§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [24th May], "That the Bill be now Read the Third time."
§ Question again proposed:—Debate resumed.
§ MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHprotested against the rushing through of this Bill, —[laughter]—not to correct any departmental mistake, but to satisfy an ecclesiastical interest. Of the 20 persons who signed the petition 12 had been induced by fraud to affix their names. Only eight names remained, so that there was no irregularity, and the scheme need not have been laid before Parliament. In the circumstances the House ought not to, pass a Bill which was fraught with injury to the inhabitants of the district, and especially to the children.
*MR. WILLIAM JUNESsaid that the scheme as it originally stood was almost unanimously desired in the educational interests of the district. It was a well-known fact that 12 men had signed a 793 petition against it, because it was misrepresented to them that a new rate would be levied in consequence of the passing of the scheme. The joint Educational Committee of the county of Montgomery, composed of three Churchmen and two Nonconformists, had received absolutely no evidence against the original scheme. ["Hear, hear!"] Out of 381 County Council electors in Berriew, while 14 had refused to sign, and 18 had not been asked, all the rest had signed a petition against this Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] This clearly proved the Bill is diametrically opposed to the wishes of those who knew the educational needs and interests of the parish best. [cheers.]
§ Question put. The House divided:— Ayes, 129; Noes, 46.—(Division List, No. 256.)
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed.