidly limit this Bill to the single subject with which it purports to deal. [Cheers.] For these reasons I hope the House will, without any undue delay, refuse to admit the proposed Instruction.

MR. A. H. DYKE ACLAND (York, W. R., Rotherham)

could not help expressing great regret that the right hon. Gentleman should not have seen his way to accept this Instruction. The right hon. Gentleman complained that the proposal was vague, but it was not the business of the Opposition at that moment to produce minute schemes in detail. Their business was to convince the House of Commons that this subject, being one of deep interest to the great mass of country parishes and many populous districts, ought not to be shut out from being debated. Considering that they were going to discuss a Bill which grants £620,000 to the Voluntary Schools, he thought the Leader of the House might be generous enough to allow the matter to be discussed. The hon. Gentleman, speaking of the speech of the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, said that it was, from the local government point of view, an almost ridiculous proposal, but the right hon. Gentleman himself spoke as if he had a very imperfect knowledge of our country parishes, and the situation he predicted might almost be described as grotesque. Was it not known that even if a single person joined a body like the managers of Church schools he might be of great service, not only to the parents, not only to the inhabitants of the parish themselves, but to the clerical managers of the schools? ["Hear, hear!"] If the right hon. Gentleman would not take it from him, he might take it from letters of clergymen which appeared in The Times last year. In one of these letters a well-known clergyman suggested that Parish Council meetings should have power under the new Bill to appoint a representative on the committee of managers of every elementary school in their respective parishes, and said that this would afford a real security against abuse and unfairness which, to say the least, are always possible, as things now are, in the relations of manager and teacher, teacher and parent, Churchman and Dissenter. The other clergyman, speaking of Nonconformists, said, Put one of those suspicious persons on the management and he will be able to tell his friends that his suspicions are all a myth, and he ended his letter by saying, "Churchmen are strong enough to be generous." ["Hear, hear!"] What said Lord Northbrook on this question? He was chairman of his County Council, he knew local life well, and surely what he said deserved attention. The noble Lord said that if additional State aid was given to Voluntary Schools, it will be right that some representative element should be introduced into their committees of management. In country parishes the Parish Council or parish meeting might nominate, or the parents of the children might elect, a proportion of the committee. Those were the very words of the Instruction. [Cheers.] Lord Cross's Commission—which included a principal member of the present Government, Cardinal Manning, the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Harrowby, Canon Gregory, and the junior Member for Oxford University—dealt with this question. First of all they spoke about the managers, and they observed— There are a large number of schools in which the management practically falls into the hands of a single manager—most frequently the clergyman of the parish. And again— We would insist, however, upon the importance of Voluntary Schools being placed under a board of management. [Cheers.] Would the right hon. Gentleman admit that into the Bill? Would he give them the opportunity of having a Board? And then what did Lord Cross's Commission say?— So long as the parents are not a preponderating element, we should be glad to see them represented on the committee of management. [Cheers.] That was what they asked for. Apparently the Government were not going to concede even the opportunity of discussing that now. ["Hear, hear!"] It was all very well to say "Hear, hear," but in many agricultural districts, as Conservative Members opposite knew, this was not a popular thing to do. [Cheers.] As to the distinction the First Lord of the Treasury made about rates and taxes, although the right hon. Gentleman might put the whole philosophy of the question in a sentence, he was not sure, after all, that was the main point at issue. But even if it were, what would the right hon. Gentleman say about the grants in aid of County Councils? Would those grants in aid from the taxes have been made—indeed, were many of them made—until they had set up representative bodies to whom they could in trust money? The House had already recognised the principle, and they were only asking the House to take one very humble step, which would injure nobody, in the same direction. He appealed to Scottish Members, who were so proud of their system, to take one single step with them in the direction of the Scottish system. The Government would boast, no doubt, later on of what they had done for the Wesleyan and British Voluntary Schools, but let them not suppose that the managers of those schools were with the Government in the action they proposed to take that night. They were all of them in favour of some genuine concession towards real representation upon the Voluntary Schools.

MR. VICARY GIBBS (Herts, St. Albans)

asked on what grounds the right hon. Gentleman made his last statement?


replied that he would read an extract from a memorial by Lord Salisbury on the subject. Lord Salisbury said:— There should be no increased grant of public funds, either from the local rates or from the Imperial taxes, to denominational schools unless that increased grant is accompanied by adequate and representative public management. ["Hear, hear!"] There was a large body of opinion in favour of the principle for which he was contending, including the Royal Commission appointed by the Conservative Government in 1885. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen on the other side, including the First Lord of the Treasury, who believed in the value of the Scottish system—in which the principle in question largely prevailed—to take one step forward with the view of developing a similar system in England. ["Hear, hear!"] They had already gone some way in this direction in connection with our local charities. On the management of many of those charities in rural districts the people were represented, and he ventured to say the effect of adopting the principle had been to the advantage of the charities and their administration, for public confidence in the management had been thereby secured. ["Hear, hear!"] Moreover, there was the case of the endowed schools. Forty years ago numbers of them were managed in the closest possible manner, by clerical managers, or purely self-nominated bodies. The Charity Commissioners, however, who could not be charged with being a Radical body, had decided, with regard to the great mass of endowed schools in town and country, to place representatives of the local authorities on the Boards of Management. ["Hear, hear!"] Yet, for some extraordinary reason, they were told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that they were to adopt a totally different principle when the education of the poor was concerned. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped the majority of the House would not adopt the narrow view of the matter which had been taken by the First Lord of the Treasury; he hoped so in the interests of education, in the interest of a more peaceful and reasonable management of the Voluntary Schools, and in the interest of arriving at a settlement of this important question, which would not injure but strengthen the Church Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] The present Archbishop of Canterbury, who was a member, and perhaps the most prominent member of the Schools Inquiry Commission, in 1868 said—and he quoted the words because they lay at the very root of the matter— The real force of the endowed schools must come from the people. Every arrangement which fostered the interest of the people in the schools, which taught the people to look to the schools as their own, and which encouraged them to take a share in the management, would do at least as much service as the wisest advice and the most skilful administration. ["Hear, hear!"] Those words were as applicable now to the Voluntary Schools as they were to the middle-class schools when spoken, and he contended that they would never succeed in making the Voluntary Schools in the country districts popular until local representatives of the people were admitted to the Boards of Management. ["Hear, hear!"] By adopting this course, and admitting the parents to a share of responsibility in the well-being of the schools, he repeated that the interests of education and the schools alike would be served and strengthened—["hear, hear"]—and from this point of view he still hoped that the House would assent to the Instruction which had been moved. ["Hear, hear!"]


opposed the Instruction on the ground that, as the ratepayers contributed no portion of the money that maintained the Voluntary Schools, they had no right to participate in their management. Then it was urged that the people of a locality were entitled to representation on the schools as taxpayers. Now, hon. Members who had any knowledge of the practical working of those schools would probably agree with him in thinking that in many cases the public control already possessed by the Education Department over the schools was greater than it should be in proportion to the amount of money the Department provided for the maintenance of the schools; and for his own part he thought it would be to the advantage of education if, in some respects, the control of the Department was diminished rather than increased. ["Hear, hear!"] Consequently there was public control from the point of view of the general taxpayer. ["Hear, hear!"] Then there was the contention for parental control. He objected here to the use of the word "control," and to the idea, which underlaid it. The right hon. Gentleman who had spoken used the word "representation," for he saw the point of the objection to the word control. Well, if hon. Gentlemen opposite did not want control in this connection why did they put it in the Instruction?

[Several HON. MEMBERS: The word is not in the Instruction. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]


looked at the Instruction, and said he begged hon. Members' pardon. The word, as had been stated, was not in the Instruction. He had been misled by the tone of the speech of the hon. Member who moved it. [Laughter. But though he objected to the idea of control, he should be glad if some means could he devised by which parents in villages and rural districts where there were only Voluntary Schools could more easily obtain access to the managers of the schools—for instance, by which they could go before the managing committee and state any grievance they entertained. ["Hoar, hear!"] After all, the means of simplifying the removal of grievances was not an unimportant consideration. ["Hear, hear!"] One of the greatest grievances in connection with this matter was the position of the Voluntary Schools and of the subscribers to them. There were Voluntary Schools in School Board districts, and there were Voluntary Schools in districts where there were no Board Schools. That in the School Board districts the subscribers to the Voluntary Schools had also to pay fully the School Board rates was a grave injustice. ["Hear, hear!"] Last year the Government, by means of the Agricultural Bating Bill, gave hack to the ratepayers in agricultural districts where there were Board Schools half the school rates, and he thought it would be only fair that an equivalent giant should be made to the Voluntary Schools in districts where there were no Board Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] For those reasons he held that it was the duty of the Government to do what it could to remove the serious grievances under which the subscribers to Voluntary Schools laboured, especially as no one could have watched the Debates on the Bills both of last year and this year without perceiving a desire on the part of hon. Members opposite to hinder the passing of any Measure which might benefit the Voluntary Schools, much as he should like to see some attempt made to give the parents of the children a voice in the management of the school, but realising the great practical difficulty there was in carrying it out by a legal enactment, though it would be easy enough to carry it out voluntarily, he should vote against the Instruction. There was the added reason that hon. Gentlemen opposite would, if the proposal were adopted, use it as a means of accomplishing their avowed object, which was to assimilate the Voluntary system with the School Board system. He should be very glad if any simple way could be devised of carrying out some of the objects sought to be secured by the Instruction, but he thought the questions of immediately assisting the Voluntary Schools and of taking away the grievances under which they and their subscribers suffered were of greater and more pressing importance than the proposal now before the House. He hoped the mothers of England, who were the persons who felt the pinch most, would realise that the reason they had not got put into the Bill a provision giving them the right to put their grievances before the management, was the factious opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

*MR. ALBERT SPICER (Monmouth Boroughs)

said they must all sympathise with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. His heart seemed to be with them, but for Party reasons he did not feel able to vote with them. The First Lord of the Treasury seemed to think that he had disposed of the abstract justice of their contention by the assertion that national funds should be subject to national control, and that local funds should be subject to local control. But it seemed to him there was one great difference in the present Measure. If the First Lord of the Treasury had brought in a Bill which provided that this extra grant to the Voluntary Schools should be at the disposal of the Education Department, which was subject to the control of Parliament, he would have been inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but he had not done that.


The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. The control rests with the Education Department.


said that if these associations, on the importance of which the right hon. Gentleman laid so much stress, were likely to promote the efficiency of the schools, they had a very close connection with control, and if the ultimate settlement with regard to the terms of the associations was to be with the Education Department he maintained that the right hon. Gentleman had not been consistent with the principle he had supported. The right hon. Gentleman also said that it would not be likely to promote the efficiency of a school if a minority of Nonconformists were part of the managing body. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that after all a minority might do a great deal to prevent injustice, in forming public opinion, and the opinion of their colleagues, and in bringing them to see that suggestions made by the minority, which were fair, might reasonably be accepted. As a Nonconformist he should be perfectly satisfied with many of the Voluntary Schools if only there was a minority; if, at any rate, the parents of the children attending them were allowed to elect a certain proportion of the Managing Committee, and if they could once get away from what none of them on either side of the House liked in the present system—the one-man management. He also put in a claim for the justice of this Instruction. There was one sentence in the Schools Inquiry Committee of 1868 to which he should like to refer. They remarked that they hoped for a good deal from an intelligent interest of the people in the cause of education; there might be many failures and mistakes, but the end would be corrections and improvements. The experience of the last 25 years in the cause of education had shown how much was done by popular control. A large number of new men and women had been brought into the public service, and the work they had done in the cause of education had been of enormous advantage to the country as a whole. A system that had bad that effect justified in saying that, in the interests of the Voluntary Schools and in the interests of education itself, they could not do a better thing than, in connection with this Bill, to give some measure of representative and popular control to those schools. He did not think they could do a better thing for the nation than to see that the elementary education of the country was the very best they could give. Artificial systems might be all very well, but they did not get over the difficulty. If the future generation were sent into the world with a sound elementary education he ventured to think that England would be able to hold its own in competition with the nations of the world much better than by any artificial system they might be able to devise. They knew what other nations were doing in the matter. He was reading only the other day an observation by a leading Swiss manufacturer, who said, We know in this feeble country nearly the whole of the people will start life burdened with poverty but we are determined that they shall not start life burdened with ignorance also. Whether they looked at the matter in the interests of the Voluntary Schools themselves, or from the standpoint of education, he did not believe they could do a greater service than to give to the schools some measure of control. He hoped the day was not far distant when the Scotch system, which acknowledged denominational teaching, but gave popular control, would be the system in this country. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, in his closing speech on the Second Reading, referred to that subject, and all he would say as a Free Churchman was that he would heartily welcome that system. After all, Churchmen and Nonconformists had got to live together and to work together; they did not always want to be clawing at each other, and surely if they devoted themselves to the matter in a right spirit it ought not to be incapable of solution that they should find a system, which should be really helpful to the education of the country and the interests of the nation.

*MR. ALFRED HOPKINSON (Wilts, Cricklade)

said the Instruction was open to two very serious objections, and apparently to two only. In the first place, it might open the door to a large number of amendments, and possibly might imperil the passage of—not this Bill, for that was absolutely impossible—but the passage of another Rill which had been promised, and in which he, with many of his hon. Friends, took great interest—the Rill in regard to necessitous Board Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] That was an objection of procedure mainly, and it could, of course, be met. If this Bill, which the Government had undertaken to pass in pursuance of election pledges, was obstructed, recourse could be had to the Closure to carry it through its several stages. But another objection arose on the use in the Instruction of the word "adequate." If that word was to have any meaning at all, if might mean that the management of Voluntary Schools was to be handed over to a majority of representatives of parents or local authorities, which, of course, would be unjust. This objection might he met by the omission of the word "adequate," and he suggested to the Government that with this objectionable word removed they might accept the Instruction. ["Hear, hear!"] There was a strong feeling in the country that there ought to be associated with large grants of public money some element of popular representation in the administration. He was anxious that these schools should work well and successfully, with as little friction as possible, and an element of this kind on the management would, he believed, greatly assist that result. He knew a case—it was in what might be called an "obscure village," but it was a typical case. It was a Church School in a village where the majority of the people were Nonconformists. The school was admirably managed without any difficulty, and this was in a great measure due to the fact that the board of management associated with themselves voluntarily a certain number of Nonconformists. ["Hear, hear!"] He knew another case where the Voluntary Schools worked admirably and there was no desire for a School Board because the clergyman associated with himself people fairly representative of other views than his own, and the management was harmoniously conducted. He objected altogether to the idea that a body of Nonconformists would necessarily be a permanent opposition, or that as a matter of practice on all questions the Churchmen would he found on one side and the Nonconformists on the other. It would he far more likely that, supposing there to be such a case as was said to have arisen at Willesden, where the managers dismissed a master because he did not go to a particular church, there a representative element would probably have been successful in enforcing a more reasonable view. He entirely objected to making this representative element the majority on the governing body; that would not he fair, and, whatever system he might prefer, certainly he should insist on Voluntary Schools having fair treatment. Though supporting the Bill, as he did, he was in favour of the main principle of the Instruction, and wished very much, sharing the opinion that prevailed among large masses of people in the country, that the Bill recognised that principle. He could not, however, support the Motion while the word "adequate" remained in it, as it might mean to give absolute control to the representative element. Take that word out, and the principle of the Instruction might be the means of great practical benefit in the effective management of Voluntary Schools, and he should be disposed to vote for the Motion. He would be glad to see the Government treat this matter as one open for Parliamentary discussion and decision. Frequently Members found themselves in the position that where they were strongly in favour of a proposition, their action would be open to misconstruction if they voted against the Government. With perfect agreement with the Government in their general policy, he did on this subsidiary point wish very much that it were left open, or, better still, that the Government would accept the principle of the Instruction. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. GEORGE LAMBERT (Devon, South Molton)

said two speeches in favour of the present proposal had been made from the other side of the House by supporters of Voluntary Schools, and, while in one case the hon. Member was prepared to vote in acordance with his opinion, in the other he was not. The hon. Gentleman who said he was misled by the terms of the Instruction must have really been misled by the speech of his own Leader, for the First Lord of the Treasury had read into the proposal the word "control," which really formed no part of it. The Education Department, he said, had control over Voluntary Schools, but in discussion of the Bill of last year the Vice President of the Council said the overburdened Department could not exercise proper control over all the details of management. What right, said the Leader of the House, had the ratepayers to be represented on the management of a Voluntary School because the taxpayer contributed to the maintenance? but what right, he would ask, had the clergyman of a parish to exercise, as in many instances he did, sole and absolute control over the money supplied by the taxpayers. In what country in the world could it be shown that the clergy were the best educationalists? It was admitted that the clergy were not good men of business: would it not, then, be of the greatest advantage to a clergyman to have the assistance of a few business men in his parish? He represented a constituency in which were a very large number of Nonconformists, and they had no representation on the management of schools their taxes did so much to maintain in their midst. The Leader of the House seemed to think that if four-fifths of the population of a parish were Nonconformists, yet there was no grievance.


said he distinctly stated this was one of the inequalities of the existing system.


said then why not bring in a Bill to remove the inequality. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not know how to take that cheer from the right hon. Gentleman. Let him follow the advice of his own supporters. In the constituency of South Molton Nonconformists were compelled to send their children to schools on the management of which they had not the least influence. It would increase the efficiency of Voluntary Schools to have this outside element introduced, he was certain it would in no way injure these schools, and as an educationalist he had no desire whatever to injure the schools. He supported the Instruction in the full belief that to adopt it would increase the efficiency of the schools and would remove that inequality which was admitted to exist. It would be for the benefit of Voluntary Schools that the principle of the Instruction should be embodied in the Bill. Nonconformists had a very great grievance in regard to the appointment of teachers. Over the doors of the Voluntary Schools of the country might be written the words, "No Nonconformist need apply here for the position of teacher." He claimed for Nonconformists the right to participate in the teaching work, and a share in the amount the State granted for teaching purposes. He could not but think that the Bill had less the interests of education in view than the interests of a proselytising church. If not this, why not accept the principle of proper representation on the management?


observed that, while he had a good deal of sympathy with what had been said as to the rights of parents, he should vote most heartily against this Instruction. He would submit to the House that a great deal of the discussion was beside the point. This was not a Bill for regulating the management of Voluntary Schools, but it was a Bill of a much, smaller kind. The right hon. Member for Rotherham spoke of it as a great settlement. It was not a settlement at all, as everybody must know. It was a matter very much smaller than that, having nothing whatever to do with the management of the school, the whole object being to pay certain sums of money—[Opposition cheers]—which were to be administered under certain conditions which the representatives of the taxpayer, through the Education Minister, were to lay down, and that money was to be paid to the Voluntary Schools in order that the people of this country who believed in Voluntary Schools should not suffer for that belief. ["Hear, hear!"] It was clear that the local body, who under the control of the Education Department, would have most to say to the distribution of the money would be the associations, and if that was the case surely any representation there should be should be on the boards of association, who would have the management of the money, and not on the management of the schools. Was it seriously proposed that parents should be represented on the boards of associations. It would be perfectly impossible to arrange clauses by which parents themselves should be represented on the associations. He next came to the ratepayer, and he must say that of all the absurd proposals, the one that they should have a representation of the ratepayers without a contribution from them was the most absurd. ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. Friend who had recently spoken from that side of the House had said the Bill was quite certain to pass, but he ventured to say if a proposal was made that there should be direct control by the ratepayer without contribution from the ratepayer the Measure would not pass. ["Hear, hear!"] Under certain conditions he would accept the ratepayers' representation on these associations. Give the Voluntary Schools the share of the rates they were entitled to in all justice and they would willingly accept representation on the boards of the associations. ["Hear!"] But this was only an interim Bill; and dealing with an interim Bill, and waiting for the ultimate settlement which they knew must come. they should resist with all their power the idea, of representation of ratepayers upon the associations when there was no contributions from the ratepayers. ["Hear, hear!"] Let them have representation with taxation but not representation without taxation. If the House once passed this Instruction, a tremendous field for controversy would be opened up. He hoped for that reason, because of the enormous complications which it would involve in the conduct of the Bill, and because it was a Bill, not for the management of schools, but for the distribution of money in the case of Voluntary Schools which required it, that the House would, by a large majority, refuse to accept the Instruction. ["Hear, hear!"]


observed that the noble Lord had given three reasons for voting against these Instructions. Those three reasons struck any friend of the public voice in the control of the public education of the country as somewhat strange, both in principle and in the mode in which the noble Lord had conveyed them to the House. His first remark was, that the Bill provided for an increased grant towards the popular education of the country, which was conducted through the machinery of the Voluntary Schools. It was not a Bill, said the noble Lord, for effecting further and better arrangements for the management of these schools. The ground of the objection of the Opposition to the Bill in its present form was, that it was a provision for increasing financial support without provision for further more effective popular representation. The argument which would induce the noble Lord to vote against the Instruction was an argument which would induce Members on the Opposition side to most strongly support it. The second reason the noble Lord had given was, that the money was not to be paid to the schools. It was to find its way to these associations, but the beneficiaries were to receive this money in such driblets as the voluntary associations might choose to dispense funds which passed through their ham's. Surely if the money was to be applied to the schools the necessities of the school were to be considered in the application of the funds. The noble Lord's third argument was, that he wished to retain the right of concession of popular control as the terms of a bargain which he offered. He acknowledged the justice of the concession; he acknowledged that some measure of controlling the government of a school established for popular interests and maintained by popular funds ought to be made.


No: I said nothing of the kind.


He said, "We will concede that when you give us direct access to the rates, and do not leave us to Imperial grants for educational purposes." There were two arguments in favour of this proposal which had not yet been met". How did this proposal stand as regarded principle? Could there the, on any ground of principle, an objection to the principle that, in the case of a school—although voluntary in its origin and in its feature of primary control—which was popular in its character and operation, which was the only school in the district, and maintained largely by public funds, they should ensure for public opinion some representation in the control of that institution? The answer given them was, that the institution had connected itself with the Church of England as a denominational body. But the noble Lord would be the first to insist that the Church of England, though denominational in its character, was a national institution; that its members were members of that institution because they were citizens of this country, and that every inhabitant of these villages, by the theory of the law and constitution, was a member of the church which had established that school for the purpose of popular education, and had, by virtue of that constructive membership, in relation to his citizenship some title to a voice in the management of that institution. Therefore, on principle, he asked the House to say there was every reason why an institution, national in its character and popular in its operations, should have some provision for popular representation in regard to its control. On the ground of expediency, what answer was there to the argument used by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dorset? In the interest of expediency, surely the friends of Voluntary Schools should consult public opinion in regard to their management. He knew of no mode by which the suspicion of clerical influence could be more effectively disarmed, or the beneficial influence of the schools could be better secured, that by insuring some measure of popular representation in their management, which would enlist the enthusiasm of the people in whose districts they existed and excite their interest and render the operations of the schools in the future more beneficent in the interests of education and to the advantage of the districts in which they were established. Until they heard some objection to the Instruction on the ground of principle or expediency, they on that side of the House would feel that they were right—notwithstanding the danger to which it was said the passing of the Measure, about which they were not enthusiastic, might be exposed—in supporting the Instruction and asking the House to accept it. ["Hear, hear!"]

*SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said, as a strong supporter of the Bill on grounds both of private faith and educational economy, he desired to say a few words, not controversially, and least of all of theological controversy, but from the standpoint of education and in the real interests of the Voluntary Schools. The principle of the Instruction seemed to commend itself to almost all parts of the House, and the objections raised related chiefly to questions of procedure and to verbal modifications. In supporting the Instruction he gave utterance to what he believed to be the feeling of the majority of his constituents—lay and clerical. He felt it. his duty to support the principle of the Instruction last Session, and on the previous stage of the Bill, and he could not help reminding hon. Friends who objected to the Instruction that the underlying principles of the Bill of last Session, whatever else might be said of it, were of a distinctly representative character. The local authorities were made educational authorities, and, though there was to be the supervision of a central authority, the Bill was of a distinctly local representative character. The corollary of increased grants was security for good and efficient management, and this would be secured by some representation of the parents. The guidance of experience justified the adoption of the Instruction. There were many schools already in which there was representation of parents. There were many Churchmen, including dignitaries of the Church, who strongly advocated the cause of representation, and he believed that, among the most efficient schools were those in which the representative principle was brought to bear in keeping them in line with the general course of education, and modifying and keeping in check extremes which might injure denominational education. He believed that the proposal contained in the Instruction would be in the interests of education and Voluntary Schools. One great difficulty in elementary education at the present time was the want of interest of parents in the teaching and instruction of their children. He believed, judging from opportunities of observation he had had at prize-givings and the like, that the more parents were brought into direct touch with the education of the children the more would the efficiency of that education be increased, and the educational progress of the school would be greater if it were aided by sympathy in the home. He believed that the proposal contained in the Instruction would even be an advantage to each denomination. One of the desires of many denominations was to attach new members to themselves; and interest in the schools of the denomination, by attracting parents, would attach them in many eases to the denominations themselves. So, from a religious aspect, he thought the proposal would prove beneficial. What was the chief objection urged by his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and others to the practical representation of parents? It was that this was a grant in aid from a central authority, and that the assistance was not to come from the rates. But the Bill proposed to exempt Voluntary Schools from rates. This deficiency in the rates would have to he made up by the ratepayers, who therefore would have some claim to representation. Although the amount of the deficiency in the rates might be comparatively small, it was not correct therefore to say there would be no contribution whatever from the ratepayers. Though made in the form he had indicated, the contribution carried with it some claim for representation, and as the local authority would lose by the exemption, that body had also some similar claim, and grants in aid to local authorities, though made by the State, had to be administered by the representatives of the ratepayers. He had risen to express what he believed were the views of his constituency, and certainly of the great majority of laymen there. The clergy of the Rural Deanery of Islington, at a meeting at which the subject was discussed, had also, he was informed, by a majority passed a resolution that sonic representation of parents was desirable in the interests of education and the Voluntary Schools. He advocated what he believed to be right in principle. Re-presentation of parents and parishioners would keep the schools in line with the growth of education and public opinion, and enable them to carry on their work in stimulating competition with the Board Schools. He believed in the maintenance of both Board and Voluntary Schools, the maintenance of the latter of which would prevent a possible reaction against all education owing to its great cost, in which respect the Bill would help Loudon much less than Lancashire, which he regarded as most unjust; and because he did not think the instruction aimed adversely at Voluntary Schools, but would carry out a right principle with advantage to those schools, he should give it his hearty support.

*MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,) Mansfield

said that the Member who had just spoken had displayed the liberality and independence which usually characterised his speeches, but he had made one slight mistake. He had said that there seemed to be general acquiescence in the principle involved in the Instruction, but there had been a signal exception in the speech of the Leader of the House, who had distinctly denied the right asserted by the Instruction. There had been a great contrast between the speeches of the hon. Members for Crick-lade and Lincoln. Both expressed sympathy with the object of the Instruction, but the latter had a greater desire to befriend the subscribers, who could take care of themselves, than the parents, who were poor and feeble. The Leader of the House had given them, what he called, the. whole philosophy of the matter, but, if so, it was but a narrow and superficial philosophy. The Instruction was based on the broad principle of expediency. This was not, as had been stated, a mere question of £ s. d., for it was one of those cases in which it could not be said that "money answereth all things." Something more was wanted to insure efficient popular education—viz., popular interest. They needed the assistance of parents, who did not at present realise their responsibility in regard to the education of their children. It had been contended that the control of the Education Department was sufficient, but the Department was too far off; it had too little local knowledge and had no popular sympathy. They heard last Session much of the rights of parents in regard to religious teaching; but the champions of those rights were now silent. If they had local representation less would be heard of the pranks of clerics in Voluntary Schools—men like the Vicar of Willesden, for instance. At present, when such clergymen were complained of in that House, they were told that the Department had no authority, and minded its own business; but, with a local representative body, there would be some one whose business it was to prevent such improprieties. If the schools were really the schools of the people, they could correct whatever might be amiss in them: while, if the schools prospered, they would have a legitimate pride in their success. He was sorry that a large number of the parents of children in elementary schools were lacking in a sense of responsibility, and he held that the parents of the children could do far more than they had yet done to assist the school managers and the School Boards to give efficient education. If the people of a locality could be made to feel that the schools were not the parson's schools but their schools, then, when anything went amiss, they would feel themselves responsible and seek to apply the remedy, while if the schools were efficient and prosperous they would feel that they had a share in the credit.

MR. D. F. GODDARD (Ipswich)

said the question was not so much to whom was this money to be paid, but whose money was it that was going to be paid. As the money would come from the taxes of the people, the people had a right to some representation on these schools. The principle of representative management was, in a sense, in the Bill, but it was there in its most objectionable form. These associations of schools were to be the means of distributing the money, and would have some kind of control over its distribution, but they could not in any sense, constitutionally or popularly, be called representative associations. The Bill set up an authority as representative which was only a sectarian authority, and they strongly objected to that as a retrograde step. The Act of 1870 recognised elementary schools of all sorts, but this Bill recognised denominational bodies as representative, and committed large sums of money to them. These bodies would become, in a sense, competitive with the elected School Boards, and so would put the School Boards to a disadvantage. So far as they could gather, the only kind of representation in the Bill was that these schools were to be subject to the approval or disapproval of the Department; but the Board Schools had to satisfy the public as well. The Bill was an anti-School Board Bill, it would injure the School Board system, and displayed an anti-local control spirit. The Estimates which came to hand that morning proposed to increase the 163 schools which received a special grant under the Act of 1870 to 400, and the grant was to be raised from £26,400 to £41,600. Was this the relief which was to balance the £620,000? [Cries of 'Order!"]


said the question before the House was whether adequate representation should be given, and these figures did not refer to that question.


asked why they should not make a just and fair attempt to consult the wishes of all the parents. That could only be done by electing representatives of the parents. These schools were supported and kept in existence by public assistance. They recognised the principle of representation in endowed schools, although in that case there was not nearly so much justification for it as in the case of the elementary schools. The people were taxed for these purposes, and where there was taxation there should be representation. He would like to make one quotation from a speech of Dr. Temple's on the Report of the Royal Commission of 1888. He said:— There is no security for efficiency without interested local supervision—['hear, hear']—there is no security for economy without the vigilance of those who hear the substantial burden of the cost. That was all that they asked for.

*MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)

said he had very much sympathy with the Instruction before the House, and could not bring himself, knowing what he did of the Voluntary Schools of the country, to vote against it. Without any doubt many of our Voluntary Schools were as ably managed as the very best Board Schools in the country, and those were the schools where the management was of a wide and democratic character. [Opposition cheers.] Whether under trust deeds or in violation of them the managers had associated with themselves representatives of all classes of the community. Those were the schools which were upholding the credit of the Voluntary system. There were others, unhappily, where the management was very restricted in character, and others where the management was not. only restricted but bad. No true friend of the Voluntary system would deny the existence of these blots on the system, or evade the opportunity of improving the bad schools. He looked upon this proposal as something more than a mere grant of money to the schools, and the setting up of a machinery to distribute that grant; he regarded it as an attempt to secure the efficiency of the Voluntary Schools—["hoar, hear!"]—and he was convinced that nothing would more quickly secure the efficiency of the schools than their adequate management. No reference had been made to the fact that in many districts the single manager of the Voluntary School would gladly associate with himself others in the district. It must not be imagined that the restricted management was due to the action of the vicar or the local rector: it was in many cases in spite of the efforts made by the vicar. The fact was that those in the district, who knew that the burden of debt hung around the Voluntary School, would not associate themselves with the work of the school lest a part of the liability for the debt should rest upon them. This Bill would do something to remove that difficulty, and make it possible in such districts for persons to associate themselves with the managers as provided by the trust deeds. But there were schools in other districts—and he regretted to have to say it—of which the manager under the trust deed was but one person. There were cases in which the trust deed distinctly laid down that the local vicar was the sole manager of the school, and in which the vicar would not take any step to associate others with himself in the management of the school. [Opposition cheers.] What was happening in many parts of the country? What had happened recently? A liberal-minded vicar, a man desirous of doing the best for his school and for the children under his care, in spite of the trust deed, associated with himself many of the parents and other ratepayers in the district in the conduct of the school; but a new man had come into the district, he had sheltered himself behind the trust deed, turned his co-managers adrift, and insisted upon managing the school according to his own sweet will. [Opposition cheers.] He regretted that, while the Government were making efforts in this Bill to secure the efficiency of the Voluntary Schools, they would not take one of the very first steps essential to that efficiency—[Opposition cheers]—and make some provision for bringing up the bad Voluntary Schools to the level of the best Voluntary School. He admitted the difficulty in the way of incorporating clauses in the Bill by which this could be carried out. He was not sure that the terms of the Instruction were as satisfactory as personally he would wish. The object of the Instruction might be a good one, but there was more than a suspicion that the Instruction amounted to an attempt to establish a system of control over the Voluntary Schools that he, for one, was nor desirous of bringing about. [Ministerial cheers.] He would not support any Amendment which would destroy the denominational character of the Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] He was intensely desirous, in the best interests of the Voluntary Schools themselves, that the management should be as wide as possible; yet he held that the final control should rest in accord with the terms of the founder of the institution. The Instruction might be innocent enough if that was the object it sought to carry out, and the avoidance of such a word as "adequate" would have removed misconception. Unfortunately, it was not now possible to amend the Instruction, but he would suggest a method by which it seemed to him they might escape from the difficulties presented by the Instruction, and also give effect to what he believed to be the view of hon. Members on both sides of the House—namely, that the management of these schools should be made such that it would withstand all public criticism. ["Hear, hear!"] There was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Barnstaple Division (Sir Cameron Gull), by which it was suggested that the Education Department should have, amongst other things set forth in the Bill, the power of insisting on the management being in accord with the requirements of the Education Department. It would not be possible to proceed hurriedly with Departmental schemes for bringing the management into line, but it would be possible to give the Education Department power to withhold these new grants in all cases where the management was unsatisfactory. That would in itself tempt the managers of the schools whose trust deeds provided for the management by one man, to bring up their trust deeds to the Charity Commissioners and obtain a provision for management by half-a-dozen or more persons—to popularise the management of the schools, and thus give effect to the wishes of all sections of the community, Nonconformists and Churchmen alike. That could he accomplished by amendments in Committee, and he should say that, if a representative of the Government could give them an assurance that in Committee some effort of that sort would be made, it would be an advantage rather than a disadvantage to withdraw the Instruction. To go on with the Instruction would have this result—many men, desirous of avoiding any suspicion of opposing the Bill, would vote against the Instruction. He would not risk that course, because he believed that the Instruction could be defended, if not in actual phraseology, certainly in the object it sought to achieve, [Opposition cheers.] He could not bring himself to vote against it, but he believed many would, and the result would be a decision recorded by this House against the principle embodied in this Instruction, and to have such a decision recorded would be fatal to the future efforts in this direction. [Cheers.] That was his opinion. It was not a question of what could be accomplished or what could not be accomplished under the Bill. He was not contending that the scope of the Bill should be widened indefinitely, but he asserted that the question of management was part and parcel of the Bill as it stood. ["Hear, hear!"] The Bill was to make for the efficiency of the schools, and without some reform in the management of the worst of the Voluntary Schools that efficiency could not be secured, no matter what they did either by increased grant or increased powers of the Education Department. He felt very strongly indeed that the position of the Voluntary Schools was not such as was frequently represented by those who sympathised with the Board system alone, and who detested the Voluntary system; it was not as bad as they would make it out. But it was not as good as many on the Government side of the House would have them to believe, largely because they had a strong dislike for the Board School system. There were good Voluntary Schools and bad Voluntary Schools, and he stood there as one who was intensely desirous of maintaining the Voluntary Schools as an integral part of the national system of education in this country. He felt, however, that that could not be brought about unless the bad schools were brought up to the level of the very best. Improvement in the management would accomplish that, and he therefore hoped the principle, if not the phraseology, of the Instruction would be accepted by the House. [Cheers.]

*MR. J. W. LOGAN (Leicestershire, Harborough)

supported most heartily the Instruction before the House, and did so because, although he was quite prepared to grant, under proper conditions, as much money for the purpose of education as any Government would propose to grant, he was strongly opposed to the granting of a single penny unless the local authorities or the parents had some voice in the control of the expenditure of the money. The noble Lord the Member for Rochester was under the impression that the adoption of the Instruction would delay the passing of the Bill. Personally he thought that the acceptance of the Instruction, even in a modified form, would do more to facilitate the passing of the Bill than anything else the Government could do. It was little less than monstrous that the taxpayers of the country, who found five-sixths of the money for the so-called Voluntary Schools, should not have any voice in the management of those schools, while those who found the one-fifth of the money should have the entire management and control of the schools. But he, as the representative of a large number of working men, did not look upon this question merely from the pounds, shillings and pence point of view. If by the operation of this Bill the Government deprived the working classes of the opportunity of securing the very best education for their children, they did the children a grievous harm and did an irreparable injury to the entire community. He claimed, not only in the interests of the parents and children, but of the nation, the undoubted right of every parent to have a voice in the selection of the education which was to be imparted to his children. The question of parental control was peculiarly a poor man's question, because the well-to-do people could send their children to what school they chose. It was a disgrace to us as a nation that there were to-day 8,000 villages in England in which there was only one school, and that a school dominated, in most cases, by one man, the Church parson, and that to that school the Nonconformist parent was compelled to send his child whether he liked it or not. Working men were beginning to realise what education meant. They were beginning to realise that without education their children must grow up hewers of wood and drawers of water, and, recognising the hard struggle they themselves had had, they were anxious to better the lot of their children if they could. During the last 20 years he had had a splendid object-lesson as to the absolute necessity of some control over the Voluntary Schools. In the little village in which he lived there was a Voluntary School, a school which was endowed by some pious man in the past. The endowment, he doubtless thought, would be of benefit to the community, but. instead of that, what had been the result? He knew of more than one boy who to-day was at the tail of the plough earning a miserable pittance, simply and solely because the school at which he was educated was dominated, and managed and controlled by a self-elected body. Whereas had that school been in years gone by what it was now—owing to a change made during the lifetime of the late Liberal Government—those boys would have been able, thanks to a better education, to earn a decent living. He appealed for popular control over those schools because he knew there was a strong feeling amongst the clerical managers that any kind of education would do for the poor man's child. He would quote the Colonial Secretary in support of that view. He quoted the right hon. Gentleman, not for any Party purpose, but because he expressed that view much better than it could be done by 999 out of every 1,000. The right hon. Gentleman said:— The idea gains currency that a cheap education is good enough for the poor man's child, and that anything better must be reserved for his superiors. To such a cruel and insolent doctrine I object. I do not admit that education ought to be watered down and reduced and limited to the level of the poor, It is, believe me, the interest of the nation, as well as the interest of the parents and of the children, that each child, according to its natural gifts and aptitudes, should have the opportunities of the best cultivation, and that all should he stimulated and encouraged to develop the faculties with which God has gifted them, to their highest extent. It was because he wished to see developed the natural gifts and aptitudes with which God had gifted so many of our children that be desired to see the parents of the children having some control over the schools. He could call the Vice President of the Council as a witness that that control was necessary. The right hon. Gentleman said:— The labourer's children are turned out of school to scare crows at 11 years old, and often by the connivance of the School Attendance Committee officers, who are under the thumb of the farmers, at a much earlier age. It was because he knew that the parents did not wish to have their children turned out to scare crows at 11 years of age that he wished to give the parents this control over the schools. And who refused the parents this control? It was the Church of England, which claimed to be the Church of the people, and which declared that love for it was deep-rooted in the hearts of the English people. Then, if the Church believed that love for it was deep-rooted in the hearts of the people, why did it refuse to the people this voice in the control of education? For his view, that those who found the money should have some control over the expenditure, he had the Colonial Secretary on his side, for the right hon. Gentleman said, a few years ago:— The existence of sectarian schools supported by State grants, is no doubt a very serious question in itself, and one which some day or other ought to receive consideration. Whenever the time comes for its discussion I for one shall not hesitate to express my opinion that contributions of Government money, whether great or small, ought in all cases to be accompanied by some form of representative control. To my mind the spectacle of a so-called National School turned into a private preserve by clerical managers and used for exclusive purposes of politics or religion, is one which the law ought not to tolerate. He supported the Resolution, not in the interest of any Party or in the interest of any sect, but for the sake of the children and even for the sake of the English nation as a whole, for he believed that, unless the people were provided with a thorough and practical system of primary education, many hon. Members of the House would live to see the commercial supremacy of England shaken.

On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,

COLONEL MILWARD (Warwick, Stratford-on-Avon)

said that he did not like to give a silent vote on this Instruction, because, on the Second Heading of the Bill, he spoke very strongly in favour of a Measure of representative management. But he could not resist the arguments of the First Lord in opposition to this Instruction. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the present Bill was not a final Measure; and it was evident that the Bill dealt with but a few of the educational questions which required attention. He hoped that the question of representative management would soon be brought up, but if it were introduced into the present Bill it would occupy the attention of the House for a least a week. [Opposition cries of "No!"] At present there were 40 pages of Amendments to a Bill which of itself only occupied two pages. [Cheers.] He remembered that last year, when a similar Bill was before that House, an Amendment that had been brought forward was strongly resisted by the Government on the ground that if they were to accept it they would be compelled to accept an enormous number of consequential amendments. The same objection applied to this Instruction. Therefore, although he approved of the principle of the Instruction, he intended to loyally follow his leaders. They had a long series of discussions before them, which would probably take some weeks to get through, and which would no doubt try their patience and even their tempers, and unless they loyally supported the Government it was impossible to say when they would reach the end of their labours. For his own part, he believed that the question of the representative management of these schools was ripe for decision, and in a vast number of the schools representative management had been carried out with great success. The trustee managers of the schools thought too lightly of their office, and generally looked to the clergyman of the parish for guidance. He thought that hon. Members opposite attached too much importance to parental management. He attached importance to the representative management of persons who were not necessarily connected with the Church. He believed that this question of representative management would come to the front before very long. The question before them, however, was what would happen to this Bill if this Instruction were carried? Why, it would wreck it beyond all doubt. ["Hear, hear!"] and ironical cheers and laughter.,] He was aware that there were many hon. Gentlemen opposite who wished well to the Voluntary Schools, but there were others who, on the contrary, were bitterly opposed to its principle, and who supported this particular Instruction with the object of defeating the Measure. What would the Government do if this Instruction were carried? Why, they would either withdraw the Bill or they would resign. ["Hear, hear!" and Opposition cries of "Oh!" and laughter.] That was the natural inference from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. For his own part he might say that he intended to vote against the Instruction, because he was not willing to risk the loss of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. J. M. PAULTON (Durham, Bishop Auckland)

said that the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down would tend to show that hon. Members on the Government side of the House were not in the least afraid of popular representation in the management of these schools.


We are not.


said that the mode in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman intended to show' his approval of popular representation was by voting against this Instruction. The noble Lord opposite had said, "Do not let us have representation without taxation," but that was the standpoint of the Liberal Party also. They were to have taxation under this Bill, but they were not to have representation on the management of the schools. Hon. Members opposite alleged as their reason for voting against this Instruction, that, were they to accept it they would open the door for so much discussion that it would be impossible to pass the Bill through the House within the limits of an ordinary Session. What a confession of weakness on the part of the Government supporters that was. It was not from the Opposition side of the House that this issue had been raised. The Members of the Opposition were willing to leave things as they were or to accept equal treatment for the Board Schools. Although they had always contended that some form of popular representation on the management of the Voluntary Schools would largely add to their efficiency, and to conciliatory action which they desired to see adopted, especially in rural districts, they would not have raised the point had matters been allowed to remain as they were. The Government, however, had chosen to set up one class of schools against the other. The First Lord of the Treasury and the noble Lord had contended that, inasmuch as under the present system of free education the parents contributed nothing' to the grant in aid, they had no right to representation on the management of these schools. But how about the case of schools in which fees were paid by the parents? Could it be said that in such a case the parents were not interested in the management of the schools? In his own constituency, as against 720 children attending free schools. 1,231 attended schools in which fees were paid. Surely, in that case, it could not be said that the parents did not contribute to the cost of education. He contended that under the provisions of this Bill parents would contribute to this grant as taxpayers. When the noble Lord said that ratepayers would not contribute to this grant he forgot that ratepayers were also taxpayers, and that, therefore, they ought to have a voice in the management of the schools. Whether it were the local authority or the parents who received a measure of control in this matter, he cared very little, though he would prefer that it should be the local authority, because, as had been pointed out by his hon. Friend, the Member for Rotherham, parental representation would probably involve an additional election. In an Amendment which he had put down on the Paper, and which he would not have the opportunity of moving if this Instruction was defeated, he proposed that two representatives should be appointed by the Parish Council to represent the popular element upon the management of Voluntary Schools. There was no desire in this Instruction or in any Amendment that might be put down in consequence of it. to kill the principle of denominationalism. ["Hear, hear!"] His reason for advocating such a plan as this was that, as a rule, in most districts, there was a fanatical clergyman who was determined to carry through his will in opposition to the opinions of his other parishioners; and the smallest measure of the popular element that was introduced would do a great deal to remove friction of that sort. ["Hear, hear!"] Beyond that, however, there was the broad principle for which they contended, and they held that it was a confession of weakness on the part of the Government that they would not admit that this was a subject they could afford to discuss in this Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] Whatever was the result on this instruction, the discussion would do an enormous amount of good, for it would show the country that the Government was not willing to subject their proposals to the light of discussion in the House. ["Hear, hear!"] That remark was cheered Prom the other side of the House. It was a proof of what he said, for hon. Gentlemen opposite knew that discussion killed the Bill of last year. ["Hear, hear."] For the reasons he had stated he should support the Instruction.

MR. G. C. T. BALTLEY (Islington, N.)

thought that nobody would accuse him of not being heartily in sympathy with denominational schools, as he preferred to call them. He should strongly oppose anything that would tend to the control of these schools by any representative body, for he felt that if they were subjected to the control, of an elective body, the object of their existence might be rendered impossible by the introduction into the management of a majority not in sympathy with it. He for one was in no way afraid of some sort of representation in the management of those schools. ["Hear, hear!"] There was no doubt that the management of any body by one despot was a source of danger to the institution he managed. [Opposition cheers.] If the clergyman of a district was a good all-round man, whatever representation in reason was put in the management of the schools, he would still practically rule. If, on the other hand, he was not a wise man, many of his mistakes would be avoided. ["' Hear, hear!"] He believed, therefore, that it would really be for the benefit of denominational schools if a limited representation were put on the management. ["Hear, hear!"] He could not see any danger in it. To his mind, the larger the interest taken in the schools in any district the more likely those schools were to be well managed, and for the Church of England to say it was afraid of having representative managers seemed to him a confession of weakness. [Opposition cheers.] The greatest benefit sometimes accrued to an institution by introducing an opponent into its management. They had only to look to Scotland to find this. There, there was a very strong religious feeling, and people were, perhaps, somewhat bigoted; still, one denomination worked harmoniously with another, and although the Roman Catholic schools were not numerous many of them were worked under a general board, and no difficulties had arisen. ["Hear, hear!"] It must, however, be clearly indicated that there must not be such a representation as would swamp the denominational element. That would be most unfair, and he was sure it would be possible to frame a scheme by which that would be prevented. They were not now discussing the details of a plan—[Opposition cheers]—they were simply considering whether they should or should not in Committee try to frame a scheme by which a limited representation could be established. The Government had a very large majority, and they could stop any sort of representation which would injure the characteristics of a school, and he, for one, should certainly vote against anything that would tend to that, because in his view denominational teaching was the backbone of education. The Instruction seemed to him to be in no sense opposed to the spirit of denominational education. On the contrary, in his judgment, it would tend very largely to do away with some of those causes of complaint and matters of irritation which arose sometimes. ["Hear, hear!"] On his side of the House, with the exception of one or two Members, notably, the noble Lord the Member for Rochester, nearly every Member had said he was strongly in favour of some sort of representation, but gave other reasons for voting against the Instruction. It was argued that this Instruction would open the door to a certain number of Amendments, and having been a Member of the House for a number of years, he knew that that was a practical objection; but when they came to consider the great scheme of renewing the power of Voluntary Schools and giving them large financial assistance he did not think it was at all desirable that a Government, with so large a majority, should hesitate to do what was right simply because of that difficulty. ["Hear, hear!"] Some hon. Members had expressed the fear that the adoption of the Instruction would lead to the loss of the Bill. That was out of the question. In fact, he believed that the Bill would pass all the more easily if, by granting this principle of representation, they removed a grievance that rankled in the bosoms of many persons. He should himself prefer to delete the word "adequate" from the Instruction, but it was not a point of very great importance, and Members on his side of the House could take the word as meaning adequate in their sense. He thought that one representative member out of four or five members of the Board would fully meet the necessities of the case. The change would be extremely popular, and would be likely to strengthen the Church of England. He regretted, therefore, that the Government would not consent to this Instruction, for which be should himself certainty vote. [Opposition cheers.]


said that public management ought always to accompany the expenditure of public money. The Instruction suggested two alternative courses—the representation of local authorities or the representation of the parents. He much preferred the former, because he could not subscribe to the claims that had been put forward on behalf of the parents. If the parents in some cases paid fees they need not do so. The payment was optional, and therefore did not constitute a claim to representation. If education had been made compulsory solely in the interests of the children, it would not be unreasonable to give the parents control under that education; but they knew that when the Liberal Party advocated Free Education they did so mainly on the ground that education had been made compulsory, not only in the interests of the children, but also very largely for the benefit of the State, and the argument was that it was not unreasonable to ask the State to pay that which was for its own benefit. The First Lord of the Treasury had said that the Voluntary School buildings had been paid for by the generous contributions of Churchmen in the past, whose object it was to maintain the distinctive teaching of their Church. That he thought was open to qualification. It was quite possible to believe that these generous Churchmen were animated, not only by a desire to promote the teaching of their Church, but also by a desire to promote the efficiency of our national system of education. Then, when the first Government grant of £20,000 was made to the British and Foreign School Society and the National School Society it was distinctly stated that the money was not to be spent on the education of the children, but in school buildings. Therefore, these building's had not been erected exclusively by generous Churchmen. A net inconsiderable portion of them had been erected at the cost of the nation. It was strange that the members of the richest Church in the world were unable or unwilling to support their own schools. There had been in the past, and there were no doubt now, very generous supporters of Church Schools, but the position in which these schools found themselves to-day was largely due to the fact that the generosity and liberality of the few could not compensate for the indifference and apathy of the many. Three-fourths or four-fifths of the cost of the maintenance of these schools the public contributed, and yet the public had no control over them. That was not a just arrangement, and he should therefore vote for an Instruction which sought to place these public elementary schools, which were so largely supported out of public money, under some local control.

COLONEL SANDYS (Lancashire, Bootle)

thought that the Instruction was one deserving support, and he regretted That the Government would not embody its principle in the Bill. [Opposition cheers.] The Government were asking them to vote the taxes of the people for the education of the rising generation and at the same time refused to grant to the taxpayers the right of representation in consideration of the money so voted. In the circumstances he must go into the Lobby with the Mover of the Instruction. [Opposition cheers.] He regretted greatly having to do so, but it was with him a question of supporting a principle. It was one of the constitutional maxims of this country that representation and taxation should go together; we had decided that our institutions should be representative, and he did not see why that principle should not be applied to the education of the country. It was his fixed impression that a clerical despot was the least suitable of men to exercise absolute control over a school or other institution. [Opposition cheers.] He was very glad that the word "adequate" had been allowed to remain in the Instruction, because if there was to be representation it ought to be sufficient and not illusory. There were about 22,000 clergy of the Church of England, and of these between 6,000 and 7,000 were known to be members of clerical secret societies. [Cries of "No!" and Opposition cheers.] He could give the names if necessary, and in the circumstances he certainly held public control to be necessary.

MR. T. P. WHITTAKER (York, W.R., Spen Valley)

congratulated the two last speakers upon the Ministerial side of the House upon the fact that they were going to Vote in favour of the Instruction of which they approved. Other Gentlemen opposite had admitted that some form of popular representation would be just and reasonable, and even necessary; and had these proceeded to hunt about for excuses for not voting for this proposal? They had defended the principle, and then condemned the method of carrying it out. It was the old Tory cry of "not thus and not now." Why did not hon. Gentlemen who agreed with this principle, but disagreed with the method, draft an Instruction themselves? A good deal had been said about the word "adequate," and there had been an attempt to read into the word a meaning that it. did not bear. 'Adequate" did not necessarily mean a majority. It was for the House to decide what amount of representation would be adequate, and as hon. Members opposite were in a large majority they could determine themselves what would be a due representation. All that the supporters of the Instruction urged was, that the representation should be adequate to insure religious liberty and an efficient system of education in the Voluntary Schools; and he thought that a reasonable minority of representation would be sufficient to secure that. They would make a great mistake if they applied the phrase, "taxation and representation." too literally and individually, because they did not act upon the principle in this country. The elections of Members of Parliament, for example, were by persons who were never tested as to whether they paid taxation or not. These electors voted because they were ratepayers, and therefore it was clear that they did not recognise, in this case, the principle of representation and taxation with the strictness which hon. Members suggested should be applied. The reason for desiring local representation was, that the parents were compelled to send their children to those denominational schools. In his own constituency Nonconformist children who were demanding free education were being forced into Roman Catholic schools; and this was a serious grievance. He therefore thought that this was an additional reason for asking that the parents and the ratepayers should have some voice in the management of those schools. The question of local control was a village and small town question. Where there were School Boards the parents had a choice for their children; but where there were no Board Schools ought the parents to be compelled to accept the minimum of education that would satisfy the Department? He thought not. The parents and the inhabitants were entitled to claim that there should be a thoroughly efficient system of education, and the only way was to give the people in the locality a voice in the control of the schools. In thousands of parishes there were only the denominational schools at which the children could attend, but if local representation on the management were allowed this would modify the intolerance which existed with regard to those schools. He did not suggest that there should be a controlling voice in the election of the teacher, but a small minority of representation would have an influential voice in it. Their aim would be to prevent inequality and injustice and proselytising, and to secure comfort in the schools for the children of Dissenting parents, as well as to secure a chance for Dissenting pupil teachers in those schools. It was said that the people desired denominational education. If that was the case, then why did the Government fear to give the people a voice in the management of the schools? Representation on these schools would undoubtedly secure efficiency, because the local representatives would vote against teachers having imposed upon them the outside duties of playing organs in the churches; this would mean, therefore, more efficient teachers in those schools. Denominationalists claimed the sole local management because they provided the local funds, and they refused the ratepayers and parents a representation because they did not directly find any funds. But many places to-day found very little money. Some large towns only found 2s., 2s. 3d., and 2s. 6d. per head of the children, and the money so provided was not more than enough to pay the cost and maintenance of the buildings, as they were used for denominational purposes outside the purposes of education. The buildings were used for Sunday schools and for meetings in connection with the church. The Instruction would thus remove one great objection to the denominational system, while it would help the Voluntary Schools to get subscriptions.


thought that there was a great deal in the views urged by the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs. ["Hear, hear!"] In the populous districts of Tilbury and the valley of the Thames, which he represented, those views were certainly supported. [Opposition cheers.] He would not attempt to criticise the proposals of the Government; he was not an expert in. these matters, and he was not a fanatical enthusiast on the subject of education. [Laughter.] It had been said that Members on the Ministerial Benches were casting about how to vote with the Government. That was not a difficulty which appalled him at all. He should not follow the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs, because one must draw the line somewhere. [Loud laughter.] But, on the other hand, he had not the slightest intention of voting against him—[Opposition cheers]—because to do so would be in opposition to the convictions of the men he represented and the opinions which he held himself.

*MR. J. H. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)

regretted that the Leader of the House did not make his statement at the end of the Debate instead of at the beginning, because, having regard to the sympathy which had been expressed on his own side in favour of the Amendment, the decision of the Government might have been different. [Ironical cheer by the FIRST LORD of the TREASURY.] He hoped that even now it was not too late for the right hon. Gentleman to change his mind. ["Hear, hear!"] The desire on both sides of the House to have efficient management given to the Voluntary "Schools obtained very widely outside the House as well. For the last four or five years in parish after parish, month after month, there had been held meetings of protest and indignation against what had been called the "unbeneficent despotism of the vicar in charge of the parish schools." The time would come when more than what was asked for now would be required. The wise course would be, instead of thus foolishly bolstering up the Voluntary system in an undemocratic way, to accept the olive branch which was held out to-night. Experience had shown what good representative management had done for the Voluntary Schools, and as to the argument that to admit the Instruction would be to open the door to innumerable Amendments, he submitted that precisely the opposite effect would be produced. The right hon. Gentleman said rate-aid postulates ratepayers' control, and State-aid State control. That was logical and cogent in the domain of argument, but what about the domain of fact? If it was urged that State-aid postulates State control, then they must go on to say that the State control must be as efficient as the ratepayers' control. That was notoriously not the case. The control of the ratepayers extended to the buildings, to the appointment of teachers, to the dismissal of teachers, to the use and finance of the school—it covered the whole ground, and included many things of which the Education Department took, and could take, no cognisance whatever, unless it put one of its agents on the committee of every school in the country. What was asked for could be done without damaging in the least the denominational character of Voluntary Schools.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea Boroughs)

supported the Instruction, in the first place because in his view the representation of local authorities upon the governing bodies of schools was proved by the experience of all those who had been concerned either in secondary or primary education, to have a highly beneficial effect. He spoke with knowledge and experience, derived not from English counties, but from his acquaintance with education in Wales and Monmouthshire. In the University of Wales, the three colleges, the intermediate schools, and the central board for intermediate education, local authorities had proper and adequate representation, and he did not believe there was a single gentleman in the House who would not say that the whole working of the Welsh system had been greatly assisted by the representation of public authorities on the governing bodies. He could not see why, in regard to Voluntary Schools, the Leader of the House should refuse some representation to the local authorities or the general community on the associations proposed to be created under this Bill.


I did not refuse, but I did refuse to consider it in this Bill.


inferred from that interruption that the right hon. Gentleman now, having heard all the speeches, accepted the principle of the Instruction.


That is exactly what I said six hours ago.


asked why, if so, there should be any difficulty in carrying out the principles in the passage of this Bill through the House. He found that by Clause 3 associations of schools were to be constituted in such manner, and in such areas, and with such governing bodies representative of the managers, as were approved by the Education Department. Why could not the right hon. Gentleman, after what he had said, assent to the Instruction moved, and then try to devise some scheme of management by which its terms might be carried out? ["Hear, hear!"] He supported the Instruction because also the Voluntary Schools were, in his judgment, public institutions supported mainly out of the public funds. ["Hear, hear!"] He assented to the proposition that originally the schools were started in the interests of one denomination, and for the sake of argument he would not say that that fact should be ignored, but he still maintained that substantially the Voluntary Schools were public institutions, supported chiefly by public money. ["Hear, hear!"] The subscriptions to the Voluntary Schools were a very small amount compared with the sum received from the Imperial Exchequer. During the last few years the Voluntary Schools in Cardiff had been receiving about £6,550 annually, and if the present Bill were carried they would receive £1,030 a year more from the State; while, on the other hand, the Voluntary subscriptions given by Church people to the schools amounted to about £700 only. ["Hear, hear!"] This had been going on for many years, and he contended that the time had now come, especially when so large an additional grant was to be made, when the schools should be managed, not in the interests of a particular denomination, but in the interests of the community at large. ["Hear, hear!"] The other day he was reading a lecture by a man whose name he was sure the Leader of the House would respect—Professor T. H. Green, of Oxford—and, speaking in a lecture as far back as 1878, he said, referring to this question, that it must never be forgotten that if the grant were to come to the Voluntary Schools from year to year, there must come a time when the interests of the community in the schools would become so great, and the claims of the State on the schools so great, that all private interests would disappear, and when the State might justly and rightly come forward and declare that the schools must henceforth be managed in the interests of the community generally. ["Hear, hear!"] Moreover, even in the interests of the classes directly concerned in the. Voluntary system, it was expedient that some change should be made from the present system of clerical management. Those classes were three in number—the members of the Church, the parents, and the teachers. It was the general opinion that the schools, especially in the rural districts, were too much under clerical control, and Churchmen themselves admitted that it would be to the advantage of the schools and of education if the laity were now admitted to a larger share in the management of the schools. ["Hear, hear!"] As to the case of the parents, his observations on this point would refer more particularly to Wales, on the people of which the existing system bore very unjustly. ["Hear, hear!"] It was well known that Nonconformists largely outnumbered Churchmen in Wales, and that, notwithstanding, there were many places in which the only school was a Voluntary or Church School, managed almost wholly by the local clergyman. Surely hon. Members opposite, who assumed to be so anxious about the consciences of the parents, must perceive how hard in many cases this state of things must bear on the Welsh Nonconformist; and he was confident that if in such cases one or two Nonconformists were permitted to take part in the management of the school it would tend not only to the harmony of the parish but to the efficiency of the school. ["Hear, hear!"] The case of the teachers under the present system was perhaps the hardest of all. They were practically civil servants, and were paid out of the public funds, and yet they were placed entirely at the mercy of those of a particular denomination to whom the school belonged. This was neither fair nor expedient, and ought to be prevented. Hon. Members opposite had practically admitted that, in the interests of education, a case had been made out for some alteration in the management of the Voluntary Schools if this further grant was to be made. The Bill, through the provision relating to the association of schools, gave the Government an easy opportunity of introducing such changes in the management of the schools as the Instruction proposed, and he thought they would act most unwisely in the interests of the schools themselves if they rejected it. He was curious to learn, after the articles he had read, what the Vice President of the Council had to say in this matter. Personally he should be utterly astonished if that right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to follow the hon. Member for Islington in his firm and consistent demand for some representation of the community upon these Voluntary bodies.


who was received with loud cheers, said that, as one supporting this Bill with all his heart and desiring to see it carried, and as one who felt that the Government had done the right thing in the decision they had come to, and that they would have imperilled the Bill by throwing open the discussion to those questions which were raised by the Instruction, he thought it was time to say a few words. [Opposition cheers.] He understood the meaning of those cheers, and would refer to them in a moment. He would say that if the Government had taken a different course, and by accepting this Instruction had enlarged the area of the Bill, had practically added to it a supplementary Bill, or added the opportunities, at all events, for discussing a supplementary Bill—["hear, hear!"]—they would not only have suffered in the time that would have been expended in the discussion of those matters, but would have met with a resolute resistance from a great many of their own supporters. [Cheers and counter cheers.] He understood the meaning of that cheer. It was a repetition, in another form, of the observation made in both of the speeches from the other side they had just listened to with regard to the number of Members on the Ministerial side of the House who had spoken in sympathy with the Instruction, and who had expressed their intention of either voting for it or of not voting at all. The number of those speeches was deceiving hon. Gentlemen opposite, and would produce an absolutely false impression outside unless that impression were corrected. [Cheers and counter cheers.] When a Bill like this, to which a very large majority of the House had pledged itself—the most popular Bill, so far as Members on that side of the House were concerned, that they could be called upon to support in the House—was under discussion, and when certain Members on that side of the House, for different reasons, felt bound to separate themselves from the Government and to refuse to listen to the exhortation and the appeal made by the First Lord of the Treasury, it was necessary for them, for their own position with their constituents, to give some explanation of the vote they were going to give. Hon. Members opposite had had the gratification of listening to a series of speeches that evening from hon. Members on that side of the House when they might have had three or four times as many—[cheers]—from men who felt quite as strongly upon this question, and who thought, as he did, that the Government had taken the right course. [Cheers.] With regard to this Instruction, it was not a matter which he thought needed discussion in detail, because the objection of the Government to it was not founded upon the consideration of the results of any possible legislation that might follow if it were adopted, but was founded upon the necessity of going straight through with this Bill as it was—[loud cheers]—in order to carry out the great object to which they were pledged, and which the whole of their supporters desired them to accomplish. There were two classes of representation suggested by the Instruction. With regard to the representation of the ratepayers on the managing bodies of Voluntary Schools, he saw no excuse for the proposal whatever. ["Hear, hear!"] If a Voluntary School, conducted by those who belonged to the creed in connection with which it was founded, was doing efficient work, was giving good education as tested by the inspectors of the Education Department, it was entitled to be paid a share of this grant, and there was no excuse for desiring to thrust the ratepayers' representatives upon its managing body. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to the representation of the parents, they heard read out, by one of the hon. Members for Islington, a Resolution which was arrived at by the clergy in the rural deanery of Islington declaring that it was desirable to have a representation of the parents upon the managing bodies. Perhaps in their case it was, and if that were so, let them have it. ["Hear, hear!"] They could have it to-morrow without any interference from the House—[cheers]—and in very many eases throughout the country, especially in the rural districts, the clergyman did associate with himself, to the great advantage of the school—[Opposition cheers]—and to the great relief of his own anxiety and work, managers who assisted him in the conduct of that school, and, in some cases, represented the parents. But that system, good as it had proved in many cases, was not applicable in all. ["Hear, hear!"] Schools in town and country differed very largely in their circumstances, and he was thinking now of great schools in London. There was a school in a parish in which he was greatly interested with some 600 or 800 children. To frame a legislative proposal for enabling the parents of the children to elect representatives on the managing body of that school, for defining what parents should be allowed to vote, what notice of meeting there should be in order that, they should be called together, and whether any decision was to be made as to the length of time a child had been at school in order to enable a parent to vote, and so on—all these matters would be extremely complex as subjects of legislation—["hear, hear!"]—and he was quite satisfied, with regard to the school he was now thinking of, that, after their most elaborate legislation had provided for them a means of selecting the managers for that school, it would be found practically waste paper, considering the sort of locality in which the school was situated and the class of persons from whom these children came. ["Hear, hear!"] If this Instruction had been carried he should have resisted, as far as he possibly could, any insistence upon the ratepayers' representation upon the managing committees of Voluntary Schools, and he was sure that when the House came to frame legislation for enabling parents to elect persons on those committees they would have found it far more complex and far more full of difficulties than had been thought by his hon. Friends who had been talking so lightly of the acceptance of this principle. [Cheers.] But really the point was this. The Instruction endeavoured to fix upon the Government the duty of dealing with a separate portion of the Bill. If the Instruction were adopted he did not know if the Government would consider it their duty to propose provisions on this matter, but somebody would have to propose a series of clauses constituting quite a second part of the Bill, and his hon. Friends who had been so lightly lending themselves to this ingenious attempt to defeat the Bill altogether—["No, no !" and cheers]—would find that they had deprived the Government of a very large portion of Parliamentary time which it was proposed to devote to other very useful purposes after this Bill was disposed of. ["Hear, hear!"] Several Members had talked of the different aspects in which this question might be viewed, and several Members had said, and he assumed it was the popular attitude to take, that they looked at it from an educational point of view. That was, of course, the right way to look at it; that was the way he looked at it. He was convinced that the best service they could do to the cause of education in the country was to pass the Bill as it stood—[cheers]—and so to give to Voluntary Schools that relief which they had long needed and which had been promised by the Unionist Party. [Cheers.] Much had been said about the necessity of making schools efficient, and, of course, everyone desired to make schools efficient; but the repeated demands of the Education Department had been raised to such an extent, and the burden on Voluntary Schools was so great, that they were struggling for existence in many parts of the country. ["Hear, hear!"] What better service could they render to education than to give these schools the help they needed to save them from extinction? That was the service the Government intended. They had introduced a simple Bill, and he was glad they had expressed a resolute determination to stand by that Bill. [Cheers.] He hoped it would be seen to-morrow that his hon. Friends who had spoken in favour of the Instruction had been vindicating themselves before their own constituents—[Opposition cheers]—vindicating themselves before their constituents for a vote which they would not give if they thought it would be effective. [Ministerial cheers.] They expressed the confidence they felt, and he hoped they rightly felt that they would be beaten—[laughter]—by a substantial majority of the House; but he was quite sure there was not one of them who, if he thought his vote would have the effect of determining the Division against the Government, would not rather say he would stand by the Government and save the Bill for the advantage of Voluntary Schools than indulge in the attempt to tack on to the Bill something which would embarrass the Government and might also destroy the Bill itself. [Cheers.]

MR. LEONARD COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

My hon. and learned Friend no doubt was quite right in calling attention to the undue proportion that appeared on this side of the House of Members who are ready to support the Instruction, and the Government may be congratulated on finding an able supporter for the line of action upon which they have resolved, although my hon. and learned Friend left me at the end of his speech in doubt as to whether he opposed the Resolution on the ground of inexpediency or on the ground of principle. ["Hear, hear!"] He seemed to dwell most strongly on the inexpediency of adopting the Resolution, but now and again he repeated expressions which seemed to indicate that he opposed it root and branch, and I find that other hon. Members here have formed the same conclusion. Now, my hon. and learned Friend ended his speech with a declaration that he thought many hon. Members were going to support this Instruction who would not do so if they believed it was going to meet with success. ["Hear, hear!"] Now, I am going to support this Resolution—[Opposition cheers]—and I should do so if I thought it would succeed. ["Hear, hear!"] I should do so for this reason—that, in my opinion, it would make the prospects of the Bill as part of the educational organisation of the country better in the future. ["Hear, hear!"] It would relieve it from that partiality which does not at this moment imperil its fortunes, but which will be remembered against it, and which may perhaps lead to its being reconsidered, and perhaps repudiated, by a later Parliament. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not approach this question as an enemy of Voluntary Schools, or, to speak more correctly, of denominational schools; on the contrary, I have been impressed more and more during these discussions of the justice and necessity of affording substantial aid to Voluntary Schools. Facts have been made public during these Debates that have borne this conclusion more strongly into my mind than when the Debate began. If I may explain my own position in respect to this Instruction, I may be pardoned if in order to do so I call attention to two or three facts which were mentioned at another time, and which appear to me to lead to a certain conclusion as to the policy which should be adopted by Parliament with respect to popular education in the country. We heard of a city in the north where there are 12,000 children in Voluntary Schools and 12,000 children in Board Schools, and it was said that the grant of 5s. a head in respect to the children in the Voluntary Schools of that town would be the cause of considerable resentment in the town on the ground of its injustice. ["Hear, hear!"] It came out also that the amount of £30,000 a year was raised in that city in rates for the support of Board Schools. Now half the children go to Voluntary Schools and half the ratepayers—probably in respect to payment and rateability more than half—are in favour of the Voluntary system: yet the conclusion from the facts is this—that for years past £15,000 a year have been drawn from ratepayers who repudiate Board Schools in order to support those schools. Now is that a conclusion which can be maintained in the future? ["Hear, hear!"] Can it be said for a moment that a system under which half the population is taxed to maintain a system of education they repudiate is one that can endure? Is it to be supposed that this will be consonant to feelings of justice, and that it will continue to be tolerated? ["Hear, hear!"] I am certain it will not be, and the answer in the present Bill, as I conceive it, is that this payment of £3,000 a year to Voluntary Schools is but a sort of hush money to cover up injustice suffered by the friends of Voluntary Schools in the past. I, therefore, approach this Bill, and especially this Resolution, with the view that you must do something to correct the injustice which prevails, that something must come in the way of substantial allowance to Voluntary Schools in the future. I believe that the noble Lord the Member for Rochester, who on this one point is in agreement with me, agrees that funds must come from the same source in support of both classes, and justice will be recognised in carrying out this policy. Now, what is the deduction from this illustration? It appears to me that it illustrates the conelusions—first, that support given to Voluntary Schools in the future rests on the fact that the parents of half the children, or of those who are found in these schools, desire the maintenance of these schools. The second deduction is that the community at large cannot exercise that control over these schools which would destroy their essential character without interfering with the justice which requires the allowance to be made to the schools. The control has to satisfy two conditions—first, that it shall not prejudice the essential character of the schools; and, next, that it shall secure the desires and wishes of the parents who send their children to these schools. Let me observe that this apology for our defence of the Bill does not at all apply to those parishes, which abound in the country, where there is a Voluntary School and nothing else. Nobody in a parish of that kind can complain that a ratepayer as a ratepayer is supporting a school of which he does not approve. There is no rate levied in opposition to his wishes, but inasmuch as in the course of circumstances we know that in these country parishes there are found many schools which exist because they do exist, we are justified in respect of these schools in asking for some control, some representation in their management which shall satisfy the local demand, as well as that other representation which is due to the parents from the strength of whose preference alone these schools in other places exist. [Opposition cheers.] Therefore I am entirely in favour of the Instruction, which carries out and which rests upon the very principle of our action, because it justifies it, if it justifies it: at all, on the ground that parents desire the school; and yet the Government shrink from the suggestion that parents should have a voice in the management of the schools. [Cheers.] What are the reasons against the introduction of this kind of element in the management? My right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, who, I understood by an interjection of his a little while ago, was not opposed in principle to the present Instruction—[Opposition cheers]—


If my right hon. Friend misrepresents me, I must interrupt him. I distinctly stated in the speech I made six hours ago the main objection the Government had to this Instruction, and it is an insuperable objection, in face of which we shall certainly drop the Rill if the Amendment be carried. [Cheers and counter cheers.] That objection is that the Rill is restricted in its scope, and it would not be legitimate to add a new Rill to it by the Instruction which it is proposed we should carry. [Ministerial cheers.]


I will deal with that main and insuperable objection presently. Rut, meanwhile, is or is not the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the principle of the Instruction? [Opposition cheers.]


When the Instruction is embodied in a Bill, and brought before the House for discussion, I will give an opinion upon it. [Ironical Opposition cheers.] Rut, so long as we do not know in which at least of 20 different forms the Instruction is to be embodied, I surely may be absolved from giving an opinion upon any one of them. [Ministerial cheers.]


Then my right hon. Friend will not give us an opinion. [Cheers.] I do not complain of that, but I thought that he did, with some warmth, make an observation just now, when the hon. Member for Swansea was speaking, to the effect that six hours ago he had expressed his concurrence in that principle. [Opposition cheers.]


My right hon. Friend cannot have caught what I said.


I understood the right hon. Gentleman to oppose the Instruction, grounding his opposition upon the principle which he borrowed from the phrase of the hon. Member for Cambridge University, that local support requires local control, and Imperial support requires Imperial control. [Cheers.] That appears to have captured a great many minds, but it is one of those catch phrases which turn upon a play of words, and if you examine them narrowly there is little or nothing in them. [Cheers.] Surely the principle and nature of the control or management which we are going to introduce into the system of schools, whether maintained out of local or Imperial taxation, must depend upon an examination of the expediency or inexpediency in itself of the control which we are going to introduce. You cannot manage elementary schools all over the country from Whitehall, even if you desire it. That was admitted last year, and it remains true now. ["' Hear, hear!"] You must, if you want efficient control, get the assistance of local control as well as central. ["Hear, hear!"] It is said there are other difficulties. There is the difficulty that the Instruction goes too far. There has been talk of "adequate" re-presentation, and although it is suggested that "adequate" might be dropped, you, Sir, observed that that cannot be done because that is an alteration of the Instruction without notice. Of course, that is a perfectly true principle. An Instruction cannot be moved without notice, and an alteration which added to its force could not be moved. Rut an alteration which diminished its force, narrowed its scope, restricted its application, can, I believe, be moved at any time. [Cheers.] The omission of the word "adequate," I believe, might be held to enlarge the scope, and would clearly leave it in an indefinite shape. We might have a more than adequate representation. But I do not think anyone would suggest the ludicrous Amendment that we should put in "a less than adequate representation," and the ingenuity of man is not beyond framing some kind of Amendment which might bring this Instruction within the range approved by some of my hon. Friends, and which yet should not be open to the censure that it was a breach of order. Possibly we might amend the Instruction by speaking of minority representation, which would satisfy the demand made on the other side, and, at the same time, secure the preponderance of the present management which is desired. ["Hear, hear!"] After all, in assenting to this Instruction you assent to nothing. It is not a legislative enactment, and you are only going so far as to enable the Committee to consider the matter of putting parents upon the school committee at all. Then comes this insuperable objection upon which my right hon. Friend relies, and which my hon. and learned Friend here magnified in his very ingenious speech, That insuperable objection is, that if you really did adopt this Instruction you would open a floodgate of Amendments which would sweep away the whole Bill. That is the objection upon which reliance has been placed. How far is that insuperable objection sound? My hon. and learned Friend pictured to himself a Committee of the House devising a scheme of representation of parents and of ratepayers, and he asks, Should the parent who has got children in the school at a particular date be of the electors, or should they be parents who had children there a certain time, and how, he inquired, should they vote and when? Hon. Gentlemen must know well enough that this House would never go into all the details of the machinery involved by this Instruction. That machinery would be framed by the Education Department. ["Hear, hear!"] It would be that Department, and not this House, who would determine how the parents and the ratepayers should be represented on the management of the schools. To suppose that this House would deal with all these details is a mere figment of the imagination. ["Hear, hear!"] I cannot understand how any different view of the matter can be taken by anyone who is conversant with the history of our educational legislation. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members sitting on this side of the House have declared that they are in favour of the principle of this Instruction, and that they only oppose the Instruction because of the amount of discussion it would leave open in Committee, and because, in their opinion, the Bill would perish under the weight of the new matter which would be imported into that discussion. But let me ask—Would it have been impossible to have entered into some Parliamentary understanding in reference to this subject? [Opposition cheers and Ministerial ironical cheers and laughter.] Some hon. Members laugh at that suggestion—why, Parliamentary understandings form part of the ordinary machinery for facilitating the business of this House. I think that a Parliamentary understanding might have easily been arrived at earlier in the evening, or, indeed, before the Debate commenced, whereby this discussion might have been kept within very narrow limits. [Opposition cheers.] In my opinion such a Parliamentary understanding would have saved the time of the House instead of wasting it. ["Hear, hear!"] I will end as I began. I shall support the Instruction, because I believe that by adopting it we should improve the Bill and should have afforded the Committee an opportunity of improving the educational organisation of the country. [Opposition cheers.] We may have—and I hope we shall have—a supplementary Bill; but even such a Measure, unless it includes the principle of this Instruction, will not be satisfactory. In conclusion, I may say that I believe that we should have saved time instead of losing it, if the right hon. Gentleman had had the courage to have accepted this Instruction, which I believe would operate in the interests of the education of the country, and in those of the Voluntary Schools. [Opposition cheers.]

*SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton)

said that he was certainly surprised that no occupant of the Treasury Bench should have thought it necessary to rise and answer the powerful speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not really know whether the new mode of conducting Debates in that House was that the Government Front Bench was to preserve silence in all cases after the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had spoken, in order to prevent criticism and to prevent the opinions expressed by their supporters from being carried into effect in the Division Lobby. The speeches which had been delivered from the other side of the House, with perhaps one or two exceptions, were practically in support of the principle of the Instruction, and he must again express his surprise that no notice whatever should have been taken by the Government of those speeches. He was sorry that so much stress should have been laid upon the length of this Debate, which, no doubt, was considerable. [Ironical cheers from the Government Benches.] He quite understood the meaning of that cheer and the misconstruction of his words. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought, however, that a question of this magnitude deserved a reasonable amount of consideration. He denied the right of the strongest Government to say that that House must register their decrees, and that that House must do as they told them. ["Hear, hear!"] They would see by-and-by whether that was a successful mode of conducting the business of that House. [Cheers.] No doubt the Government were influenced in the line they were taking in this matter from what had fallen from certain of their supporters. One hon. and gallant Member opposite had spoken strongly in favour of the principle of this Instruction, but had said that, notwithstanding that fact, he felt it to be his duty to support the Government and to vote against the Instruction. The Government, however, had unfortunately, as he thought, announced that they regarded this question as a vital one, and the independent Conservative Party had determined to fight it upon strict Party lines, instead of looking at it from the point of view as to what would be the best for the educational interests of the country. ["Hear, hear!"] Upon what were they going to divide that night—or, at all events, at the conclusion of this Debate? They were not going to divide upon any question of machinery, not upon any question involving the right of parents or of ratepayers to take a part in the management of these schools, but whether the Committee was to have an opportunity of considering whether the scheme embodied in this Instruction was or was not a feasible one. ["Hear, hear!"] The only opposition to that proposition which could be justified, was the opposition of hon. Members who took the view of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth—namely, the opposition to the principle. He was in a state of perfect confusion as to what was the meaning and attitude of the First Lord of the Treasury. [Laughter.] He told them just now that what he said then was what he said six hours ago. What did the right hon. Gentleman say six hours ago? He then opposed, upon principle, upon the merits, parental control and ratepaying control. ["Hear, hear!"] What did he say about parental control? He ridiculed the thing as impossible, and asked the question, "Why should parents have control? He said they contributed nothing, he said they got their education absolutely free, and he asked what right they had to interfere in the management of the schools.


Hear, hear. [Opposition laughter.] I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman listened to my speech—


Oh, every syllable of it. [Laughter.]


I never called parental control the worst thing; what I said was that it had been tried, and that, in the opinion of the Department, in the places where it had been tried the success had not been very marked.


said the right hon. Gentleman would not question his accuracy in saying that he asked this question, Why should parents—


"What right?"


said the right hon. Gentleman asked the question, "What right had parents to have control?" He would tell him what right they had. They had the right given them by the fact that in 8,000 parishes of this country they had no choice as to the school; they must either send their children to the school appointed, or be sent themselves to prison—[cheers]—and of every 1s. that was spent in that school 9d. came out of the public funds, to which those parents contributed in the shape of taxes. He contended that that constituted a moral right that they should have some voice in the management of the schools, and some means of seeing that those securities which the Legislature had provided for the protection of their children's rights should be fully and adequately carried out. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman then asked what right had the ratepayers, and told them that the whole philosophy of the case was contained in one syllogism, which was practically this—every expenditure of public money from the rates was controlled by the ratepayers, every expenditure of public money from the taxes was controlled by the House of Commons; this was an expenditure from the taxes, therefore the control of the House of Commons was sufficient. He denied the major premiss of that syllogism, and he thought his light hon. Friend who had just sat down had disposed of it, in theory, completely. But he Would venture to remind the House that it was already disposed of in practice. It was perfectly true that in largo branches of public expenditure, such as the Army or Navy, the control of the expenditure was in the hands of the Minister who was responsible to the House, and the House exercised a direct control in that matter; but there was a large class of expenditure which the House delegated to local authorities because it was of a local character. He would give the familiar illustration of the police. He would be a very bold man who should propose that the police of this country should be controlled in that House through the means of the Home Secretary, and the local authorities deprived of all power, because one half of the cost of the police was voted by the House. ["Hear, hear!"] The House adopted the same principle with reference to technical education, and, in the case of the whole system of grants in aid of local taxation out of the general taxation of the country, the House of Commons voted large sums for local purposes, the administration of which was left in the hands of the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman might say that that was the philosophy of the transaction, but he himself did not think that it represented the true relations between that House and public expenditure. If they were to put the entire control of a denominational school into the hands of the representative body they would make it a Board School—they would destroy its denominational character, and he would say candidly that that would be unjust and unfair. ["Hear, hear!"] But what they asked for was a representation upon that body. The right hon. Gentleman had said:— You admit you are a minority, as a minority you would always be outvoted; what, then, is the good of being upon that body? That not only struck at the root of the representation of minorities, but it struck at the very principle of free constitutional Government. The House of Commons did not exist simply to carry out the views of majorities, although of course in the end the majority triumphed. The right hon. Gentleman had not been a Member of that House for 20 years, and sat on both sides of the House, above the Gangway and below the Gangway, without knowing the enormous influence which even weak and despised minorities could exercise. [Cheers.] He could remember the right hon. Gentleman with a very small number of comrades—[laughter]—one of whom was the representative of the Committee of Council in that House—[cheers]—he could remember that gallant body facing with undaunted courage a majority as large as that of the present Government, and far more united. [Loud Opposition cheers.] That minority was not powerless. Its opponents were beaten, though, if the right hon. Gentleman would pardon him for saying so, he took five years to beat them. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "No, no!"] He did not wish to minimise the power of a minority—[laughter]—he was arguing rather against the proposition that a minority was a superfluity. Now, when his hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon stated that a great many schools were in the hands of the clergyman, and the clergyman alone, there were some very indignant sounds of dissent, but the Report of the Conservative majority of the Royal Commission showed that one of the grievances of the Voluntary Schools was that in a large number of cases there was but one practical manager, and that manager was the clergyman. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not intend to say anything disrespectful of the clergyman quâ clergyman, but he asserted that, even if there were no representation of the ratepayers and parents to be considered, it was not in the public interest that one man should have the control of the education of a parish and have the control of a large sum of public money. [Cheers.] In the interest of education it was right that the House of Commons should insist that there should be a certain number of managers, and that those managers should be jointly responsible. Let them suppose that even if there was only one man representing the ratepayers or the parents—what did that man do? He threw the light of public opinion—["hear, hear!"]—upon the working of the institution. [Cheers.] Things were said and done now which would not be said and done if that light were thrown upon the proceedings of the board of management. It might be asked, "What do you want; do you want to interfere with the denominational character of the schools? "No, they did not. The law would not allow them to do so. A denominational school must be carried on according to the trust on which it was founded. They wanted to secure what the Education Department, in consequence of the overpowering multiplicity of details, could not secure—they wanted to secure that not only this 5s. additional grant, but all grants spent in a school, should be fairly and honourably and honestly spent in the promotion of education—[cheers]—that there should not be extravagance, that there should not be parsimony, that there should not be injustice. Was that not a matter worthy of public discussion? There was no question of the local agitator as the noble Lord the Member for Rochester seemed to imagine there was. The local agitator was an individual of whom they heard a great deal when the Parish Council Bill was passing through the House, but they had never heard of him since. They had seen in the Parish Councils a union of all classes to promote the working of the Act, and if a representative of the ratepayers or parents were appointed in this case he would be found working with the other members of the Board of Management to do the best for the school. He came back to the question of the 8,000 parishes. He believed hon. Gentlemen opposite recognised fairly the fact that in those 8,000 parishes there was no choice of schools. He knew it to be true that Nonconformist children were forced by law into Roman Catholic schools. He did not think the noble Lord the Member for Rochester would like the law to force Anglican children into Nonconformist Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not at the present moment complain, of that state of things, but he maintained that they were entitled to exceptional and special consideration in consequence of that state of things. What did they ask? They asked that the conscience clause should be fairly and fully fulfilled in all its bearings, [VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: "It is;" and hon. MEMBERS: "No, it is not!"] The noble Lord said with truth, yesterday, that there was a small number of clergymen who were guilty of outrageous conduct in reference to the burial of the dead. Men who would be guilty of outrageous and intolerable bigotry with reference to the burial of the dead would not shrink from being guilty of the same thing with respect to the education of children. [Cheers.] He did not say that there was a general evasion of the Conscience Clause, But there were reported to the heads of the various bodies of Nonconformists a sufficient number of cases of evasion, and that made a grievance which ought to be removed. [Cheers.] There was such a thing as breaking the conscience clause in the spirit as well as in the letter. [Cheers.] It was against that they wished to protect the children. [Cheers.] It might be said that nothing was done in those schools which the law prohibited; that children were taught nothing to which their parents objected; but there were various little details of the management of a school which might be made, on the one hand, an honourable fulfilment, or, on the other hand, a dis-honourable fulfilment of the conditions of the law. [Cheers.] Hon. Members who were acquainted with the great Secondary Schools of the country knew that boys attending them were not put to any disadvantage on account of the religious opinions of their parents; that there was no head master who could not carry out fully and completely the religious instruction he had to give without treating any boy unjustly. But that state of things did not prevail in the Voluntary Schools—[cheers]—and if they had on the management of those schools representatives of the parents or of the public to see that the Conscience Clause was fairly worked, it would remove a great deal of friction that at present impaired the results of our primary system of education. It was said that the Voluntary Schools were popular schools, that parents desired them and would have them. Surely they would be made more popular still if the parents had representation on their management? Surely, if they were linked with popular representation they would obtain an element of strength they did not now possess. [Cheers.] The hon. Member for the Warwick Division made a powerful speech in favour of the very thing against which he proposed to vote. The hon. Member declared that the doctrine of popular representation was always well received at diocesan meetings, and that the friends of the Voluntary Schools were not frightened by it. But the hon. Member had been put under pressure. [Cheers and laughter.]


I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, I am not put under pressure of any kind whatever. [Laughter and cheers.] I acknowledge the value, the extraordinary value, of the schools having popular representation, but I say the time is not yet come to apply it to the Voluntary Schools.


said the hon. Gentleman had said in the course of his speech that, if this Instruction were carried, the Government would drop the Bill or resign—[cheers]—and that he therefore would not be a party to turning out the Government. [Ministerial cheers.] He did not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman's party loyalty. But had it come to this—that this great Government, with its unprecedented majority and with those European difficulties which they said, and rightly said, were of such supreme importance at the present moment, were prepared—unless their followers were ready to help them in preventing a discussion of the principle of representation—to throw up their offices and say, "We resign the Government of the country"? [Cheers.] The leaders of the great Tory party had at all events the courage of their convictions. They objected to popular representation. But their supporters could not go to the country and say they were in favour of popular representation. [Cheers.] Many hon. Members opposite had said they would vote against the Instruction because they were afraid the Government would resign. If Liberals had said such things what scornful denunciation would have been heaped upon them by the First Lord of the Treasury. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman talked about time being wanted. This was only the 25th of February; the Session had hardly commenced. Was the Government reduced to such a state of Parliamentary impotency that with a majority of 150 behind them they could not carry a five-clause Bill if there were added to it one of the two more provisions that were likely to lead to some controversy? [Cheers.] But then, how many more Bills were they going to have? There was the Bill for the Board Schools, the Bill for Secondary Education; there was to be a Scotch Bill, and there was to be an Irish Bill. They should bring in a strong Bill and carry it. [An HON. MEMBSER: "A long Bill?"] He sat there for 30 nights with a small majority behind him, and they carried their Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] When they were half through with their Bill they were told to cut it in half and they would carry it. They refused to drop a line of it, and they carried it with their poor majority of 30 or 40. [Cheers.] Let the Government tell the country the real reason—namely, that they disliked this popular representation, and that they believed it would be injurious to Denominational Schools. [Cheers.]


who rose amid cries of "Gorst," said that the Government had brought in this Bill, and they meant to carry it. The right hon. Gentleman evinced a great disposition to take the management of the Bill out of the hands of the Government, but the Government preferred to retain the management of their own Measure. The right hon. Gentleman said they were at the beginning of a long Debate, and the experience of that evening had enabled them to judge that that was the case. As to the references to the speeches on that side of the House, there were many Gentlemen who would have expressed themselves strongly against this Instruction, but they had abstained from doing that—[cheers and counter cheers]—because by speaking they would be playing into the hands of the Opposition. ["Hear, hear!"] How long the Debate would be if the Instruction were carried he shrank from calculating. There was one touch of humour in the speech of the Member for Nottingham when he spoke of this Instruction as "the olive branch." An olive branch! It was an Instruction which would destroy the Bill. [VOICES: "Why?"] The Opposition were under no illusions with regard to that, and he could wish that some of his hon. Friends were as clear-sighted as the hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was afraid that one or two of his hon. Friends had been under an illusion, and that in airing their views they had been unconsciously playing into the hands of those who wished to destroy the Bill. The terms of the Instruction which he read showed what their object was. The Instruction referred to representation of parents. He would admit that, by voluntary arrangement, in many cases it might be very desirable to have associated with the clergyman and the other managers those who had the confidence of the parents. But would anyone who considered the question seriously say that it was possible to put into the form of an Act of Parliament a provision that such a fluctuating body as the parents of the children should, by election, be represented on the Board of Management?


It is done already in Wales.


Yes, by arrangement.


No, by scheme.


said that it was not done with reference to elementary schools. When the right hon. Member for Bodmin said that it was a figment of the imagination to suppose there was any difficulty in providing for this representation, he was allowing his own imagination to run away with him. [Cheers.] What would be the crop of Amendments which would spring up if such an attempt were made in the Bill? ["Hear, hear!"] The Instruction proceeded to say that there should be representation of local authorities. In many cases this worked admirably, no doubt. That independent gentlemen, resident in the locality, should voluntarily associate themselves with the management of the schools was one thing; but it was quite another thing to say that under the compulsion of the Education Department, acting under Parliamentary instructions, the local authorities were to put representatives on the Boards of Management. Voluntary association often worked admirably; but he was quite convinced that compulsory power given to the local authorities would have an effect the very opposite to that desired by all friends of Voluntary Schools. [Cheers.] It would produce intolerable friction. [Cheers.] The subscriptions to the schools came from the subscribers; the local authorities contributed nothing, and on what principle were they to have the right to representation? He believed that support from the rates would draw after it local control; and he was quite certain that, with any sense of justice, representation of local authorities must draw after it support from the rates. To give representation without support from the rates was a proposition totally inadmissible. [Cheers.] Reference had been made to the vagueness of the Instruction, and he would call attention to its insidious character. There was to be adequate representation of local authorities. What was to be regarded as "adequate representation" I The House was now told that it was representation which would always leave the local authority in the minority. But how long would that last? [Cheers.] Once the principle of compulsory representation admitted, how long would it be before there was a demand that the local authority should have the controlling voice? It was said that there was now abuse of the Conscience Clause. How could that be remedied unless the local authority had the controlling voice as to the appointment and dismissal of teachers? [Cries of "Public opinion."] Public opinion at present controlled these schools. [Cheers and loud cries of "No."] They were carried on under local scrutiny and under the pressure of local public opinion. [Cries of "No" and ironical laughter.] It was very easy to parade in the House a few very exceptional cases of things done which all regretted; but on the whole the management of the Voluntary Schools was carried on in the light of day and in a manner approved of by the public opinion of the House of Commons. [Cheers and cries of "No."]

MR. A. J. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)

What is the case in Scotland? [Cheers.]


said that surely the right hon. Gentleman knew that the School Boards in Scotland had the control of the schools, and contributed out of the rates for their support. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to apply the lessons he had learnt north of the Tweed let him apply them in their entirety. [Cheers.] Now, he would not add to the length of the Debate by elaborating arguments which might be adduced. He had endeavoured to deal with the salient points put forward and emphasised by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He would only, in conclusion, call the attention of the House to the fact that this Instruction was one which, if adopted, would have the effect of wrecking the Bill. But of its being adopted there was not the slightest chance. [Cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite might say that the Instruction was to be thrown out by votes. But he believed that if time permitted of every one of his hon. Friends speaking in the Debate, they would find it would be thrown out, not merely by votes, but by the vastly preponderating opinion of the whole House. [Cheers.]

MR. JOHN BRIGG (York, W.R., Keighley)

said they had listened to no speech in the Debate with more respect than that of the hon. Member for North Islington, in which he urged the House to adopt the principle of the Instruction, leaving to be decided later how it could best be carried out. The difficulties which had been raised as to carrying out the Instruction had been fully met by Members on both sides of the House. There should be popular control of the Voluntary Schools, the management of which was often now anything but what it should be. Better managers were needed. It had been shown conclusively that Board Schools were always willing and able to earn 1s. per head more than Voluntary Schools. Although money was useful in the management of the schools, it was, after all, a question of school management, and for this better provision should be made.

MR. H. J. WILSON (Yorks, W.R., Holmfirth)

remarked that stress had been laid on the fact that in 8,000 parishes in this country there was absolutely no choice for parents in the matter of schools. That was a very moderate statement of the case. Where was there adequate choice? Let them have plenty of room in the Board Schools, and let them see, then, how they would be filled up. In many cases there was no choice whatever. He had been for many years a Member of the School Board for Sheffield, and he had had to sit on the Appeal Committee, before which the question had been raised again and again, Where were the parents to send their children? and he had been obliged to tell parents that they must send them to Roman Catholic schools, because there was nowhere else to send them. Here was an opportunity of ascertaining whether denominational schools were really as popular with the people as hon. Gentlemen opposite averred. But this very moderate proposal that there should be a minority representation of the ratepayers or parents, or of both, was scorned and rejected by the Party opposite. The right hon. Member for Bodmin had tried to extract from the First Lord of the Treasury what was his true position in relation to this matter; but he had failed, in spite of his ingenuity. From the Solicitor General's speech, however, there could be no doubt that the occupants of the Ministerial Bench had a rooted objection to the representation of the parents. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that parents who were compelled to send their children to Voluntary Schools were persons of no importance.


No; I said that the representation of parents was an admirable thing, and could be effected by arrangement, but that to pass a law making it compulsory was impracticable, and would result in mischief. ["Hear, hear!"]


thought that when the hon. and learned Gentleman said that he must have been laughing in his sleeve. Reasonable clerical managers might very possibly welcome the assistance of parents; but how about the cases where they were not reasonable—cases where the parents desired representation and the clergy would not let them have it? They all knew of glaring cases of mismanagement and tyranny and violation of the Conscience Clause. If they referred to such cases in that House, they were at once called upon by hon. Members opposite to give names; but those hon. Members knew quite well that if the names were given, the unhappy victims of clerical tyranny would be made to suffer still more in the future than in the past. Hon. Members of that House had a free choice in regard to their children's schools, but poor people, not only in the 8,000 villages which had been mentioned but in many large towns as well, had no choice at all; and when it was proposed to give them a little representation the Government declared that the idea could not be entertained for a single moment. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite would find that they would be asked in the country how it was that at elections they expressed so much confidence in the people, but when in power refused to grant them any modicum of representation. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Hear, hear!"] The very moderate proposal of the Opposition was scorned and rejected by the Government—[cries of "Divide!" and "Order!"]—who seemed to think that the parents of the children were of no importance.



rose simultaneously. The former having given way,

MR. J. MORLEY (Montrose Burghs)

said: I beg to move that this Debate be now adjourned. [Loud Ministerial cries of "Oh!" and cheers.]


Does any Gentleman second the Motion?


Yes, Sir, I rise to second it. [Renewed interruption and cheers.]


I hope the two right hon. Gentlemen who have associated themselves in so unusual a manner with this Motion—[cheers]—will not think of pressing it upon the House. We have now been discussing this Instruction for a whole night. Two right hon. Gentlemen have spoken from the Front Bench opposite, and two Gentlemen have also spoken from this Front Bench, and, according to the ordinary procedure of the House, had a third Gentleman desired to address us from the Front Opposition Bench he would have risen after my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had spoken, and would have replied to his speech. I never in my whole Parliamentary experience—[cheers]—recollect a course being taken like that which the right hon. Gentlemen opposite have thought fit to take to-night. It is not in accordance with our ordinary practice. I do not like even to suggest that it was done in order unduly to prolong Debate—[cheers]—but, had that been the object which right hon. Gentlemen had in view, I do not know that there was any other course which they could have pursued. A similar Instruction to the one we are now discussing was moved on a somewhat similar ocasion, when my right hon. Friend the Member for the Dartford Division brought in his Hill for free education. It was then said that a grant of 10s. per child—not 5s.—supplied a proper occasion for dealing with the question of popular control. That was an occasion absolutely parallel to the present, and one night was thought sufficient by universal consent for dealing with the Amendment; and I confess I could not be a party to an attempt to prolong the present discussion. [Loud cheers.]

*MR. JOHN ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe),

who spoke amid Ministerial cries of "Divide," said he could give the right hon. Gentleman a good reason why the Debate should be adjourned—on the ground of ordinary Parliamentary procedure, to quote the expression just made use of by the Leader of the House. The House had not heard a word from the Vice President of the Council—["Oh, oh!" and cheers]—and he said they might search "Hansard" through in

vain when a great Education Bill had been before the House to find that the Vice President of the Council, who was the Minister responsible to the House—[cheers]—had never been allowed to open his mouth. [Cheers.]

MR. C. P. SCOTT (Lancashire, Leigh),

who also spoke amid loud cries of "Divide" and interruption, said the more this question was discussed the more the country would be roused to a sense of its importance. [Cheers.] Why had the House been threatened on this occasion with the resignation of the Government? [Ironical laughter.] Was it not because the First Lord of the Treasury knew that he could not trust his supporters? [Cheers and laughter.] They had seen no more remarkable demonstration than that which took place that evening on the other side of the House. It had even taken the Opposition by surprise.


rose just before midnight and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put." [Ministerial cheers.]

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes, 284; Noes, 133.

The announcement of the figures was received with Ministerial cheers.

Division List—No. 48—appended.

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Bethell, Captain Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Allsopp, Hon. George Biddulph, Michael Charrington, Spencer
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Bigham, John Charles Clare, Octavius Leigh
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis Bigwood, James Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bond, Edward Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Baden-Powell, Sir Geo. Smyth Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness) Bousfield, William Robert Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready
Balcarres, Lord Brassey, Albert Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Baldwin, Alfred Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Compton, Lord Alwyne (Beds.)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r) Brown, Alexander H. Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)
Balfour, Gerald William (Leeds) Bucknill, Thomas Townsend Cooke, C. W. Radclift'e (Heref'd)
Banbury, Frederick George Bullard, Sir Harry Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.
Barry, A. H. Smith-(Hunts.) Butcher, John George Cranborne, Viscount
Barry, Francis Tress (Windsor) Campbell, James A. Cripps, Charles Alfred
Bartley, George, C. T. Carew, James Laurence Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)
Bass, Hamar Carlile, William Walter Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Carson, Edward Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc. S. W.)
Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. H. (Bristol) Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) Curzon, Viscount (Bueks.)
Beach, W. W. Brainstem (Hants) Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire) Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Beckett, Ernest William Cecil, Lord Hugh Darling, Charles John
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Davenport, W. Bromley-
Bemrose, Henry Howe Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.) Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r) Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon
Donkin, Richard Sim Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Plunkett, Hon. Horace Curzon
Dorington, Sir John Edward Jenkins, Sir John Jones Pollock, Harry Frederick
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Doxford, William Theodore Johnston, William (Belfast) Purvis, Robert
Drucker, A. Johnstone, John H. (Sussex) Rankin, James
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Kemp, George Rentoul, James Alexander
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Richards, Henry Charles
Fardell, Thomas George Kenrick, William Richardson, Thomas
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W.
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir. T. (Mancr.) Kimber, Henry Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) King, Sir Henry Seymour Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Fielden, Thomas Knowles, Lees Round, James
Finch, George H. Knox, Edmund Francis Vesey Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lafone, Alfred Russell, Sir George (Berksh.)
Fisher, William Hayes Laurie, Lieut.-General Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Fison, Frederick William Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Rutherford, John
FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry) Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Flannery, Fortescue Lecky, William Edward H. Saunderson, Col. Edw. James
Fletcher, Sir Henry Leos, Elliott (Birkenhead) Savory, Sir Joseph
Flower, Ernest Legh, Hon. Thomas W. (Lanc.) Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Folkestone, Viscount Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Seely, Charles Hilton
Forster, Henry William Leighton, Stanley Seton-Karr, Henry
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans'a) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. E. (Essex) Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Fry, Lewis Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Simeon, Sir Harrington
Galloway, William Johnson Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Garfit, William Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Gedge, Sydney Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Smith, Abel (Herts)
Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.) Lorne, Marquess of Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Loyd, Archie Kirkman Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Gilliat, John Saunders Lucas-Shadwell, William Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Godson, Augustus Frederick Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Goldsworthy, Major-General Macaleese, Daniel Stock, James Henry
Gordon, John Edward Macdona, John Gumming Stone, Sir Benjamin
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Maclean, James Mackenzie Strauss, Arthur
Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's) Maclvre, John William Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Goschen, George J. (Sussex) McCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim E.) Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Goulding, Edward Alfred M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.) Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Graham, Henry Robert Molver, Sir Lewis Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) McKillop, James Talbot, John G. (Oxford Univ.)
Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry) Malcolm, Ian Taylor, Francis
Gretton, John Maple, Sir John Blundell Thornton, Percy M.
Greville, Captain Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Tollemache, Henry James
Gull, Sir Cameron Milbank, Powlett Charles John Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Halsey, Thomas Frederick Milton, Viscount Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo. Milward, Colonel Victor Valentia, Viscount
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Monckton, Edward Philip Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Hardy, Laurence Monk, Charles James Warde, Lt.-Col. G. E. (Kent)
Hare, Thomas Leigh Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants) Warkworth, Lord
Haslett, Sir James Horner Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight)
Havelock-Allan, General Sir H. More, Robert Jasper Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Heath, James Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.) Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Heaton, John Henniker Morrell, George Herbert Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter Morrison, Walter Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)
Hickman, Sir Alfred Mount, William George Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arthur (Down) Muntz, Philip A. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)
Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead) Murdoch, Charles Townshend Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Grah'm (Bute) Willox, John Archibald
Hobhouse, Henry Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh Myers, William Henry Wilson, J. W. (Worc'shire, N.)
Hopkinson, Alfred Nicol, Donald Ninian Wodehouse, Edmond R. (Bath)
Hornby, William Henry Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wyndham, George
Houston, R. P. O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Howard, Joseph O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Howell, William Tudor Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Younger, William
Hosier, James Henry Cecil Parkes, Ebenezer
Hudson, George Bickersteth Parnell, John Howard
Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Pease, Arthur (Darlington) TELLERS TOR. THE AYES, Sir
Hutton, John (Yorks. N. B.) Penn, John William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Isaacson, Frederick Wootton Pierpoint, Robert
Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Gilhooly, James Paulton, James Mellor
Acland, Rt. Hon. A. H. Dyke Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Allan, William (Gateshead) Goddard, Daniel Ford Perks, Robert William
Allen, Wm. (Newc. under Lyme) Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Allison, Robert Andrew Griffith, Ellis J. Pirie, Captain Duncan Vernon
Arch, Joseph Haldane, Richard Burdon Price, Robert John
Ashton, Thomas Gair Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)
Atherley-Jones, L. Harrison, Charles Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Garwood George Randell, David
Baker, Sir John Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Reckitt, Harold James
Barlow, John Emmott Hazell, Walter Rickett, J. Compton
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hogan, James Francis Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Holburn, J. G. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Birrell, Augustine Horniman, Frederick John Robson, William Snowdon
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Roche, Hon. James (East Kerry)
Brigg, John Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Broadhurst, Henry Jacoby, James Alfred Schwann, Charles E.
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Jameson, Major J. Eustace Scott, Charles Prestwich
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Burns, John Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea) Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Burt, Thomas Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Souttar, Robinson
Buxton, Sydney Charles Kilbride, Denis Spicer, Albert
Caldwell, James Kitson, Sir James Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Cameron, Robert Labouchere, Henry Stevenson, Francis S.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Lambert, George Strachey, Edward
Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson- Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Causton, Richard Knight Leng, Sir John Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)
Cawley, Frederick Lewis, John Herbert Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Channing, Francis Allston Lloyd-George, David Walton, John Lawson
Clough, Walter Owen Lockwood, Sir Frank (York) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Colville, John Logan, John William Wayman, Thomas
Condon, Thomas Joseph Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Wedderburn, Sir William
Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Dalziel, James Henry McKenna, Reginald Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) McLaren, Charles Benjamin Wills, Sir William Henry
Davies, W. Rees-(Pembrokesh.) McLeod, John Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)
Davitt, Michael Maden, John Henry Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Dixon, George Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Wilson, John (Govan)
Doughty, George Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Woodall, William
Dunn, Sir William Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose) Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hud'rsf'ld)
Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Mundella, Rt. Hn. Anthony John Yoxall, James Henry
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Norton, Captain Cecil William
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Nussey, Thomas Willans TELLERS FOR TUE NOES, Mr.
Foster, Sir Walter. (Derby Co.) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Thomas Ellis and Mr. McArthur
Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir H (Wol'tn) Oldroyd, Mark
Fowler, Matthew (Durham) Owen, Thomas

Question put accordingly, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided:—Ayes, 133; Noes, 283.—(Division List—No. 49—appended).

Abraham, William (Rhondda) Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Caldwell, James
Acland, Rt. Hon. A. H. Dyke Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Cameron, Robert (Durham)
Allan, William (Gateshead) Birrell, Augustine Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.
Allen, Wm. (Newe. under Lyme) Bolton, Thomas Dolling Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-
Allison, Robert Andrew Brigg, John Causton, Richard Knight
Arch, Joseph Broadhurst, Henry Cawley, Frederick
Ashton, Thomas Gair Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Channing, Francis Allston
Atherley-Jones, L. Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Clough, Walter Owen
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Burns, John Colville, John
Baker, Sir John Burt, Thomas Condon, Thomas Joseph
Barlow, John Emmott Buxton, Sydney Charles Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy
Dalziel, James Henry Kitson, Sir James Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) Labouchere, Henry Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Davies, W. Rees-(Pembrokesh.) Lambert, George Robson, William Snowdon
Davitt, Michael Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land) Roche, Hon. James (East Kerry)
Dixon, George Leng, Sir John Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Doughty, George Lloyd-George, David Schwann, Charles E.
Dunn, Sir William Lockwood, Sir Frank (York) Scott, Charles Prestwich
Ellis, John Edward (Notts) Logan, John William Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Ferguson, B. C. Munro (Leith) McKenna, Reginald Souttar, Robinson
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) McLaren, Charles Benjamin Spicer, Albert
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Wol'tn) McLeod, John Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Fowler, Matthew (Durham) Maden, John Henry Stevenson, Francis S.
Gilhooly, James Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Strachey, Edward
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose) Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E)
Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley Mundella, Rt. Hn. Anthony John Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Griffith, Ellis J. Norton, Capt. Cecil William Walton, John Lawson
Haldane, Richard Burdon Nussey, Thomas Willans Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Wayman, Thomas
Harrison, Charles Oldroyd, Mark Wedderburn, Sir William
Harwood, George Owen, Thomas Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Parnell, John Howard Williams, John Carvell (Notts)
Hazell, Walter Paulton, James Mellor Wills, Sir William Henry
Holburn, J. G. Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)
Horniman, Frederick John Perks, Robert William Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Pickersgill, Edward Hare Wilson, John (Govan)
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Pirie, Captain Duncan Vernon Woodall, William
Jacoby, James Alfred Price, Robert John Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Hudd'rsf'ld)
Jameson, Major J. Eustace Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.) Yoxall, James Henry
Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw. Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea) Randell, David TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Mr.
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) Reckitt, Harold James Thomas Ellis and Mr. McArthur
Kilbride, Denis Rickett, J. Compton
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Brown, Alexander H. Darling, Charles John
Allsopp, Hon. George Bucknill, Thomas Townsend Davenport, W. Bromley
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Bullard, Sir Harry Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis Butcher, John George Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Campbell, James A. Dorington, Sir John Edward
Baden-Powell, Sir Geo. Smyth Carew, James Laurence Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Carlile, William Walter Doxford, William Theodore
Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness) Carson, Edward Drucker, A.
Balcarres, Lord Cavendish, R. E. (N. Lanes.) Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.
Baldwin, Alfred Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire) Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r) Cecil, Lord Hugh Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton
Balfour, Gerald William (Leeds) Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Eardell, Thomas George
Banbury, Frederick George Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.) Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Barry, A. H. Smith-(Hunts.) Chamberlain, J. Austen,(Worc'r) Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manch.)
Barry, Francis Tress (Windsor) Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)
Bartley, George C. T. Charrington, Spencer Fielden, Thomas
Bass, Hamar Clare, Octavius Leigh Finch, George H.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth) Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Fisher, William Hayes
Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants.) Cohen, Benjamin Louis Fison, Frederick William
Beckett, Ernest William Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse FitzGerald, Sir E. U. Penrose
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Flannery, Fortescue
Bemrose, Henry Howe Colston, Chas. Edw, H. Athole Fletcher, Sir Henry
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Compton, Lord Alwyne (Beds.) Flower, Ernest
Bethell, Commander Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Folkestone, Viscount
Biddulph, Michael Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Horef'd) Forster, Henry William
Bigham, John Charles Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H. Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)
Bigwood, James Cranbourne, Viscount Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)
Bond, Edward Cripps, Charles Alfred Fry, Lewis
Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Galloway, William Johnson
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Garfit, William
Bousfield, William Robert Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc. S. W.) Gedge, Sydney
Brassey, Albert Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Dalrymple, Sir Charles Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)
Gilliat, John Saunders Legh, Hon. Thomas W. (Lanc.) Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson
Godson, Augustus Frederick Leigh-Bennett. Henry Carrie Rollit, Sir Albert Kayo
Goldsworthy, Major-General Leighton, Stanley Round, James
Gordon, John Edward Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans'a) Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. (Essex) Russell, Sir George (Berksh.)
Goschen, Rt. Hon. G. J. (St. G'rg's) Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Rutherford, John
Goulding, Edward Alfred Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool) Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Graham, Henry Robert Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Saunderson, Col. Edw. James
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Lorne, Marquess of Savory, Sir Joseph
Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry) Loyd, Archie Kirkman Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Gretton, John Lucas-Shadwell, William Seely, Charles Hilton
Greville, Captain Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Seton-Karr, Henry
Gull, Sir Cameron Macaleese, Daniel Sharpe, William Edward T.
Halsey, Thomas Frederick Macdona, John Cumming Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo. Maclean, James Mackenzie Simeon, Sir Barrington
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Maclure, John William Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Hardy, Laurence McCalmont, Co). J. (Antrim, E.) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Hare, Thomas Leigh M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.) Smith, Abel (Herts.)
Haslett, Sir James Horner McIver, Sir Lewis Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Havelock-Allan, General Sir H. McKillop, James Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Heath, James Malcolm, Ian Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Heaton, John Henniker Maple, Sir John Blundell Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Stock, James Henry
Hickman, Sir Alfred Milbank, Powlett Charles John Stone, Sir Benjamin
Hill, Rt. Hon. Ld. Arthur (Down) Milton, Viscount Strauss, Arthur
Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead) Milward, Colonel Victor Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Monckton, Edward Philip Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Hobhouse, Henry Monk, Charles James Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh Montagu, I Ion. J. Scott (Hants.) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Hopkinson, Alfred Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Talbot, John G. (Oxford Univ.)
Hornby, William Henry More, Robert Jasper Taylor, Francis
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Moirm'thsh.) Thornton, Percy M.
Houston, R. P. Morrell, George Herbert Tollemache, Henry James
Howard, Joseph Morrison, Waller Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Howell, William Tudor Mount, William George Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hozier, James Henry Cecil Muntz, Philip A. Valentia, Viscount
Hudson, George Bickersteth Murdoch, Charles Townshend Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute) Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Warkworth, Lord
Isaacson, Frederick Wootton Myers, William Henry Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Nicol, Donald Ninian Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford Wentworth, Bruce O. Vernon-
Jenkins, Sir John Jones O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)
Johnston, William (Belfast) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Johnstone, John H. (Sussex) Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Parkes, Ebenezer Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Kemp, George Pease, Arthur (Darlington) Willox, John Archibald
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Penn, John Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Kenrick, William Pierpoint, Robert Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh. N.)
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Platt-Higgins, Frederick Wodehouse, Edmond R, (Hath)
Kimber, Henry Plunkett, Hon. Horace Curzon Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
King, Sir Henry Seymour Pollock, Harry Frederick Wyndham, George
Knowles, Lees Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Knox, Edmund Francis Vesey Purvis, Robert Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Lafone, Alfred Rankin, James Younger, William
Laurie, Lieut.-General Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Rentoul, James Alexander TEILERS FOU THE NOES, Sir
Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry) Richards, Henry Charles William Walrond and Mr.
Lecky, William Edward H. Richardson, Thomas Anstruther.
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Ridley Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W.

claimed, "That the Original Question be now put."

Original Question put accordingly, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert Clause-, in the Bill with a view to making provision for insuring adequate representation of local authorities or parents on the management of the schools in receipt of the aid grant."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

The House divided:—Ayes, 134; Noes, 270.—(Division List—No. 50—appended.)

Abraham, William (Rhondda) Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Acland, Rt. Hon. A. H. Dyke Fowler, Rt. In. Sir H. (Wol'h'tn) Perks, Robert William
Allan, William (Gateshead) Fowler, Matthew (Durham) Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Allen, W. (Newc.-under-Lyme.) Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Pirie, Captain Duncan Vernon
Allison, Robert Andrew Goddard, Daniel Ford Price, Robert John
Arch, Joseph Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Griffith, Ellis J. Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Atherley-Jones, L. Haldane, Richard Burdon Randell, David
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William Reckitt, Harold James
Baker, Sir John Harrison, Charles Rickett, J. Compton
Barlow, John Emmott Harwood, George Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Bartley, George C. T. Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hazell, Walter Robson, William Snowdon
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Holburn, J. G. Roche, Hon. James (East Kerry)
Birrell, Augustine Horniman, Frederick John Rollit, Sir Albert K.
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Brigg, John Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Schwann, Charles E.
Broadhurst, Henry Jacoby, James Alfred Scott, Charles (Prestwich)
Brunner, Sir John Thomas Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea) Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Burns, John Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Souttar, Robinson
Burt, Thomas Kilbride, Denis Spicer, Albert
Buxton, Sydney Charles Kitson, Sir James Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Caldwell, James Labouchere, Henry Stevenson, Francis S.
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Lambert, George Strachey, Edward
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb.) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson- Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry) Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)
Causton, Richard Knight Long, Sir John Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Cawley, Frederick Lewis, John Herbert Walton, John Lawson
Channing, Francis Allston Lloyd-George, David Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Clough, Walter Owen Lookwood, Sir Frank (York) Wayman, Thomas
Colville, John Logan, John William Wedderburn, Sir William
Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H. Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy McKenna, Reginald Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Me Laren, Charles Benjamin Wills, Sir William Henry
Dalziel, James Henry McLeod, John Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) Maden, John Henry Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Davies, W. Rees-(Pembrokesh.) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Davitt, Michael Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Wilson, John (Govan)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose Woodall, William
Dixon, George Mundella, Rt. Hon Anthony John Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rsf Id.
Doughty, George Norton, Capt. Cecil William Yoxall, James Henry
Dunn, Sir William Nussey, Thomas Willans TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Mr.
Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Oldroyd, Mark Thomas Ellis and Mr. McArthur.
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Owen, Thomas
Ferguson, E. C. Munro (Leith) Paulton, James Mellor
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Beckett, Ernest William Carew, James Laurence
Allsopp, Hon. George Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull Carlile, William Walter
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Bemrose, Henry Howe Carson, Edward
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)
Atkinson, Right Hon. John Bethell, Commander Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)
Baden-Powell, Sir Geo. Smyth Biddulph, Michael Cecil, Lord Hugh
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Bigham, John Charles Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.
Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness) Bigwood, James Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)
Balcarres, Lord Bond, Edward Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)
Baldwin, Alfred Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r) Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Charrington, Spencer
Balfour, Gerald William (Leeds) Bousfield, William Robert Clare, Octavius Leigh
Banbury, Frederick George Brassey, Albert Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)
Barry, A. H. Smith-(Hunts.) Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Barry, Francis Tress (Windsor) Brown, Alexander H. Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Bass, Hamar Bucknill, Thomas Townsend Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Bullard, Sir Harry Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brstl) Butcher, John George Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants) Campbell, James A. Compton, Lord Alwyne (Beds)
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Howell, William Tudor Parnell, John Howard
Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heraf'd) Hozier, James Henry Cecil Pease, Arthur (Darlington)
Cranborne, Viscount Hudson, George Bickersteth Penn, John
Cripps, Charles Alfred Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Pierpoint, Robert
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc. S. W.) Isaacson, Frederick Wootton Plunkett, Hon. Horace Curzon
Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Pollock, Harry Frederick
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Darling, Charles John Jenkins, Sir John Jones Purvis, Robert
Davenport, W. Bromley- Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Rankin, James
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Johnston, William (Belfast) Rentoul, James Alexander
Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon Johnstone, John H. (Sussex) Richards, Henry Charles
Dorington, Sir John Edward Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Richardson, Thomas
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Kemp, George Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W.
Doxford, William Theodore Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson
Drucker, A. Kenrick, William Round, James
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Russell, (Jen. F. S. (Cheltenham)
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Kimber, Henry Russell, Sir George (Berkshire)
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton King, Sir Henry Seymour Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Fardell, Thomas George Knowles, Lees Rutherford, John
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Knox, Edmund Francis Vesey Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc) Lafone, Alfred Saunderson, Col. Ewd. James
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne Laurie, Lieut.-General Savory, Sir Joseph
Fielden, Thomas Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Finch, George H. Lecky, William Edward H. Seely, Charles Hilton
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Seton-Karr, Henry
Fisher, William Hayes Legh, Hon. Thomas W. (Lanc.) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Fison, Frederick William Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose Heighten, Stanley Simeon, Sir Barrington
Flannery, Fortescue Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swns'a) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Fletcher, Sir Henry Lock-wood, H.-Col. A. R. (Essex) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Flower, Ernest Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Smith, Abel (Herts.)
Folkestone, Viscount Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Forster, Henry William Long, Rt. Hn. Waller (Liverpool) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) Lorne, Marquess of Stanley, Edwd. Jas. (Somerset)
Galloway, William Johnson Loyd, Archie Kirkman Stock, James Henry
Garfit, William Lucas-Shadwell, William Stone, Sir Benjamin
Gedge, Sydney Macaleese, Daniel Strauss, Arthur
Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond. Macdona, John Cumming Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Maclean, James Mackenzie Start, Hon. Humphry Napier
Gilliat, John Saunders Maclure, John William Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Godson, Augustus Frederick McCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E. Talbot Lord E. (Chichester)
Goldsworthy, Major-General M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.) Talbot, John G. (Oxford Univ.)
Gordon, John Edward Mclver, Sir Lewis Taylor, Francis
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon McKillop, James Thornton, Percy M.
Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's) Malcolm, Ian Tollemache, Henry James
Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Maple, Sir John Blundell Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Goulding, Edward Alfred Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Tritton, Charles Ernest
Graham, Henry Robert Milbank, Powlett Charles John Valentia, Viscount
Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry) Milton, Viscount Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Gretton, John Milward, Colonel Victor Ward, Lt.-Col. G E. (Kent)
Greville, Captain Monckton, Edward Philip Warkworth, Lord
Gull, Sir Cameron Monk, Charles James Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight)
Halsey, Thomas Frederick Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants) Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. G E.
Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo. Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon -
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. More, Robert Jasper Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Hardy, Laurence Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Momn'thsh.) Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)
Hare, Thomas Leigh Morrell, George Herbert Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Haslett, Sir James Horner Morrison, Walter Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Havelock-Allan, General Sir H. Mount, William George Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Heath, James Muntz, Philip A. Willox, John Archibald
Heaton, John Henniker Murdoch, Charles Townshend Wodehouse, Edmond R. (Bath)
Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Hickman, Sir Alfred Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wyndham, George
Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arthur (Down) Myers, William Henry Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead) Nicol, Donald Ninian Yerburgh, Thomas Armstrong
Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford
Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) TELLERS FOR THE NOES Sir
Hornby, William Henry O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) William Walrond and Mr.
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Anstruther.
Houston, R. P. Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Howard, Joseph Parkes, Ebenezer

Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 1,—

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.