Commons Sitting of 7 July 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LEICESTERSHIRE AND WARWICKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  BRISTOL WATER BILL [LORDS].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL [LORDS.]
  Second Reading postponed under Order [1st May] till Thursday, at the evening sitting, by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  BARROW HAEMATITE STEEL COMPANY, LIMITED, BILL [LORDS].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  GREAT NORTHERN AND STRAND RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
  Second Reading postponed under Order [1st May] till Thursday, at the evening sitting, by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRAMWAYS BILL [LORDS].
  Read a second time and committed.
  NORTH-WEST LONDON RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
  Second Reading postponed under Order [1st May] till Thursday at the Evening Sitting, by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  SADDLEWORTH AND SPRINGHEAD TRAMWAYS BILL [LORDS].
  Read a second time and committed.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
  Read the third time and passed.
  ROTHESAY TRAMWAYS (EXTENSION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Considered; to be read the third time tomorrow.
  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS].
  Read a second time and committed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to

  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.

  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.

  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.

  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill.

  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.

  North British Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill, without Amendment.

  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housing of Working Classes) Bill.

  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Housing of Working Classes) (No. 2) Bill.

  Commercial Gas Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Stonehaven Town Hall." [Stonehaven Town Hall Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 9).
  MR. DE TATTON EGERTONreported from the Committee on Group 9 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Wednesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—

  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.

  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill.

  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill.

  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill.

  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill.

  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill.

  Local Government Provisional Order (No.15) Bill.

  Local Government Provisional Order (Gas) Bill.

  Local Government Provisional Orders (Housing of Working Classes) Bill.

  Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) Bill, without Amendment.

  Great Central Railway Bill, with Amendments.

  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Education, under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900, to enable the School Board for London to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts." [Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill] [Lords].

  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 263.]
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders, included in the Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Water Orders Confirmation Bill."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
PETITIONS.
  BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; from Halifax; Huddersfield; Kimpton; Hexton; and, Pembroke; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Leith, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Stratford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIGHTHOUSES) BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2839 to 2843 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ANCIENT LAWS AND INSTITUTES OF IRELAND (COMMISSION FOR PUBLICATION) (BREHON LAW).
  Copy presented, of the Report of the Commissioners for the publication of the Ancient Laws and Institutes of Ireland, dated 18th June 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 4th July; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 261.]
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 4th July; Mr. Gerald Balfour] to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 262.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Woolwich Postmen's Pay.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFOED: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the postmen at Woolwich are the only public servants in that borough who are treated in regard to pay as if they were serving outside of the Metropolitan area, their rate of pay being lower than that paid to the established postmen at Blackheath and Greenwich. And whether, considering that the cost of house rent and of living generally is as high in Woolwich as in other parts of the Metropolis, he will take into consideration the case of the Woolwich postmen, and have them placed on the same footing as regards pay and other conditions as postmen serving in other parts of the Metropolitan area.
  (Answer.) Woolwich is not in the Metropolitan postal district, but the postmen are paid higher wages than are given in some parts of that district, and fully as high wages as at other towns where the conditions are similar. Applications from the postmen for an increase have already received consideration, but no special circumstances have been found to exist entitling them to more favourable treatment.—(Post Office.)

  Post Office "Superior Duties"—Case of Mr. Stanton, Paddington District Office.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has had under consideration the case of Mr. Stanton, a sorter employed at the Paddington District Office, who claimed the allowance for performing a superior duty, granted as a result of the Norfolk-Hanbury Conference; and, seeing that this officer's annual leave has been deducted from the time he served on a superior duty in order to reduce it below the length of time necessary to enable him to claim the allowance, that the Postmaster General has declared that annual leave does not break the continuity of service upon a superior duty, and that Mr. Stanton has fulfilled the
  914
  conditions laid down by the Norfolk-Hanbury Conference, whether he will see that this officer is paid the amount due to him.
  (Answer.) The case was carefully considered by the Postmaster General, and he regrets that he is unable to alter his decision that Mr. Stanton is not entitled to additional pay for the period. His decision was communicated in the following terms:—
  "In the case of an officer employed as substitute on superior duties the period during which the officer is absent from official duty on annual leave is not reckoned as a break when calculating the period of his performance of a superior duty provided he performed the duty before and after the absence. He must, however, actually perform a superior duty for nine months exclusive of such absence before he becomes entitled to any allowance."
  Mr. Stanton's case did not comply with these conditions, and he cannot therefore be given any allowance.—(Post Office.)

  Review of Colonial Troops-Traffic Regulations.
  MR. CUBITT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why persons on horseback were stopped by the police on Wednesday last, 2nd July, from passing down Constitution Hill, and standing behind the spectators in the Mall to witness the passing of the troops and Royal processions from Buckingham Palace to the Horse Guards Parade, when they had allowed this on the previous day. And will he state why no notice of their intention was given in the evening papers of 1st July or morning papers of 2nd July, so that persons affected might have made other arrangements.
  (Answer). The entire line of route was held each day by the military authorities, and the police were only there to render assistance, and regulate the traffic outside the military lines. It was understood that they were to stop traffic on the line of route, and this was done on both days. Such notice as is suggested in the last paragraph is not published in the papers.—(Home Office.)

  Albert Medal—Rule as to Recommendations.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD:—To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the rule governing the award of the Albert Medal, viz., that such

  915
  award shall be made only on the recommendation of the President of the Board of Trade, still holds good; and whether he can do anything to obtain for the Board of Admiralty the power to recommend directly for the medal, any one serving in the Fleet who may have performed an act of gallantry which they think worthy of this decoration.
  (Answer.) The rule governing the a ward of the Albert Medal is not correctly stated by the noble Lord, as he will see by referring to page 799 of the Quarterly Navy List. By Her late Majesty's Warrant of the 12th March 1891, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty are placed in precisely the same position as the President of the Board of Trade as regards the initiation of recommendations for the Albert Medal for saving life at sea, and in both cases the formal recommendation is submitted to the Sovereign through the Home Secretary, as Principal Secretary of State. No change in this mode of procedure is in contemplation.—(Admiralty.)

  Scottish Congested Districts—Improved Communication in Zetland.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been directed to the petition from the County of Zetland and Burgh of Lerwick praying for increased facilities of communication; and if the Congested Districts Board will come to the assistance of the petitioners.
  (Answer.) The attention of the Secretary for Scotland has been called to the memorial referred to by the honourable Member, but his Lordship cannot recommend the Congested Districts Board to commence a policy of giving subsidies of such amount as is involved in carrying out the suggestions made in the memorial.—(Scottish Office.)

  India—Deposition of the Maharajah of Panna.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet considered the advisability of laying upon the Table of the House Papers relative to,' the recent deposition of the Maharajah of Panna.
  916
  (Answer.) I do not, myself, think it advisable to publish the Papers in question, but I will not refuse if there is a general wish on the part of the House that they should be published.—(India Office.)

  Sara Ghat Ferry.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the name and address of the authority in India to whom questions affecting Sara Ghat Ferry should be addressed.
  (Answer.) The Sara Ghat Ferry is worked in connection with the Eastern Bengal State Railway. The manager of that railway is stationed at Calcutta.—(India Office.)

  Darjeeling Court Arrangements.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the name and address of the authority in India to whom complaints in regard to Law Court arrangements at Darjeeling should be addressed.
  (Answer.) I have no doubt that a communication addressed to the Judicial Secretary to the Government of Bengal on the subject would receive attention.—(India Office.)

  Poor Law Medical Officers in the Highlands.
  MR. CATHCARTWASON: To ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been directed to the fact that in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland Poor Law Medical Officers have repeatedly brought under the attention of the Government the circumstances of their position as compared with medical officers holding similar appointments in England and Ireland; and if the Government will propose any legislation to improve their position.
  (Answer.) The Secretary for Scotland is not at present prepared to legislate in the direction suggested by the hon. Member.—(Scottish Office.)

  Hampton Court Palace— care of Pictures.
  MR. NEWDIGATE: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will state who is responsible for the arranging

  917
  and general supervision of the pictures in Hampton Court Palace. And whether the Government will give sufficient pecuniary assistance as will enable those responsible for the pictures in question to place them in the same state of preservation as the pictures in the National and other Galleries and Royal Palaces.
  (Answer.) The King's Surveyor of pictures is primarily responsible for the arranging and general supervision of the pictures. Such sums as he has asked for have been inserted in the annual Estimates of my Department. The restoration of these pictures can only be carried out gradually, as the work is one for experts, whose hands are full, and it could avail nothing to call upon Parliament to Vote annually larger amounts than those now provided—(Office of Works.)

  Education Bill—Equivalent Grants — Position of Ireland.
  MR. MACARTNEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state whether it is the intention of the Government to apply the Irish equivalent of the Educational Grant of £900,000 to educational purposes in Ireland; and, if not, to what purposes it is to be devoted.
  (Answer.) It was decided by Parliament in 1897 that educational expenditure could not be dealt with by way of equivalent grants specifically allocated to that purpose, irrespective of existing educational needs and facilities. But as the proposed changes in the English Education Bill will involve a considerable additional charge on the common exchequer for English purposes it will be necessary for His Majesty's Government to consider what may be the requirements of Ireland for further expenditure either in the matter of education or for other objects, and to make reasonable proposals to Parliament for meeting them. I shall not be able to make any further announcement until there has been sufficient time for such a full examination of the subject as its importance demands.—(Irish Office.)

  Irish Resident Magistrates—Appointment of Mr. Harrel.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what explanation, if any, has he to give for his selection of Mr. Harrel, whose appointment as resident magistrate only dates from 1900, to form one of the court of two resident magistrates to try cases under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and why has Mr. Harrel been sent to various parts of Ireland for the trial of such cases.
  (Answer.) Mr. Harrel, resident magistrate, was appointed to the County Roscommon two years ago. He has not since been called upon to discharge any duty outside the jurisdiction originally assigned to him. He acted as a member of Crimes Courts at Ballinlough, 20th December, 1901; at French Park, 8th January, 1902; at Ballaghadereen, 18th February, 1902; at Loughglynn, 26th February, 1902; at Ballyhaunis, 2nd June, 1902; at French Park, 25th June, 1902; all these Courts are within his particular district. On two occasions, namely, at Ballymote, on 24th April, 1902, and at Sligo, on 6th June, 1902, he was ordered to assist in the formation of a Crimes Court outside his own district, but within his original jurisdiction. On these occasions he was detailed for duty in accordance with the ordinary necessities of the public service. As regards the Sligo case, Mr. Henn, the resident magistrate of the district in which the offences charged against the hon. Member for North Leitrim were alleged to have been committed, would naturally, in ordinary circumstances, have formed one of the Court recently constituted at Sligo. Mr. Henn's relations with the hon. Member have, for some time past, been such as to make it undesirable that he should act as one of the Court. The same observation applies to two other resident magistrates near to Sligo, and it was thought desirable, therefore, to send two resident magistrates unconnected with the district.—(Irish Office.)

  Prosecution of Irish Publicans for serving Habitual Drunkards.
  MR. M'GOVERN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having

  919
  regard to the fact that licensed persons who supply habitual drunkards with drink are rarely prosecuted in Ireland, will he direct the attention of the Royal Irish Constabulary to the Licensing Act, with a view to the provisions being put into operation.
  (Answer.) During the past year, 215 persons were prosecuted throughout Ireland for breaches, of the law in this respect. Of these, 139 were convicted. The attention of the constabulary is about to be specially directed to the matter.—(Irish Office.)

  3rd Kent R. G. A. Volunteers—Equipment—Camp Allowances—Range-finders.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: To ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the 3rd Kent (Royal Arsenal) Royal Garrison Artillery (Volunteers) are equipped with 16-pounder R. M. L. guns, whether 15-pounder B. L. guns will be substituted; and, seeing that the railway expenses are paid for taking horses to and fro when the corps goes into camp, and the expenses of forage whilst the corps is in camp, whether the grant made to the corps on account of going into camp covers the actual expenditure; can he State the annual cost to the corps of training drivers and non-commissioned officers in equitation, and the grant the Government makes towards defraying this cost; and will he explain why the range-finder of the corps is the telemeter, the use of which has been discontinued in the Regular Army.
  (Answer.) This regiment will in due course be equipped with modern guns, but no pledge can be given as to any particular nature of gun. A grant of £100 is given to cover the expense of procuring the horses and transport, including drivers, and is considered sufficient under existing circumstances. I am net aware of the detailed expenditure of this grant. As regards telemeters, they are still in use in the British Army and are preferred by some battery commanders to any other service range-finder.—(War Office.)

  Ordnance College, Woolwich—Students' Allowances.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant to
  920
  students at the Ordnance College, Woolwich, the same extra allowances which are already granted to students at the Staff College.
  (Answer.) I am prepared to consider the grant if it can be clearly shown that an increase in allowances is absolutely required by the officers referred to.—(War Office.)

  Rifle Ranges.
  MR. TANKERVILLE CHAMBER-LAYNE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the advisability of making an appeal to the landowners in Great Britain, to provide, so far as they can, facilities for rifle practice on their properties.
  (Answer.) I should be very glad to take any steps which would lead to generous action by landowners in regard to rifle ranges. We are met by great difficulties in the matter; in almost every case we find we have to combat local feeling as to temporary closure of roads and footpaths; but my experience is that better results are obtained by the individual efforts of Colonels interested in local corps than by any appeal from the War Office to meet what is a question of great national importance.—(War Office.)

  South Africa—Irrigation.
  Colonel WILLIAMS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is in the Colonial Office any Report on the possibilities of irrigation in, South Africa; and, if so, will he lay it upon the Table.
  (Answer.) I have a Report by Mr. W. Willcocks, copies of which I will cause to be placed in the library.—(Colonial Office.)

  Censorship.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state how the censorship which was established owing to the war in South Africa now stands in respect of letters and other documents passing in the mail bags to British South Africa, or from the same; letters and other documents

  921
  passing in the mail bags within South Africa itself; telegrams passing over the cables to and from South Africa, or within South Africa itself;-newspapers or other publications appearing or circulating in South Africa; and when such censorship as exists may be expected to cease.
  (Answer.) Censorship of private letters, telegrams, and cablegrams to and from South Africa has been removed. Press telegrams and journals published in South Africa remain subject to censorship for the present.—(War Office.)

  Transport—Treatment of Colonial Contingent on the "Rome."
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will explain why the men of the Colonial contingent who were brought from Australia in the P. and O. ship "Rome" were ordered by the captain of the ship to scrub the decks; and if 'the Government, having paid third-class fares for the men, has demanded some compensation from the Company for such an order.
  (Answer.) This matter is entirely one for the Commonwealth Government. The arrangements for the transport of the Australian contingent were made by them, and the Minister of Defence, who was on board the "Rome" from Adelaide to Port Said, states that he never heard anything of such an order being given, and that certainly no complaint was made to him. He states further that the men were well and happy on board, and as far as he could ascertain were well satisfied. If any dissatisfaction had existed he must have heard of it.—(Colonial Office.)

  Jameson Raid — Colonial Office and Chartered Company—Hawksley Correspondence.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the terms of the private assurance given by the Colonial Office to the Chartered Company in May 1896 that the Charter would not be affected by the Jameson Raid transaction, and the conditions on which that assurance was given.
  922
  (Answer.) The only private assurance of which I have any knowledge is the one contained in the late Mr. Fairfield's letter to Mr. Hawksley, dated 6th May, 1896, and published in the Indépendence Belge. I have already said, in answer to the Member for Mid-Glamorgan on 1st February, 1900, that I do not think I ever saw this letter at the time, although I have no doubt that it was written by my instructions. The letter speaks for itself, and I have no knowledge of any conditions other than therein stated. I must point out that the assurance in regard to the charter was confined to the statement of the fact that Her late Majesty's Government did not intend to take any steps regarding it, pending an inquiry, if one was held. It is not the case that Mr. Beit's resignation was insisted on in May 1896. The Secretary of State refused to advise the company as to their decision, which he considered was one of which they must take the full responsibility. It is the fact that Mr. Fairfield, in a letter to Mr. Hawksley dated 7th May, asked that the qualified assurance referred to above should be considered as withdrawn if the acceptances of the resignations offered by Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Beit were not immediately published. The Colonial Office received, on the 16th May last minutes of the Board meetings, which are regularly transmitted to the Secretary of State, from which it appeared that the Board had resolved to invite Mr. Beit to rejoin it. No other communication on the subject has been made to the Colonial Office, officially or unofficially.—(Colonial Office.)

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  South Africa—Civil Administration of the New Colonies.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he proposes this session to introduce a Supplementary Estimate for Civil Administration in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies; and, if so, for what amount.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. chamberlain,): The answer is in the negative.
  MR. BLACK: Is the Government satisfied that the ordinary revenue of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies will be sufficient for the police and the army of occupation?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That does not arise out of the previous Question. If we thought it necessary to ask for more money, of course we should do so.

  Cape Constitution.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, who had the following Question on the Paper—"To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government contemplates any change in the constitution of the self-governing colony of the Cape"—said: The anxiety we have felt on this subject has been satisfactorily relieved by the circulation of the despatch of the Colonial Secretary on Saturday. Therefore, I will not put the Question unless the right hon. Gentleman may have something to add not contained in the despatch.
  [No response was made.]

  Surrenders of Boers.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has now any information relating to the total number of Boers who have surrendered under the terms of settlement arranged by Lord Kitchener, and whether he will state at the same time the last estimate supplied to him by the Intelligence Department of the total number of Boers in the field prior to the settlement.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE for WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Complete information as to the number of Boers who have surrendered has not yet reached this Department. The latest Return gives a total of 16,620 for the Transvaal and Orange River Colony; the numbers in Cape Colony being not yet known. The last estimate sent by the Intelligence Department in South Africa was dated 31st May, and gave the number of Boers with their commandos in the field as 8,900.

  Compensation for Deceased Soldiers' Relatives and Wounded Soldiers.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary
  924
  of State for War if he will state the principle upon which compensation is given to the widows and orphans of soldiers who have lost their lives in the recent South African War, and to those soldiers who have been maimed or injured in this war.
  MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member will find the information he requires in the Pay Warrant and Army Order, 150, of 1901.

  Transport—War Medal for Officers and Men of the Mercantile Marine.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: On behalf of the noble Lord the Member-for Woolwich, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the grant of the war medal for the South African War, now concluded, will be extended to those of the Mercantile Marine who were employed by the Transport Department during the war; whether, if so, the precedent established after the Egyptian War of 1882, when the medal was conferred on masters of transports only, will be extended so that the grant may include all officers and men of the-Mercantile Marine employed by the Transport Department; and whether, if the medal is not to be granted to those officers and men of the Mercantile Marine employed by the Transport Department, he will state why these non-combatants are to be treated on a different footing to the other non-combatants on whom the medal has been, or will be, conferred.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): I fear I can only refer the noble Lord to the answer given by me to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks on the 17th June.† The matter to which the Question, refers concerns several Departments, and, though it is under consideration, no final decision has yet been arrived at.

  Portugal and the Conveyance of Stores through Beira—Action of the Chartered Company.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, on 23rd February, 1900, a letter was addressed by the War Office to the
  †See preceding Volume, p. 834.

  925
  Directors of the Chartered Company, stating that Portugal had yielded to the demands of Her Majesty's Government relating to the conveyance of stores through Beira; and whether he will lay all correspondence relating to this matter upon the Table of the House.
  MR. BRODRICK: Correspondence, diplomatic and otherwise, took place on this subject, but I am not prepared to lay it on the Table.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, on 3rd February, 1900, the Foreign Office wrote to the Directors of the Chartered Company that the Portuguese Government? had refused to allow railway material to pass through their territory to Rhodesia, and had declared the same to be contraband of war; whether, on 10th February, Mr. Wilson Fox, of the Chartered Company, wrote to Sir R. Knox, enclosing notes of a conversation between Mr. Bertie, of the Foreign Office, and himself on this, subject; and whether he will state the nature of the demand made by His Majesty's Government on the Portuguese Government.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): In reply to the hon. Gentleman, it is sufficient to say that no demand was made on the Government of Portugal, and that the material referred to was allowed to cross Portuguese territory as soon as the circumstances of the case had been explained to the Portuguese Minister by Lord Salisbury.
  MR. MARKHAM: Will the noble Lord answer the first part of ray Question, as to whether the Foreign Office wrote to the Directors of the Chartered Company?
  LORD CRANBORNE: I am sorry I cannot add anything to my answer, as this has relation to various correspondence not of a public character.

  Sandhurst—Incendiary Fires and Disturbances—Indiscriminate Punishment of Cadets.
  MR. GUEST: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the recent rustication
  926
  of twenty-nine cadets from the Royal Military College for an offence for which no evidence of their complicity has been adduced, he will consider the advisability of returning them their fees for the term and of granting them or their parents some indemnity, and of taking steps to prevent any injury to their professional careers from this rustication.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: At the same time, may I ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, because of the outbreak of certain fires at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, the whole of the cadets have been punished for the purpose of securing the detection of the offender; will he say what reasons there were for supposing that all the cadets so penalised were accessory to the offence; by whose initiative this action was taken; and whether this punishment had the sanction of the Commander-in-Chief; and whether, in view of the fact that another fire has lately occurred, in consequence of which twenty-nine cadets have been punished, he will say what proof is forthcoming of their complicity, and on what principles these cadets were selected.
  MR. BRODRICK: I will reply to both these Questions at the same time. The facts as to the punishments of cadets at the Royal Military College are as follow:—Two fires occurred, on 30th April and 7th May, in chests of drawers belonging to the cadets in "C" Company Block. In consequence, the Commander-in-Chief, on 10th June, restricted leave, pending the detection of the offenders. On 11th June, in consequence of this, the cadets broke bounds in the evening and created a disturbance, an offence which rendered all liable to rustication. The Commander-in-Chief, however, decided only to rusticate two corporals, who had been leaders in the disturbance, and restricted leave of the remaining cadets implicated. On 23rd June leave was restored. On 25th June a fresh fire was found in the same-block lit in the bed of a cadet, whose room had been entered by various cadets within half an hour before the fire was discovered, although an official had been specially set to watch the passage. The Commander-in-Chief, for the safety of the College, and to preserve discipline among the cadets, considered it necessary to take stringent measures to prevent the

  927
  recurrence of these disorders. The action taken involves twenty-nine cadets in "C" Company, in whose block all the fires occurred, thirty-one others having been able to prove an alibi on the last occasion. The cadets now rusticated will lose a term's seniority. I much regret the necessity of taking such action, but I fully concur with the Commander-in Chief in the disciplinary measures taken. As regards the Question of the hon. Member for Plymouth, fees are never returned in cases of rustication, and I can make no exception in this case. Further, this rustication necessarily carries with it certain penalties in regard to the delay in commencing the professional career.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: What charge has been brought against the twenty-nine cadets who have been thus punished?
  MR. BRODRICK: No charge has been brought against individual cadets, but the fact remains that this occurred within the same block, and in all probability within the knowledge—
  LORD HUGH CECIL: On what grounds does the right hon. Gentleman say that?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: It is like an Irish coercion case.
  MR. BRODRICK: In all probability it was within the knowledge of many of those concerned, some of whom were seen to enter the actual room within twenty minutes or half an hour before the last event occurred. Therefore, there was absolute reason to suppose that several of the cadets who were rusticated were implicated in this unfortunate business. In addition to that, all the cadets mutinously broke bounds on the evening following the Commander-in-Chief's order-that leave was suspended and that bounds must not be broken. There was a mutinous outbreak, in which the very cadets implicated broke bounds and created a disturbance in the neighbouring village. In these circumstances all these cadets rendered themselves liable to rustication. The further outbreak of fire, seriously imperilling the building, made it absolutely necessary for the Commander-in-Chief to take action.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any independent military inquiry has been made into the circumstances, and, if so, whether he will lay the Report on the Table.
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes. After the outbreak to which I have alluded, the Commander-in-Chief sent down a special officer, General Sir R. Grant, to make the fullest inquiry and report. Sir R. Grant made a Report to the Commander-in-Chief after going into the whole circumstances, and it was as the result of this Report that the Commander-in-Chief took the very lenient action he did, desiring to treat the whole matter as a school-boy freak; but when, after that leniency, and after leave had been again restored, it was found that a fresh outbreak took place, it was obviously necessary for the Commander-in-Chief to take further action.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: Was the rustication confined to the cadets who were seen going into the room? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of them—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The Question has been fully answered.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Is it true or not that the insubordination was condoned by the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! That is arguing the question.
  MR. GUEST: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Attorney General as to the legality of his action?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Send some Irish resident magistrates to deal with them.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member for South Donegal must be more orderly. The hon. Member for Plymouth must put his Question on the Paper.
  [Subsequently:]
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will put down Vote 11 of

  929
  the Army Estimates as the first Order on an early Supply day, so that the recent incident at Sandhurst may be discussed.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not think I can give more than one day to the Army Estimates, and I understand that the first Vote on that day must be the salary of the Secretary for War.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: Might not the Vote for military education be taken first, and the salary of the Secretary for War second, on that day?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid that pledges have been entered into with regard to the salary of the Secretary for War; and I do not think the House at large would approve of altering that arrangement.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Then, Sir, I desire to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the action of the War Office in ordering twenty-nine gentlemen cadets, against whom no charge was brought, to forfeit six months seniority.
  MR. SPEAKER: Since the hon. Member showed me, as he courteously did, what he proposed to move, my attention has been called to the fact that in the Order-book today there now stands a Motion in the name of an hon. Baronet—
  "To call attention to the recent disturbance at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and the action taken thereon by the military authorities, and to move a resolution."
  That has the effect of blocking the Motion of the hon. Member, so that I cannot entertain it.

  Proposed Review in Hyde Park.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the limited numbers for whom provision was made at the Royal Parades on Tuesday and Wednesday, the Commander-in-Chief will consider the possibility, by holding a review in Hyde Park on a
  930
  Saturday afternoon, of giving an opportunity to people in London of seeing the representative contingents of Colonial and Indian troops and Reservists sent home for the Coronation.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid that arrangements cannot be made to carry out this suggestion. The great extent of ground to be kept would make the proposal very difficult to carry out.

  Volunteer Civil Servants—Facilities for Camp Attendance.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that there is still diversity of practice in Government departments as to the leave to be granted to attend the Volunteer camps now insisted upon by the War Office; and if he will consider the advisability of reissuing a memorandum to the heads of all departments emphasising the view of His Majesty's Government in this particular, and requiring that every effort should be made to give effect to them.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): No, Sir, I am not aware of any diversity of practice in this matter among Government Departments. I shall be happy to show my hon. and gallant friend a copy of the circular issued to the different Departments by the Treasury, which goes as far as it is within the province of the Treasury to go in such matters. The granting of leave must, of course, always be subject to the discretion of the heads of Departments who are responsible for seeing that the work of those Departments is properly provided for.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Do the heads of the Department understand that the Government desire the men to have leave for these camps?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have no reason to doubt they are aware that the Government desires, subject to the necessity for the work of the office to be carried on with efficiency, that facilities should as far as possible be given for attendance at these camps.

  Military Factories to render India self-supporting in War Material.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the difficulty experienced by the Government of India, in obtaining war material from Great Britain, during the recent war in South Africa, whether he will state by what date the steps which are being taken to render India independent of Great Britain, for warlike stores are expected to have been sufficiently advanced to enable India to satisfy her own requirements under this heading.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The new military factories which are being built with a view to render India, as far as possible, self-supporting in war material are being brought to completion with all possible despatch; but at present I cannot say when they will be sufficiently advanced to meet India's requirements.
  MR. WEIR: Are any of the factories in India in working order?
  LORD G. HAMILTONreplied in the affirmative.

  Land Revenue Defaulters in India.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the number of writs and warrants issued in India against land revenue defaulters during the year ending 31st March last, and the amount which it was thus sought to recover. And will the Government of India consider the expediency of remitting all arrears of land revenue in districts affected by the recent famine.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am unable to give the information asked for in the first part of the question, as the provincial reports for the period referred to have not yet reached me. The Government of India have already remitted all arrears of land revenue due to drought in the distressed districts, and they are not prepared to go further than this.

  Irrigation Grants in India.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that the Government of India have recently sanctioned a special irrigation grant of 25 lakhs (£166,666 13s. 4d.) to local governments for minor works, such as village wells, tanks, and channels, will ho state the local governments by whom this money will be received and the approximate amount of grant to each.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Of the special grant of 25 lakhs, 7 lakhs have been, already allotted to various provinces. I have not received exact details of the allotments, but the greater part of this sum has been allocated to Bombay. The allotment of the remaining 18 lakhs has not yet, so far as I am aware, been made.

  Argentine Republic—Murder of Mr. William Barnett.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY - GORE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state what representations have been made by His Majesty's Government to the Argentine Republic with respect to the murder of Mr. William Barnett by the Argentine police, and what guarantees will the Argentine Government give for the security of British subjects in the Republic.
  LORD CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Buenos Ayres has been instructed to inquire into the matter. He will furnish a Report on the facts and on the steps which have been taken in order to bring the guilty parties to justice. We must wait for that Report before any further action is taken.

  Reviews of the Colonial Troops—Accommodation for Members.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, in view of the provision that was made to enable the House of Commons to attend the recent reviews of Colonial and Indian troops, whether he can give the reasons for limiting the number of tickets placed at the disposal of Members, while a number of seats around the Parade were empty on both occasions; and whether he will consider the desirability of securing for the House the right to attend similar National functions.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (MR. AKERS DOUGLAS,): I will give my hon. friend what information I. can on the subject, although my Department had nothing to do with the individual distribution of the tickets. The principal object of the review was to afford gratification to our Indian and Colonial guests, and as the space was very limited it was thought proper to give them the first call upon the seats. There were 3,700 seats available for each day; of these 1,000 were handed to the Military Authorities, and the other 2,700 to the Colonial Office and the India Oilier respectively, with an understanding that tickets should be provided for the use of Members of both Houses of Parliament. I am not aware of the cause of any vacant places, seeing that tickets for the whole number of seats were issued. I have on all such occasions, when the arrangements have been in my hands, endeavoured to arrange accommodation for Members of Parliament, but I do not know how a right can be secured and am not able to make any statement on that point.

  Coronation Stands.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware of the effect can ed by the delay in taking down the Coronation stands on the building trades in London; and whether, in view of the number of bricklayers, carpenters, and builders' labourers now in want of employment, he will direct that the new War Office in Whitehall, the new Foreign Office block, and other Government works will be proceeded with without delay.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The procedure adopted with regard to the Coronation stands is guided by questions of general policy, it is my hope that many of the stands may still be required for the purpose for which they were ejected. I do not understand the last part of the hon. Member's Question. The now War Office is making rapid progress, and the Government Offices in Parliament Street are also being proceeded with, under the terms of the contracts.
  MR. FLYNN: I put the Question down merely with regard to Government works which have been stopped.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take down the Parliamentary stands? They are doing no harm.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: No, I hope that they will be used for the purpose for which they were erected.

  Drainage Authority in County Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg-to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will issue a Local Government Board Order to enable the Clare County Council to resolve themselves into a drainage board where no such hoard hitherto exists, that they may borrow money from the Treasury to deepen and widen rivers, piers and harbours, and tributaries, and thus reclaim whole tracts of country; the interest and principal of such loans to be charged on the lands according to ascertained advantage.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRE-LAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): It does not appear that the Local Government Hoard would be justified in making an Order under Section 20 of the Act of 1898 transferring the business of a drainage board to a County Council, in the absence of an expression of willingness on the part, of the Council to undertake the duty. In the present instance no such intimation has been received by the board from the Clare County Council. The Section also requires that the consent of the drainage board or body affected by the transfer shall be obtained, and the Board is riot aware that any steps have been taken in this direction. There are three drainage districts in the county.

  Ennis Elections—Complaints against Police Sergeant Cole.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, during the recent elections at Ennis, Sergeant Cole, of Clarecastle, was removed from duty at the Town Hall in consequence of being in a state of drunkenness, and interfering with can

  935
  didates and voters; and, seeing that this sergeant also assaulted an inhabitant of the town and one of the candidates, and that during the recent prosecutions under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act against Clarecastle leaguers it was sworn by witnesses that this sergeant was seen in public in a state of intoxication, and that he endeavoured to induce people in Clarecastle to break the windows of members of the United Irish League, what steps, if any, the authorities have taken to investigate these charges.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Sergeant Cole was drunk on duty during the elections at Ennis. For this he was awarded an unfavourable record, and warned for reduction. Similar cases have been dealt with in the same way. Both candidates were interviewed, and both declined to take any action against Sergeant Cole for interfering with them when drunk. No witness at the recent prosecution swore that Sergeant Cole was drunk. Mrs. Normoyle, for whose protection the prosecution was undertaken, proved a hostile witness. The Court of First instance animadverted severely on her evidence. It affords no ground for believing the charge that Sergeant Cole incited any person to break windows.

  Irish Electoral Registers.
  MR. PATRICK O'BKIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he and the Local Government Board for Ireland have received resolutions from Rural District Councils in Ireland calling for the re-transference of the preparation of the Parliamentary voters' and jurors' lists to clerks of unions in Ireland and the repeal of Section 83 (7) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act; and whether he has been supplied with a list of cases in which the Poor Law Association of Ireland allege there has been neglect on the part of the county secretaries where such work is performed by them; and whether he will insert a clause in the Local Government (Ireland) Bill to repeal the sub-section.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In answer to the first part of the Question, I would refer to my reply to the Question put to me
  936
  on the 20th March by the hon. Member for South Down.† I received the list mentioned in the second part of the Question. It did not, however, indicate any specific cases of alleged neglect. I have no doubt that in the earlier stages of the working of the Act some mistakes were made; but the county secretaries have now more experience, and the Board considers that the work is satisfactorily performed by them. It is not proposed to repeal Section 83 (7).

  Boho Nationalist Band.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is a ware that the Boho (county Fermanagh) Nationalist band was forcibly stopped while marching and playing on the public road about seven o'clock on the evening of the 16th June last by a sergeant of police and his men; and that the constabulary ordered the band to return to their rooms, and threatened that if they did not they would exercise physical force to prevent them going further, and break their musical instruments; and, seeing that other Party bands are permitted to march and play their music on the same road and in the same district, will he say what is the cause of this treatment of the Nationalist band; and will he give instructions that in future the police shall not interfere with the Boho Nationalist band on the public highway.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Two bands went out on the date mentioned, one known as the Boho Nationalist band, the other as the Kilnamadoo Nationalist band. The police warned the former band that no hostile demonstration would be permitted in the vicinity of the residence of an individual who has been the object of intimidation, and that, if persisted in, the band would be dispersed. The police did not threaten to break the instruments. The Boho band put away their instruments when this warning was given. The other band proceeded in another direction, and was in no way-interfered with.
  †See (4) Debates, cv., 552.

  Migration of Irish Labourers.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of persons who migrated for labouring purposes to England or elsewhere from the Poor Law Union of Castlerea, in the county Roscommon, for each of the past five years; and whether he can state the average period each year these people were absent from their homes.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The numbers for each year, 1897 to 1901. inclusive, were 1,784, 1,900, 1,692, 1,752, and 1,604. I have no information to enable me to reply to the second inquiry.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman send a copy of that answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Antrim, in view of statements he has recently made?

  Land Sub-Commissioner Garvey.
  MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Land Sub-Commissioner Garvey holds sittings on only four days a week, although there are arrears in the land cases listed at Cookstown, county Tyrone; and whether he can state how many days in the week are spent by this Commissioner at Portrush, county Antrim.
  MR. WYXDHAM: No member of a Sub-Commission holds sittings upon four days in every week. If such were the case, there would be no time left for inspection of the holdings. Mr. Garvey spends no portion of his time at Portrush. His residence is at Port-stewart. He remains there from Saturday evening until eight o'clock on Monday morning, when he returns to his district.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Did the right hon. Gentleman get the information from Mr. Garvey himself?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Does the hon. Member suggest that Mr. Garvey should travel back on Sundays?
  MR. MACVEAGH: No, Sir, but I suggest he should do more work.

  Irish Land Bill.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have little to add to my previous replies. So long as a considerable proportion of hon. Members representing Irish constituencies declare their hostility to this Bill, it is evident that time ought not to be given during the present session.

  Labourers' Cottage Schemes of Cork Rural District Council.
  MR. SHEEHAX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will state when the representations for the present scheme of cottages promoted by the Cork Rural District Council were first considered, when the inquiry into the scheme was held, at what date the Provisional Order was issued and became absolute; and will he give the reasons for the delay which has taken' place in connection with this scheme, and state what steps the Local Government Board intend to take to bring the matter to a completion.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The representations were first considered by the District Council in December, 1899. The scheme was submitted to the Local Government Board in April, 1900. It proposed the erection of 459 cottages at a cost of £82,800. The local inquiry was held in July, 1900. After a protracted correspondence the Provisional Order was issued in August, 1901; the unopposed portion of the Order became absolute in October last. The District Council has not yet lodged with the Board the maps and schedules. Until that is done an arbitrator cannot be appointed as a preliminary step to entering upon the lands required to carry the scheme into execution.
  MR. SHEEHAN: Having regard to the circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman introduce into his amending Bill a clause for simplifying the procedure for the erection of these cottages?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Provisional Order Authorises the erection of 143 cottages; the unopposed portion of the Order contains 133 sites, and became absolute, as stated, in October last. There is at present before the Board a scheme proposing the acquisition of 224 additional allotments to cottages already erected. The result of the local inquiry in this matter was communicated to the Council in January last, who have twice since been requested by the Board to arrange several matters arising out of the Inquiry. Until the Council does this, the Board cannot issue the Provisional Order regarding the proposed allotments.

  Sunday Postal Deliveries in Macroom Rural District.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the Macroom Rural District Council urging the inconvenience that results to the inhabitants of and visitors to the villages of Inchigeela and Bally-vourney from the absence of a Sunday mail delivery; will he state what consideration has been given to the representations made on this subject; and whether he proposes to inaugurate a Sunday delivery as requested.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The resolution of the Macroom Rural District Council to which the hon. Member refers, has not yet reached the Postmaster General, but inquiry shall at once be made as to the possibility of establishing a Sunday post to the villages of Inchigeela and Ballyvourney, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Postal Irregularity in Dublin.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the non-delivery of a letter addressed to the manager of Moran's Hotel, Dublin, the words "hotel demolished" being officially marked on the letter by the Post Office authorities; and whether he will inquire into the reasons for this action, in view of the position of this hotel.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The address on the letter referred to was unfortunately misread in the Dublin Post Office for Morrison's Hotel—an establishment, which was pulled down about a year ago. An inspection of the envelope does not, in the opinion of the Postmaster General, justify the mistake, and I have to express regret on his behalf that it should have occurred.

  Business of the House—An Autumn Session.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the future course of business in this session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot make any detailed statement at the present stage of our proceedings as to the future course of the session; but I am afraid it is tolerably clear—indeed, I think it has been clear for some time past—that an Autumn session in connection with the Education Bill, or arising out of the long debates on the Education Bill, is absolutely necessary. ["Oh, oh!" from the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield.] I can understand my hon. friend's regretting the necessity, but I hardly think that anybody will deny it. The question is how we are to arrange for the business that has to be taken. There are a certain number of administrative Bills which have to be dealt with before the prorogation, but not necessarily before the adjournment, some of which will, I have no doubt, require a certain amount of discussion in this House; but I do not think there is any new general legislation at all of a controversial character which is likely to be brought before the House. I should hope we shall make sufficient progress with the Education Bill to allow us to rise for the adjournment fairly early in August.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Before the 12th!
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot fix the date. I presume we shall have to meet about the middle of October; but there again 1 cannot fix a day. I should propose that the main business until the adjournment should be the Education Bill and Supply; but it must be understood that an occasional evening

  941
  sitting, or an occasional Friday, may, with advantage, be used for other measures, notably the Water Bill.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAX: May I impress on the right hon. Gentle-man the fact, which he has imperfectly recognised, that, however inconvenient an Autumn session may lie, the inconvenience would be enormously increased if coupled with a late sitting in August?
  MR. BRYCE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not consider the most convenient point at which to stop the discussion on the Education Bill until the Autumn session would be at the conclusion of Part 2 of the Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I certainly do not take that view, for one obvious reason, among many, that it would not only be an Autumn session, but a Spring session likewise.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Is there any intention of taking the London Water Bill this week?
  MR. CAINE: Will the Indian Budget be taken before the adjournment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give any promise as to that. As regards the Water Bill, I do not think it is likely to be taken this week, but perhaps I may be permitted to withhold any question as to Friday's business until tomorrow. I propose to take the Education Bill on the Tuesday and Wednesday sittings, and on Thursday Irish Supply.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: In regard to that, the right hon. Gentleman is, of course, aware that the time set apart for Irish Supply is very limited indeed under the Supply Rules. I think we are therefore entitled to ask that we shall have the whole time on the nights allotted to it. But I am informed that some very contentious private Bills have been put down for the evening sitting on Thursday, which may have the effect of depriving us of one half-day. That I think would be a fraud on us. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman use his influence so that we may have the whole of both sittings on Thursday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will inquire into the matter. It does not rest with me, however. I may remind the House that the general principle which I announced as underlying this particular Rule with regard to the distribution of private Bills at the evening sittings, was that no preference should be given as between one night of the week and another, and that no attempt should be made to protect strictly Government time as against time devoted to Supply, or vice versâ.

  Debate on Foreign Policy—Anglo-Japanese Alliance.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, having regard to the fact that, owing to other business being put down for the Evening Sitting on Thursday last, several Members were debarred from speaking on the Foreign Office Vote, and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had no opportunity of giving information asked for in regard to the situation in Persia and China, lie will put this Vote down again on some early day in such a position as will ensure a further opportunity of debate. May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman a question of which I have given him private notice, viz., whether the attitude of His Majesty's Government in regard to alliances with foreign Powers was accurately described on Thursday last by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and whether His Majesty's Government had any further statement to make to the House on the subject, in order to prevent any misapprehension on the part of our Japanese allies.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to the Question on the Paper, I can give no promise of another day for the discussion of the Vote. As to the Question since added. I have to say that the single sentence to which, no doubt, the hon. Member refers might possibly, if taken from its context, produce a misleading impression:—
  "It has been suggested that the international position of tins country is one at dangerous isolation, and that we ought to grasp eagerly, and on any terms, at any alliance that may be offered to us."
  This is not the view of His Majesty's Government, and my noble friend did

  943
  well to correct it. I need hardly say that we should never for a moment wish to suggest that the agreement with Japan was not entered into for a common object and on terms of absolute equality.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of giving further opportunity for debate, in view of the fact that important questions with regard to China and Persia, of which notice has been given to the Under Secretary, remain absolutely and entirely unanswered?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No. I do not think it is a question of rival claims.

  Royal Patriotic Fund.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have arrived at a decision with regard to transferring the administration of the various funds, now vested in the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund, to a new Board, as recommended by the Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons; and, if so, whether legislation to effect such transfer will be introduced before the close of the session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A scheme has been prepared on the representation of t hose bodies whose advice and experience was most valuable, including the hon. Gentleman himself who has bestowed much care on the subject. I hope to introduce a Bill very shortly dealing with the Royal Patriotic Fund, and if it proves non-controversial I should hope to be able to pass it this session. I cannot pass any controversial measure on the subject.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—
Finance Bill.
Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Bill.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. J. W. LOWTHERin the Chair.
944
Clause 4:—
I Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 10, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words ' for the training of teachers shall require that in any school, college, or class so provided or aided, no pupil shall be excluded on the ground of religious belief, and.'"—(Mr. Channing.)
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. C. P. SCOTTsaid he thought he was expressing the feelings of many Members on both sides of the House when he said they hoped that in the interval that had elapsed since the question was last discussed, the First Lord of the Treasury had found some effectual means for remedying a great and admitted grievance. It was a grievance which affected not merely Nonconformists as such. The total accommodation for the training of teachers ought to be largely increased, and to be made equally available for all classes of students, whether belonging to the Church of England, or to Nonconformist bodies. This was a matter of absolutely vital importance in any real scheme of educational reform. On the efficiency of the teacher depended the efficiency of the teaching, and the teacher, in a very real sense, was the school. Even as it was, the supply of trained teachers was notoriously inadequate. It was perfectly certain that this national function would not be adequately discharged by the county authorities alone. The House had, therefore, a right to appeal to the Government to make proposals that should be adequate to the occasion, and which would provide a remedy, not in name only, but in fact. Nothing less would suffice than that the system of building grants should be revised, and that the now educational authorities should have the same advantages in the matter of supplying undenominational training colleges as the denominations enjoyed in the first instance in the supply of their colleges. He believed the denominational grant amounted to about one-third of the total cost of the building. That was the very least that should be done for the county authorities, but he thought, himself, we

945
ought to do much more, because the county authorities would simply be doing 1'or the nation what the nation ought to do for itself. Ho agreed that the establishment of hostels in connection with the great university colleges, or in connection with existing or future training colleges, would be one of the most promising means of supplying deficiencies. But the Government must do something practical in order to promote their establishment, otherwise we might have to wait a very long time before they were established in anything like the number required. It was necessary to double the accommodation for the training of teachers, and tins could not be done simply by the expression of pious hopes. The First Lord should go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and obtain from him something like adequate aid towards the accomplishment of this great national work. In this connection he desired to point out that the day training colleges received a much smaller grant, proportionately, than the residential training colleges. For this there was no reason whatever, and he trusted the Government would do something to correct this state of things. All these matters would take time, and the first thing to be done, he maintained, was to utilise to the utmost, existing resources. The Amendment under discussion asked that students should be admitted under the Conscience Clause. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich and other Members on the Ministerial side, objected that this proposal would destroy the special atmosphere of these colleges, and allow of the introduction of "a foreign element." The question was how far this doctrine was going to be pressed. Were hon. Members prepared to make any concession whatever in regard to the character of these colleges? He would suggest to the First Lord of the Treasury that without any damage to the special character of these colleges, and in tact rather to their advantage, he might make a small advance at least. It was made a condition by the Department in the case of the latest of these institutions—St. Gabriel's—that there should be received within its walls persons from outside—that was to say, day as well as residential students. Why should not this example be extended?
DR. MACNAMARA: Money.
MR. C. P. SCOTT: No doubt that might be a difficulty, but in many cases the class and lecture rooms would be in excess of the dormitory accommodation. This would be a very small concession. It would introduce within the sacred walls a certain breath of fresh air from the outside—a certain element that would not be purely denominational. It would do these institutions all the good in the world to have an element not strictly its own and not hall-marked as sectarian. Having admitted the great national need that existed in regard to the supply of trained teachers, and in fact accepted all the premises on which the present demand was founded, the Government were now bound to come forward with some scheme that would meet the necessities of the case.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down made it a reproach to the Government that they admitted a grievance which the machinery of this Bill, though it did not remove, certainly did mitigate. He did not think that was a just grievance. Let him consider for a moment where they stood. The existing system of training pupil teachers was partly by means of the denominational colleges, partly by means of the machinery of the day training colleges, and partly by means of arrangements by which persons in hostels, or whose lodging was otherwise arranged for, had opportunities of being trained at denominational colleges, although they did not belong to the denomination which controlled them. The suggestion was that we should practically deprive the denomination of those training colleges, or, at all events, greatly interfere with their denominational character.
MR. CHANNING: I expressly disclaimed that.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Member might have disclaimed that, but he was speaking of the effect of the Amendment. It had always been felt that the general character of these institutions would be largely modified—he would not say whether for good or for evil—if there should be the same latitude with regard to students residing in the colleges as there rightly and properly was with regard to day students. Let

947
them consider the case of the Wesleyans. Was it not really monstrous? It was, at any rate, a most serious breach of the practice and traditions of the House to say to the Wesleyans: "You have been instrumental in obtaining these colleges for your students; you have contributed towards their erection and maintenance. It is true you have done all that on the faith that they were to be used for Wesleyan boarders. The House of Commons thinks differently, and, though you require more training colleges for your students, and though you are going to spend some of the Twentieth Century Fund to provide new training colleges, you are to be deprived of your old training colleges." He trusted that such a proposition might be dropped, and that the Committee might proceed to something more just and practical. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite, which he thought was based on something which he himself had said with regard to the system of hostels, he thought that that was a good system, but it was not very easily or properly applicable to many of the existing training colleges. They were not fitted for expansion; it would be difficult to carry out, and would involve change in accommodation, change in staff, and in class and lecture rooms. Therefore, he did not think the suggestion would solve the question, though it might do something towards its solution. Then he came to the question of day training. That system had done admirable service. It was established by his right hon. friend the Member for Dartford, and met, he was quite sure, with the approval of both sides of the House, but it evidently had its limitations. In the first place, he could not help thinking that day training colleges, however admirably suited for students who lived themselves in the neighbourhood of the college, were not very well suited for the class of students who had no local connection at all, who came from a distance, who bad to find their own lodgings, and who had no natural share in the corporate life of the place. He could not help thinking that it would be a great improvement to the system if a plan was added to it by which hostels could be provided in connection with training colleges. He was speaking now of the university
948
colleges, not of the denominational colleges. But it would be said: "How are you to do that without money, and where are you to get the money?" Scholars in day training colleges got a smaller grant from the Treasury than scholars who were being trained in residential training colleges, denominational or otherwise. How were they going to get the money so that these pupils might have the advantages of a connection with a university training? That question brought him directly to what was one of the central difficulties of the problem—the question of finance. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment, the Member for North Camberwell, had made a great impression on the House by going through the figures for the purpose of showing 'how very small a proportion of the total cost of the colleges was paid by the denominationalists. He believed the arrangement was that they paid one-fourth.
DR. MACNAMARA: May I say that, though it is said that they must pay one-fourth, as a matter of fact they only pay one-fifth.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will not dispute with the hon. Member over the figures. I thought the arrangement was that the Treasury should not pay more than three-fourths.
DR. MACNAMARA: The Treasury must not pay more than three-fourths out of Government grants. The remaining one-fourth includes the amount of the fees paid by students, and the charge made for books. That brings me to the one-fifth.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was speaking of the amount of the State contribution to the colleges. The hon. Gentleman had said it was not only considerable^ but too considerable. Let the Committee remember it would be in the power of the educational authority to build training colleges on as favourable terms as the denominationalists had. If it was said, as perhaps n might be, that that was not enough, then what became of the argument of the excessive contribution by the State to the denominational colleges? If the education authorities

949
got out of the Exchequer as mud as denominational training college they could build colleges—and be has no doubt that they would under the Bill—for their students on practically the same terms as the college sanctioned the other day in the South of London. If they told him that St. Gabriel's College was so well treated by the State, they could hardly turn round and accuse the Government of niggardly feelings, because they gave the denominationalists exactly the same terms. They would get whatever the denominational colleges now got. Bui he did not know that the matter should be left absolutely there. He was in favour, not merely of building more training colleges, but also, as he had already indicated to the Committee, of hostels connected with university colleges, and his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he had considered this matter, and the Government were of opinion that, in order to carry out that desirable object, a student in one of these hostels should have as liberal treatment, should have the same contribution paid to him on behalf of the Exchequer, that a student has in a training college now. He thought it would be felt that on these lines they really were within sight of something like a solution of this most important question, but he did not conceal from the Committee that, in his judgment, the matter required to be further considered. He did not regard even the plan he had sketched out—although nobody could regard it as otherwise than a liberal plan—as a final arrangement. His right hon. friend near him, who had always taken a deep interest in this question, agreed with him that there ought to be an examination into this subject, and that on many, at all events, of its educational aspects they ought to have the advantage of the advice of the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education. He had no doubt such an examination would lead to many suggestions. In his view, it was not desirable that this should be too purely a local matter. He would hope to see many adjacent counties co-operating in this matter, and every encouragement given by the Government to enable
950
them to do so. He might parenthetically observe that he did not think the true solution lay in a State training college. He would not argue that question at length, but they had that system in Ireland, and he did not think it a good one. It did not harmonise with the rest of our educational system, and he did not think it would lead to that variety to which the plan he had proposed certainly would lead — a plan which contemplated the existence of denominational and undenominational training colleges, of day students, of students at university colleges lodged in hostels, and possibly of other machinery yet to be devised for attaining the same object. But, while he did not think the State ought to be responsible for the whole training of teachers, and would regret to see that great function simply entrusted to a Department at Whitehall, he did agree that there should be a liberal contribution from the Exchequer, and he thought he had indicated to the Committee that that contribution the Exchequer were prepared to give. He hoped he had made fairly clear the position he took up in the matter, and if he had given any satisfaction to the educational interests on both sides of the House—and he was glad to think that educational interests had largely predominated in these debates—he hoped they might be permitted to pass from the Amendment and proceed to the other important questions raised by the Clause.
MR. BRYCEsympathysed with the desire of the First Lord of the Treasury that this question should be treated as an educational question, and was glad that he was prepared a) go at least some distance in the way of making bettor provision for undenominational training colleges. As ho understood the proposal, the Treasury would be prepared to pay to students in hostels n connection with day training colleges it universities the same grant as was already paid to students at denominational training colleges. Was that the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, of course, subject to limitations like training colleges themselves. The Treasury are prepared

951
to raise the1 scale of fees, as the right hon. Gentleman says, and as I thought I had put clearly to the Committee.
MR. BRYCEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was yet in a position to say what the amount of the additional grant would be, taking the colleges as at present.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I remember rightly, the existing system with regard to denominational colleges is that the Treasury pay up to £50 if that be necessary, but they do not pay more than three-fourths, of the cost of the student. The same rule would be transferred from the training colleges to the hostels.
MR. BRYCEsaid that would be so far to the good, but the right hon. Gentleman would see that, even if these hostels were being built, the accommodation at present would be quite inadequate, and they would require a grant for the building of hostels. The right hon. Gentleman did not assume that the County Councils would build the hostels. That appeared to be clear from his statement that he regarded this rather as a national than a local matter.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman, in the last discussion on this point, denounced the liberality of the terms given to the denominational colleges—
MR. BRYCE: I have not spoken at all on that question.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman does not think that, I have nothing more to say.
MR. BEYCE: I should like to have the right hon. Gentleman's authority for the statement.
MR. A. J. BALFOUE: The point of the speeches on the other side at any rate was that the treatment of the training colleges by the State was of so extraordinarily liberal a character that the denominationalists who owned those colleges ought to be deprived of their exclusive use. If you think that treatment so liberal, is it fair to describe it as illiberal when applied to the education authority?
MR. BRYCEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had entirely mistaken his argument; ho had said nothing whatever upon that subject. What he said was that if the right hon. Gentleman desired his suggestion to be effective for the purpose of providing undenominational training for teachers, it would be necessary to make a grant for the erection of these hostels, as well as a larger grant for each pupil in them. He also desired to understand under what system these institutions were to be managed, because it was perfectly clear that the local authorities would not be the proper authorities for managing these day training colleges in the universities. Some further indication was, therefore, wanted of the plan the Government were going to adopt in order to increase the number both of day training colleges and hostels. The additional grant of the Government, which he was very glad to have, did not, however, cover the argument in favour of the Amendment. It was a different thing altogether. The Amendment was intended to provide that no local authority should make grants to or for the erection of any training college from which persons could be excluded on the ground of their religious belief. The case in favour of that Amendment was altogether irrespective of, and untouched by, the arrangement now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. That case was that, under the existing system, these denominational colleges, supported by denominations to the extent of only 20 per cent, at most, excluded from the necessary training a large proportion of His Majesty's subjects who desired to pursue the teaching profession. In the view of the supporters of the Amendment, that was altogether unjust and indefensible, and no additional grant would remove their objection to the system. The right hon. Gentleman himself had admitted that a grievance existed. Considering how relatively ample was the supply of denominational training, and how relatively insufficient was the supply of unsectarian training, it ought not to be in the power of the local authority to subsidise a denominational training college while that disparity remained. That was the case for the Amendment, and it was not met by the right hon. Gentlemen's proposal. Surely the first duty of the local authority was to supply that' which was most needed and to remedy

953
injustice where it existed. But he would go farther, and associate himself entirely with the argument which had been used to show that no aid whatever should be given by the local authorities to any college which excluded portions on the ground of religious belief, Ho based his position on the principle adopted by the Legislature in the University Tests Act, 1871, and in the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, where, although there was an admission that certain schools, which, by their original deeds or statutes of foundation, were denominational in character should preserve that denominational character, it was to be subject to a conscience clause provisions. He contended that these denominational colleges also ought to be subject to conscience clause provisions, and if those provisions were unsuitable to residential students, arrangements should be made to add such places as would enable residential students of every denomination to be properly accommodated. In any case, he did not think the local authorities wore the best fitted to make provision for the training of teachers. There were sixty-two administrative councils in England and Wales, and a very large number of borough councils which would be separate education authorities, to say nothing about the minor bodies which had apparently been added by sudden Amendments of the Bill as authorities for secondary education. That large number of local authorities was not, in his opinion, qualified to make provision for training colleges; it would be necessary for them to combine. It was rather a national than a local matter, and it ought to be regarded from the point of view of what the nation, and not the local authorities, would do. They must not consider that by any such grant as the right hon. Gentleman proposed they were really adequately dealing with the question of training colleges. What they wanted was a new departure altogether. They wanted the provision of new colleges by the nation, and the throwing open of the existing colleges to all His Majesty's subjects. Those were the two principles upon which a reform must proceed, and, believing that this was possible under the Amendment of his hon. friend, ho thought they were, bound to vote fox it.
EARL PERCYsaid that the concession made by the First Lord of the Treasury appeared to have done away with a real grievance, namely, the lack of educational provision. The Amendment under consideration, however, really touched only the religious question and not the educational question at all. He looked at this subject from a slightly different standpoint to that from which some hon. Members had treated it. Personally ho should like to see the whole of these training colleges thrown open to everybody, and he did not believe in the argument that it was necessary to maintain them as close corporations in order to preserve a religious atmosphere. Students of different denominations benefited considerably by associating together, and he-did not think that the Church of England had anything to gain by not admitting Nonconformists into institutions where her position was already assured. He did not agree with the argument that because the State had given grants to institutions of this kind, the State had no right to withdraw that money or make further conditions in regard to it. If that doctrine were once accepted, it would logically follow that the State would have to refuse assistance to all institutions which were not under its control, and that would inflict a great blow upon private enterprise in educational matters. The reason why he objected to this Amendment was that it would either be inoperative or it would tie the hands of the local authority upon a matter in which the local authority was in a better position to judge than the House of Commons. He thought that under the Act the local authority would be able to do all that the Amendment proposed. The clause already provided that a local authority was not to refuse aid to any institution on the ground that it did or did not teach any particular form of religious instruction or worship, and he wished to leave the discretion of the local authority unfettered. What would be the the effect of such a mandatory Amendment? Either that the existing training colleges would continues they were before, and be refused all State aid, or they would shut up the institutions altogether. The result would be that they would destroy the existing educational provision, besides entailing an unnecessary expenditure upon the new local

955
authorities. Speaking for himself, he should be perfectly prepared to accept the Amendment of his hon. friend below him, which concerned only the future provision of colleges. To that he should have no objection, upon the understanding that the Government would certainly not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Molton, which would have the effect of excluding all religious teaching. If they were to lay down any direction, he would far rather lay down a rule in the opposite sense, and enact that the local authority was not to provide any training-colleges in which ample provision was not made for meeting the religious requirements of members of every religious denomination.
MR. WILLIAM JONESsaid he was afraid it was too much to expect to get the suggestions upon this point made by the noble Lord and the First Lord of the Treasury carried out. Personally, he rather looked upon this question from an educational than a religious point of view, and, although the suggestion which came from the First Lord of the Treasury would not be a complete solution, it would go a long way towards securing that training of teachers which educationists had fought for for a long time.
EARL PERCYsaid that what he said was that he should like training colleges thrown open to all denominations, but if they compelled them to adopt this course he was afraid that they would close them altogether.
MR. WILLIAM JONESsaid that he had been supplied recently with figures showing last year's result in regard to all the candidates who got King's Scholarships. Although the accommodation in the Church of England Colleges was for 1,300, only 370 of them were applicants of the first class. Of the Roman Catholic accommodation for 140 there were 35 applicants in the first class; in the Wesleyans, out of 117 there were 47 in the first class; but in the case of the unsectarian colleges there was accommodation for only 407, although there were 485 applicants, or
956
six per cent. more than the accommodation. This was dealing with the first class, but in the case of the Church of England, Roman Catholic, and Wesleyan accommodation they were obliged to take in second, and even third class applicants; whereas in the case of the unsectarian applicants not one half of them had any places open to them at all. The Committee would see that it was not altogether a religious grievance, but more of an educational one. The First Lord of the Treasury had approached the question in a very considerate and tolerant spirit. In regard to hostels, he thought it would be better to accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. To show how these hostels were worked, he would take as an illustration one of the Welsh university colleges. He believed that he might claim that the best day training college in the kingdom was the Aberystwith Training College. There they had 120 students—60 men and 60 women. All the women were attached to a hostel presided over by an excellent head. The complaint in this case was that they did not get a sufficient grant. Instead of having from £54 to £50, they simply got £35 for the male and £30 for the female students, and as they paid £10 each for fees it was a beggarly system, for the students could hardly afford to live on that sum. They ought to feed their students well and attach a great deal more importance to their physical condition. He wished to translate this Bill into a reality by co-ordinating primary and secondary education, and surely it was the best thing, in the interests of elementary education, that the teachers of our elementary schools should be trained in the University alongside of the teachers in our secondary schools. This proposal would destroy for ever the line of demarcation between the elementary and the higher system. Teachers would be able to become inspectors, and good men they were as inspectors. Why did they not get more? Simply because a stigma was attached to elementary education. The University man said, "Once an elementary teacher, always an elementary teacher." Surely it was time to destroy that demarcation, and if this was to be a real educational Bill, nothing could be done for its reality more than by providing for the

957
training of teachers adequately and properly. He heard the suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury with delight, because it provided in the future for the equipment of a greater number of teachers who had the best culture of England and Wales, He was sure that his hon. friend opposite, the Warden of All Souls, would agree with him that Normal school students who went to Oxford were loaders in the Union debates, in the football field, and in the cricket field, and that they carried off some of the best prizes in the university. The First Follow of the University of Wales was a Normal student and schoolmaster. Those hostels were catholic in their tendency. The lady who took the Exhibition at London University three years ago as the best in all England was a Jewess, and she was formerly a schoolmistress at the hostel at Aberystwith. Ho believed she was now the mistress of a Jewish free school. What he wished to show was that this was the best opening for the higher education and training of teachers. In the hostel at Aberystwith there were Churchmen, Roman Catholics, Quakers, Methodists, and Jews. If they wore Church people they were helped by Church people, and if they were Nonconformist and sectarian they were helped by the sectarians in the town. It was desirable to avoid the overlapping which would occur in some districts if the counties provided training colleges. A training college in the real sense must be a national institution. Ho did not agree with his right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen that they should build more colleges. Let them emphasise the university colleges.
MR. BRYCE: I greatly prefer the university college system.
MR. WILLIAM JONESsaid he had mistaken the right hon. Gentleman. The already existing training colleges in Darlington and Durham had affiliated themselves with the Newcastle and Durban university. These were Church colleges, so that their Church friends, looking to the future, found that if they wanted good teachers they must have them with a university training. Some prophet had said that we were going to be a mighty nation, and that we were going to beat Germany and America in the field of commerce by getting the best brain
958
among the working classes. If we wished to do that, we must begin at the foundation, and that was the elementary school, and there the teachers must be men of the best culture, whose influence would permeate those who were to be the citizens of the best nation in the world.
SIR W. HART DYKEsaid it was a pity that these colleges were not, on their first initiation, open to all; but they must deal in this world with facts as they found them. No doubt it was assumed that training colleges representing dissenting bodies would also be started, and therefore those who wished to keep the training colleges as they were could not be blamed for their exclusion. What they wanted to know was what the new I authorities were to do when this very simple task was imposed upon them. He must say that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had cleared the air enormously with regard to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman had met both sides of the House with liberality, fairness, and justice, and with a thorough comprehension of the difficulties of the case. One aspect of the case which had not been considered sufficiently by the Committee was the prospective advantages and disadvantages of the residential training college, the day training college, or the hostel suggested by the First Lord of the Treasury. Ho had a very firm belief that the residential training college would not in the end prove suitable to the wants of the counties. Ho ventured to think that, from a practical point of view, the counties would have seriously to consider whether they would have residential training colleges at all, and whether they would not have to fall back on the system of day training colleges, or those hostels suggested by his right hon. friend. This was one of those questions which required far more consideration than could be given to it by the debates in this House. They must not discharge from their view the necessity of religious training in these colleges. With regard to this difficulty, he bogged to return his most earnest thanks to his right hon. friend for the statement the made with reference to the Consultative Committee on Education,

959
of which he had the honour to be chairman. He could assure the House that, whatever were the problems placed before the Consultative Committee, these were dealt with by the Committee in no party spirit or feeling. All these matters were only looked at with reference to what was good for education.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that the question was, what were the Government going to do with this Amendment? The Committee had been placed in a position which, he ventured to say, it ought not to have been placed in. One of the chief chapters in a Bill of this kind ought to have been the inclusion of a plan for the education of our teachers; but it was a remarkable thing that that circumstance had been overlooked altogether.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: You have not read it.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Will the right bon. Gentleman point out to me what is the provision of the Bill which at all corresponds, in any sense to the suggestions he made tonight?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They do not require any change in the Bill.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No change in the Bill! Is there to be no clause to carry out these suggestions?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: If that is so, then I confess that that makes the matter all the more unsatisfactory. There ought to be some security for the training of the teachers. He had been extremely glad to hear the opinion of the noble Lord the Member for South Kensington, and that very high authority on education the right hon. Member for Dartmouth. They were not of the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that the admission to all these existing training colleges of persons not of the particular persuasion of those who had founded them would be an act of spoliation. It would be nothing of the kind. Why was the principle which was
960
applied to universities and other institutions which were originally strictly denominational, not to be applied to training colleges? The fact of admitting to the universities men of any opinion or no opinion or all opinions, where they came together and got to know one another, had been extremely beneficial; and why was that system to be objected to here? He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had made suggestions that night which there was no doubt would be very beneficial in the creation of new colleges, and so far as that went he would be very glad if these suggestions were carried out. He hoped that the Committee would see in print some form or other in which that was to be done. But that was to apply only to new institutions. The question in hand, however, was, what were the Government going to do with the colleges and training institutions which now existed? Why were they not to be utilised for the benefit of all? What was the foundation of this claim of monopoly in these institutions, which were, to an enormous percentage, supported by public funds? That was the question. He could not conceive an argument which could support such a contention. Take King's College, which received a grant from public money. He was responsible, when in office, for the distribution of that grant, and acted on the principle that a college which excluded professors who were not members of the Church of England should not receive a grant. His successors, however, reversed that decision; but the remarkable thing was that King's College itself found that it could not proceed on that basis without injuring itself as an educational institution. The consequence was that the principle of a denominational test was withdrawn by the college itself under one of its statutes, because it had educationally operated so injuriously to the college. Educationally and nationally it was an evil and an unjust thing to draw this denominational line and give large sums of money and building grants to these denominational institutions He maintained that there was no foundation for this claim for a monopoly, and it was intolerable that such a claim should be made. He held that it was a fatal blot on the Bill that the training of teachers, in respect of a great proportion of the citizens of this country, should be

961
deliberately excluded from a great number of institutions supported by public money. He supported the Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that in the discussion on the previous night the Bill was before the Committee they had travelled very widely from the strict form of the Amendment before them. He did not blame anyone in this matter, because he was amongst the chief sinners. He had taken the wider scope given to the discussion as an opportunity for making a statement. He did hope, however, that the matter should not go much farther; that they should now return to the strict limits of the Amendment and decide upon it.
Colonel NOLANsaid he had always taken an interest in English education, because there were a considerable number of Irishmen there. He knew that Catholics would always insist on religious training being given to their teachers; and this Bill as it stood removed a grievance which Catholics had in regard to the religious training of teachers. Few hon. Gentlemen in the House would send their children to school and training schools which were not of the same denomination as themselves, and why not allow the poor to do the same? To attempt to adopt the system of the Amendment would be to break down the entire educational system. It was much better to allow denominational teachers to be brought up together and receive the same religious training. That might be done, but he submitted that the time to do it was when the religious views of the children were formed. [Cheers from the Conservative Benches.] Hon. Members who cheered did not send their children to schools which were controlled by different religious views to their own. The question of hostels attached to university colleges might be the solution of a much larger question, but was not a solution to this.
MR. MOONsaid he, amongst others, had sympathised greatly with the hardship of what had been called the policy of exclusion, especially having regard to the considerable sums advanced by the State for the Church of
962
England training colleges in the first place, and the considerable sums paid by the State for maintenance in the second; but he had gone down to one of the training colleges and made some inquiries, and it was shown to him that this hardship was only apparent. He was told that he might defy anyone to produce a case of a first class Nonconformist King's Scholar who, being refused at a Church training college, had failed to get taken in at some other training college. All these training colleges were absolutely full, and it was only fair that when a vacancy occurred they should have the right of selection among those who were pari passu. He supported the Amendment.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid let the colleges teach whatever catechism they thought proper: all the Nonconformists wanted was the training in the colleges for teaching purposes, and that they should not be compelled to subscribe to the dogmas of the Church. If that point was clearly understood, he could not possibly see how the Government could, with reason and justice, deny the claim of the Amendment. The speech made by the noble Lord the Member for South Kensington appeared to him to have disposed of the whole of the religious difficulty, and that speech was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the late Vice-President of the Council. The Amendment was based on the just ground that where-ever public money was spent on public institutions all classes of the people had a right to participate in the advantages of those institutions. The First Lord of the Treasury had now a great opportunity before him. Let the right hon. Gentleman detach himself from all complications, contracts, and understandings that he might have entered into with any particular section of the community, and stand forth in this House, and, by acceding to this Amendment, make a great name and reputation for himself as a Minister not of a Party but of the nation. There was now a strong inclination on the Conservative side of the House to listen to this grievance and concede this measure of justice, for which the Nonconformists had so long appealed in vain. He supported the Amendment.
MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEexpressed some sympathy with the object of the Amendment, recognising the disadvantage under which undenominational youths entering the teaching profession suffered. It was not due to the perversity of Parliament, nor to the youths themselves, but to the force of circumstances. There seemed to be a greater cohesive power among the denominationalists, as a result of which they had stepped in, and, if they had not covered all the ground, had gone a considerable way towards it, and done far more than anyone else in providing training college. Was it to be wondered at that, when they had sufficient candidates for admission belonging to their own denomination, they should be given the preference? In a sense, no doubt, these institutions were supported out of public money. "In a sense;" but so were the War Office and the Admiralty clerks, whose salaries were paid by the State. The argument that these training colleges were supported out of public money was one of the most futile and silly ever advanced. He had some sympathy with the Amendment, but he thought it went too far. If it were confined in its operation to schools, colleges, and classes to be provided for in the future by the new education authorities, he would support it. He was not in favour of any grant being given for the establishment of denominational teaching; and if the County Councils took upon themselves to set up training colleges, they must be purely undenominational. But he thought it would be a grave injustice to apply the Amendment to the existing denominational training colleges, which did good work for the State, and were entitled to be paid for it. He therefore moved to amend the Amendment by omitting the words "or aided."
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "or aided."—(Mr. Hey wood Johnstons.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'or aided' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken would not be in favour of any of the grants by County
964
Councils going towards State established denominational education. The Amendment which the hon. Member had moved, that the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for East Northamptonshire should be confined exclusively to colleges to be established in the future, would not be very useful to the Nonconformists. If it were successful, they would be excluded from the thirty-six colleges already in existence, and it was very doubtful whether any more denominational colleges would be built in the future, so that the concession would be absolutely worthless. They asked that in no college, whether it existed now or was to be built in the future, if it was supported out of public funds, should a religious test be necessary. The hon. Member for Horsham had said that these colleges were supported "in a sense" by public money, and compared them with the War Office clerk, who, he had said, was supported out of public money "in a sense." But these colleges were supported out of public money in the most practical sense in the world. He admitted that the concession made by the First Lord of the Treasury was a concession which they had been asking for for years. He had himself moved for it on one or two occasions, but had never been able to make any impression on either the First Lord or the Vice-President. After waiting for many years, they had got this small and not very useful concession, which simply placed the students of day training colleges — where they received a better education — who received a grant of £75, upon the same level as the students of the residential colleges—where they received an inferior education—who received a grant of £90 a year, and that only where there was a hostel. Such a condition would limit the concession very considerably. In the first instance, the concession only amounted to £14,000, but, limited as it now was, it only came to £7,000. But surely, in such a case as this, the buying off of the Nonconformist conscience, the right hon. Gentleman might have appraised it at a somewhat higher price. This concession had the vice of all Government concessions. Like Mr. Dombey, the Government seemed to think that they could do anything with money; they had a golden plaister for

965
every ill; money could buy off the Nonconformist conscience, and it could buy the agricultural equivalent for a conscience—he meant the antipathy to the payment of rates. But this concession did not remove a real and substantial grievance. They were not now fighting for the rights of Nonconformists: they were fighting for the public interest; and it was against public interest that the thirty-one colleges maintained by the State for training students should be controlled by one sect. It was against the public interest that they should have these colleges at all on the basis of absolute sectarianism. The natural result was that teachers received inferior training, and that in itself was against the public interest. The First Lord of the Treasury was under the impression that these training college contributed one-fourth of the expense; as a matter of fact, the contribution to these residential training colleges by the denominationalists who controlled them was one-fourteenth of the total expenditure. And with regard to the different denominations, the Church of England contributed exactly one-twentieth, the Catholics one-fifth, and the Wesleyans one-sixth. Therefore, with regard to the bulk of the colleges—the Anglican colleges—the denomination which had the exclusive advantage of them contributed one-twentieth of the cost of maintaining them. That was grossly unfair. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they had no right to force upon a denomination the education of students of another denomination unless that denomination wished it. That was true, but what the Treasury could do was to say: "At the present moment, nineteen-twentieths of your funds come out of public money; you must treat the public fairly, or we, as the representatives of the public, will withhold the public grants." If that were done, the doors would very soon be opened. These grants did not meet the case at all. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was prepared to go further into the matter later on. That was important, but what sort of an inquiry did he propose? Would evidence be taken? Would it be a public or a secret Departmental inquiry, or what would it be? Matters would he greatly facilitated if the Committee had information on that point. The principle under discussion would have
966
to be fought until full justice was done. It was not enough to say that more money would be spent to help in the establishment of more colleges—and the right hon. Gentleman did not say even that. With this £7,000 the difficulty would still be as great. The difficulty of the day colleges was that they had no accommodation; the number of students could not possibly be increased by more than a few hundreds. If the right hon. Gentleman offered to give funds to the day training colleges to extend their system, the pressure on the existing colleges might be relieved, but he did not do so. The system of segregation would be continued. This was practically the only opportunity the Committee had of discussing this important question, and he hoped the First Lord would listen to them with patience. For five years they had been trying to din tins matter into his ears.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: You discovered the grievance only five years ago.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: We discovered it a good many years ago.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then why did not they [pointing to the Front Opposition Bench] deal with it?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid they did do so. It was true the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Dartford Division started the principle of day colleges, but the extension and the really practical application of the principle was made by Mr. Acland. From a Government which gave £2,000,000 to the landlords, £100,000 a year towards the parsons' rates, and £250,000,000 for a war, all that could be secured towards training teachers in undenominational colleges was a paltry £7,000 a year. The principle which underlay this clause—viz., that of sectarian control of public institutions—was one which would be fought throughout the Bill. The policy of dividing the nation into theological castes was a thoroughly mischievous one. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich defended it on the only possible ground when he declared that the Church upheld the thirty-one denominational colleges because they believed in segregating their students apart from those of other denominations. But the noble Lord seemed to forget that these

967
institutions were training colleges, not monasteries. The country required not pedagogic friars, but teachers for the children. At a time when Great Britain was competing with a country like the United States, where there were none of these denominational differences dividing the people into three or four theological camps, it was of the greatest importance that nothing should be done to extend that policy of segregation. Segregation had been a great failure and disaster wherever it had been tried. It had a good deal to do with the evils of Ireland, and it had been the mischief in France. It was the educational policy of the Empire to segregate the people into two or three theological camps, and as a result of that policy France during the last thirty years had been reaping an abundant harvest of strife, destruction and trouble. The wise statesmanship of Gambetta and others had broken down the barriers, and to that was attributable the recent triumphs of the Republic. At a time when Germany, France, and the United States were breaking down these barriers, and binding their peoples together in one educational whole, in the House of Commons they were discussing a policy of segregation, and all they were offered to break it down was a paltry £7000. The sooner the people mixed together the better, and no finer start could be made at present than by the establishment of training colleges where there would be no educational barriers.
MAJOR RASCHsaid the matter under discussion was a very considerable grievance in his part of the country, and he was glad the First Lord of the Treasury had given it his sympathetic consideration. He admitted the First Lord had done his best, as the hon. Member for Carnarvon had said, to satisfy the agricultural equivalent for a conscience, and he could not see why the hon. Member also should not be placated by the concession which had been made. He regretted, however, that the drum ecclesiastic had been beaten so loudly on this and other Amendments. The reverberations of that drum had reached the rural districts, and it had not done the Church any good, or made this Bill any more popular.
MR. HARWOOD, having had some experience as a member of the Committees of two Church Training Colleges, desired to throw out a suggestion. Again and again he had seen cases of gross injustice under the existing system. Scores of students had had to give up the idea of entering the teaching profession, for which they were admirably fitted, because they could not squeeze their consciences into the particular form required by the denominational colleges. In cases where, by a great effort, they had been able to do so, the result had been to create a hatred instead of a love for the Church. Why should not a plan such as that in existence at Owen's College, Manchester, be adopted? Why should not the hostels be denominational and the colleges undenominational? That, he thought, would be the true solution of the matter. The students would then be brought together in a catholic spirit, and the whole class of teaching would be improved, because it was acknowledged that the undenominational colleges were the best from a technical point of view. In this way they would get better colleges and, at the same time, the advantage of religious association. As a Churchman he did not believe it was at all necessary to segregate Churchmen. On the contrary, he believed that the more they threw the Church open, the more would the people come under its influence. He did not think it was the true philosophy to shut up Church influences, and it was much wiser to draw people in by throwing open the doors widely, which he thought was better for education generally.
SIR MICHAEL FOSTERsaid that he was sure that all true educationists would rejoice at the announcement made by the First Lord of the Treasury. He hoped the time was not far distant when the greater part of the training of teachers would be carried on under University influence. Teachers were at present trained for their profession too exclusively and too early, before they were what they ought to be—men and women of the world. He trusted that before long teachers would not be taught in little folds of their own, but in the main at great centres

969
of learning, in which he included provincial colleges. That was why he welcomed the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, but his concession rendered the acceptance of the Amendment much more easy for him, for oven if accepted the denominational colleges had little or nothing to fear. Perhaps the First Lord of the Treasury would ask why they should make any change. They were at the beginning of a new educational era, and they ought to start fair, and by starting fair he meant that they should do everything in their power to develop both kinds of education, that which was called secular education, which was founded on natural knowledge, and that other education which was founded upon supernatural knowledge. Upon this point he was in accordance with the noble Lord who spoke a little while back, for he believed that the welfare of this country depends upon the full development of both kinds of education.
How were they to bring about the full development of both kinds of education? He ventured to say that this could only be done by letting each of them go their, own way, and especially recognising the fact, that while it was good for the State to regulate secondary education it was most difficult, and always led to trouble, when the State tried to interfere with religion. If they were to have a prosperous education in the future, he ventured to think that they would now start fair by doing nothing which would prevent the ultimate separation of secular from religious education, not that the one might grow at the expense of the other, but that both might be developed to their utmost. He ventured to suggest that this Amendment would be in that direction, and would not interfere with true religious education in denominational institutions, and yet would permit the freest development of other education by the State.
SIR ALFRED THOMASsaid he hoped the First Lord would not adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bolton arid provide for the maintenance of denominational hostels in connection with University Colleges. As one associated with the University College of South Wales, he could gladly testify to the fact that the hostel for women students in connection with the College was eminently successful. The
970
students of different denominations used the hostel, and he was quite convinced that the students would resent their being divided up into small groups and being denied the advantages of association with those of other communions. The same was true of the other University Colleges in the Principality. The Cardiff hostel was opened some seventeen years ago, during which time it has been managed by three different Lady principals, all members of the Church of England, notwithstanding the fact that the Council of the College was overwhelmingly Nonconformist in character. The concession made by the First Lord with regard to making provision for erecting hostels in connection with University Colleges would go to remove the difficulty under which Nonconformist students at present suffered. Indeed, he regarded it as the most important concession yet made, and he hoped that the First Lord would make further advances in the same direction.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that he wished to call attention to the smallness of the question under discussion. There was nothing in this proposal which would affect the existing grant to denominational colleges, and they were really discussing not the question of State-aid to denominational training colleges, but the powers which it was proposed to throw on the local authority. An Amendment to the Amendment had been moved which would make it impossible for the local authority to start sectarian colleges. He believed that this Amendment would meet with general approval. There only remained the very small question whether the local authorities should be prohibited from aiding denominational or sectarian colleges. He did not think it mattered much whether the local authorities were empowered to aid, or not empowered to aid, these denominational colleges, because when they considered that every one of those colleges got 75 per cent, of its expenses supplied by the Treasury, they would see that the local authority was not very likely to assist institutions so largely assisted from other sources. The State aid was not in question, and the question was, whether it was worth while prolonging the discussion as to

971
whether this overburdened local authority should aid institutions which were already supported to this extent.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that while he welcomed several of the speeches made on the opposite side, they had not yet been told what the Government were proposing to do with reference to this matter. They had heard speeches from supporters of the Government in favour of the Amendment of his hon. friend, but they had not been informed by the Government whether they accepted this proposal or not. This Amendment admitted an important principle, which they had been contending for all along. He was very glad indeed to hear the views expressed by the noble Lord the Member for South Kensington, because in these matters he had been in the habit of allying himself with the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. He understood the noble Lord the Member for South Kensington to have expressed a desire to keep the doors open to all these students, so that this hateful policy of segregation might be disposed of. The arguments they had used had already produced expressions of opinion in favour of their policy. It was conceded that this Bill did not properly and adequately provide for the training of teachers. He would not now discuss the amount, but one thing was not clear—they had not been told how these hostels were going to be provided for. He agreed with what had been said in regard to the concession made by the First Lord of the Treasury, but if the Opposition had not placed their views strongly before the Committee, even that concession would never have been made at all. So far from the concession of the Government diminishing his ardour for the Amendment, he accepted that concession as an indication of his consciousness that the Opposition were right. He did not believe the right hon. Gentleman had gone so far as he would like to go, if circumstances left free play to his own opinion. He agreed entirely with the statement that the more they attached the training of teachers to universities the better. If they could dispose of all these small training colleges, and provide proper provision elsewhere, he had no objection, but
972
so long as these colleges were supported by the State they should insist upon these principles being carried out. It was I bad policy to insist that the young people in the training colleges should not be allowed to associate there with any except those who belonged to the same form of religion. In this way a stigma was cast upon Nonconformists, and undoubtedly they felt very bitter on the matter. While they admitted the concession which had been made from a monetary point of view, that did not diminish in the slightest degree the demand they made, as a matter of justice, to have this disability which had been hanging over their heads removed.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he did not think it was necessary to say much on the merits of the Amendment to the Amendment. He did not suppose any one contemplated that, in any of those educational institutions to be erected by the local authority, any person would be excluded by the local authority on account of his religious belief. He did not see any objection to the words proposed being inserted, but this was not the place in the Clause to make the Amendment. He suggested that his hon. friend should withdraw the Amendment, and move the insertion of words of similar import at the end of line 12. If that were agreed to the Committee might at once come to a decision on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire.
MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid he would agree to the suggestion if the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire would also withraw his Amendment.
Colonel WILLIAMSsaid this Amendment could not come in at the place proposed, because the words proposed to be inserted would govern the whole of the remaining words of the Clause. If hostels were provided it would be perfectly possible for a County Council to say that they would pay part of the expenses of any local teacher if he would go to a hostel. Therefore, he thought that, under the proposal made by the First Lord of the Treasury, it would be possible for local authorities to help deserving students, to whatever denomination they might belong.
MR. CHANNINGsaid he fully appreciated the, suggestions of the hon. Member for the Horsham Division, but lie could not withdraw his Amendment. It involved a definite principle, to which the hon. Member had, to his mind, given very strong support.
MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. TREVELYANsaid this was the first occasion on which the religious question in connection with the Bill had been raised in this House, and it was far more likely that they would discuss it with less acrimony if the views of everybody were made clear on a salient point like this. It was perfectly right to say that the action of the First Lord of the Treasury was likely to mitigate the grievance the Nonconformists felt, but it would be a wrong impression if it were to be supposed that this compromise would be likely to satisfy the Nonconformists to any extent. The more the concession of the right hon. Gentleman was discussed, the more trilling it appeared to be. There was at present a deficiency of places for something like 3,000 teachers. Did anyone pretend that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was going to find places for those 3,000 teachers, who required training at the present time? Looking at the proposal from the point of view of the amount of accommodation required, the money provided by the right hon. Gentleman was quite inadequate. They objected on this side of the House to the "sheep and the goats" theory in education—the dividing up of the teachers into religious denominations. At the present moment Parliament had a great opportunity. They were entering upon a new educational period, and they had now to lay down a policy with regard to the training of teachers from this time forward. Surely the right policy was that which had been absolutely successful in the case of
974
Oxford and Cambridge Universities Parliament could in 1870 have done exactly with regard to the Universities what the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had been asking them to do now, and could have left them in the hands of one denomination. The Earl of Carnarvon stated then that there would be no difficulty in Roman Catholics and Dissenters opening private halls. That was what the Government were asking the Nonconformists to be satisfied with now. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would not supply the 3,000 new places, which would have to be found somewhere. Was it desirable that there should be thirty or forty colleges in England for training teachers—one for each county? Nobody wishes for that. It would be an extremely disadvantageous policy even if the right hon. Gentleman's plan were adopted of inviting some of the smaller adjoining counties to join and build one college. To his mind there was absolutely nothing else for it than that m this matter, as well as in other cases in which this question arose. The House should repudiate the doctrine that from separate colleges and schools supported out of the public funds either teachers or children should be excluded on denominational grounds.
MR. MILDMAYsaid that as far as elementary education was concerned the State was prepared to pay for secular education m voluntary schools on condition that a conscience clause was in operation in such schools, and it did seem to him that the same principle should be upheld in the case of Training Colleges. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich the other night, using the terms m no offensive sense, said that he looked on Nonconformists as a foreign element to be excluded from Church training colleges. But if they were to uphold that opinion by voting against the Amendment, how could Churchmen take Government moneys in support of their training colleges, moneys which were largely contributed by Nonconformists? Would not Nonconformists have a real grievance in the fact that they would be forcibly compelled to contribute towards the upkeep of institutions from

975
which they were excluded? As the Member for Honiton said the other night, lie could not see how this Amendment could harm the Church, since denominational teaching would continue all the same. He had been impelled to take this view because, as a strong Churchman, he was convinced that nothing could so damage the Church as that, as a consequence of the passing of this Bill, fair minded Nonconformists should have cause to feel that they have been treated with scanty justice.
MR. PERKSsaid he was not at all surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have spoken of the way in which the Conscience Clause was to be applied in the training colleges in the future. He was quite prepared to admit that under the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord's proposal as to new colleges, some might be built a considerable number of years hence. He could quite believe that it would be better for the Church to which he belonged to build twenty hostels now than to build in the future one or two large colleges for the training of their teachers. He put it to the noble Lord the Member for the Horncastle Division whether he was prepared to go down to his constituents, the enormous majority of whom were Nonconformists, and say that the Government had refused to grant a Conscience Clause to Nonconformist children wishing to enter denominational training colleges. The noble Lord professed at Election times to be a great friend of Nonconformity. The chairman of his election committee was one. The noble Lord went to the Wesleyan Chapels on the eve of the election, and he hoped it had done him much good. What was the noble Lord going to say to these Dissenters when he went to see them? It was not sufficient that they might erect hostels in future. The fact remained that there were upwards of forty training colleges, nearly the whole of which were denominational. The children wishing to go into them were largely Nonconformist children, but they refused to allow them to go in without compelling them to submit to a sectarian test.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What about the students in the Wesleyan colleges?
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he wished to mike a comment on the right hon. Gentleman's financial proposal. As he understood the First Lord of the Treasury, if the day student could be maintained in the hostel, the grant was to be on the same scale as in the case of the residential student under the Education Code.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that that was so.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that the grant to residential students was £50 for men and £35 for women. The grant for day students was £25 for men and £20 for women. The latter grant was increased in each case by £10, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, making the total grant to day-students £35 for men and £30 for women. The grant in respect of 684 men and 742 women, would amount to £32,000, or an increase of 16 per cent. The offer of the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, seemed to him to be a much larger concession than many of his friends seemed to think. He wished to say, with great respect, that he thought the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that the building grants to denominational colleges had been withdrawn, was scarcely correct. It was only half a truth to say that the local authorities and denominational colleges were now in the same position, neither having a building grant, for the building grants had been withdrawn, only after all the denominational colleges had been built.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Gentleman was really mistaken, unless he had been greatly misinformed. No building grant existed when the last denominational college was built.
DR. MACNAMARAadmitted that one small college, St. Gabriel, had been built without any such grant; but twenty-nine such church colleges had been built at the cost of £300, and of that sum the State had found £100,000. Was there any proposal to give a grant of £100,000 to build these hostels? The maintenance scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was admirable and would

977
largely meet the difficulty; but where were the grants to come from for the building of those hostels which, when in existence, would meet this grievance to such a large extent. In reply to the statement of the hon. Member for North St. Paneras that never, under any circumstances, had a first-class King's scholar ever failed to be able to get admission to a training college, he must say that the hon. Member was very, very greatly mistaken,
MR. MOON said he had made the statement on authority, but he was much obliged for the correction of the hon. Gentleman, and would be glad to receive further particulars.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he would supply the hon. Member with full particulars, which he had laid in full before the Committee which met in the National Society's Hall under the Chairmanship of the Archbishop of Canterbury, of nine first-class King's scholars who failed to get into a training college because of their lack of the denominational test. There was another case of a girl, who was number 237 in the first-class list, who failed to get admission to a training college because she was a Nonconformist. She had to mark time and wait years and try to improve her position in the list. Yet during those years 2,781 candidates of the second class had been taken into the Truro Training College. He did trust that the right hon. Gentleman, would investigate this question. Grateful as he was for the concession of the First Lord, which would mean a sum of £25,000 in the first instance, it did not meet at all the grievance which would still exist in the fact that they had got institutions which we re supported out of the public funds to the extent of four-fifths of their maintenance, and which had been permitted to restrict admission to them to Church of England children. He had put his case last week very fairly and moderately, but he would quote the figures regarding Culham Dio cesan College in Oxfordshire. The total income of that college was, for the year ending June 30, 1901, £5,797 18s. 11d.; made up of subscriptions from individuals, £53; subscriptions from Diocesan Boards, £180; students' fees, £937 16s.; from sale of books to students, £183 1s. 9d,;
978
from other sources, 2s.; Government grants £4,453 19s. 2d—so that of the entire income of £5,793 of this college, the Church furnished £233, or 4 per cent. That distinctly seemed to him to be too narrow a basis on which to maintain that they should put this denominational ring fence round these colleges.
MR. SEELYexpressed his regret that the Government had not seen their way to accept the Amendment. He hoped that those who managed the diocesan colleges and the English Church would show more good sense with regard to the future of the Church than had been shown by those who managed their affairs in the House. He spoke as a strong Churchman, and he thought that the Church had seldom enjoyed a greater opportunity than had been afforded by this Amendment. He intended to vote for the Amendment. The practical working of it would be that the Church would be the trainers of the school teachers of this country, and if anybody told him that bringing a few members of other sects into a diocesan college would have any effect whatever on the teaching or sentiment of the college, they must have a very small opinion of the Church.
MR. BLACKsaid he failed to see that this House was actuated by reason in attempting to deal with this question. Everyone who had spoken had condemned the proposal for which this Amendment was supposed to be the antithesis and the remedy, but nobody had given a reason for so doing. The only argument that had been adduced on the other side of the House was that of the First Lord of the Treasury, and that argument was that to give effect to this Amendment would mean spoliation. In his opinion that argument was wrong, and therefore he supported the Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
(5.53.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 240; Noes, 158. (Division List No. 268.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Aird, Sir John

Fardell, Sir T. George

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fcrgusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Manc'r

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Finch, George H.

Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Macdona, John Cumming

Baird, John George Alexander

Fisher, William Hayes

Maconochie, A. W.

Balcarres, Lord

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Baldwin, Alfred

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Majendie, James A. H.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Manners, Lord Cecil

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Flower, Ernest

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Balfour, Rt. Hn GeraldW.(Leeds

Foster, Sir Michael(Lond. Univ.

Maxwell, RtHnSirH. E.(Wigt'n

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S. W.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Banbury, Frederick George

Galloway, William Johnson

Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Gardner, Ernest

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir MiehaelHicks

Garfit, William

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(City of Lond.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Beresford, Lord Charles William

Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Bignold, Arthur

Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

Morgan, DavidJ.(Walthamstow

Bond, Edward

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

Morrison, James Archibald

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Morton, ArthurH. A.(Deptford)

Boulnois, Edmund

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Mount, William Arthur

Bousfield, William Robert

Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Greene, Sir E W(B'ry S Edm'nds

Murray, RtHn. A. Graham(Bute

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Brassey, Albert

Creville, Hon. Ronald

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Brooktield, Colonel Montagu

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Myers, William Henry

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Hain, Edward

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

Bull, William James

Hall, Edward Marshall

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Halsey, Rt. Hon Thomas F.

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Butcher, John George

Hambro, Charles Eric

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x

Pemberton, John S. G.

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Penn, John

Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Percy, Earl

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

Pierpoint, Robert

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Heaton, John Henniker

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Chapman, Edward

Helder, Augustus

Pretyman, Ernest George

Charrington, Spencer

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Purvis, Robert

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Pym, C. Guy

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Rankin, Sir James

Coddington, Sir William

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hogg, Lindsay

Ratcliff, R. F.

Colomb, SirJohnCharlesReady

Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside)

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Horner, Frederick William

Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Hoult, Joseph

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Howard, Jno.(Kent, Faversham

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Cranborne, Viscount

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Crossley, Sir Savile

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Kimber, Henry

Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Seton-Karr, Henry

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Knowles, Lees

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Dixon-Itartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Lawrence, SirJoseph(Monm'th)

Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lawson, John Grant

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lecky, Rt. Hon. WilliamEdw. H.

Spear, John Ward

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

980

981

Stroyan, John

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.(Taunton

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Whiteley, H(Ashton-und.-Lyne

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxfd Univ.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Thornton, Percy M.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)

Younger, William

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Take, Sir John Batty

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Valentia, Viscount

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Sir William Walrond and

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Wodchouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Hayne, Rt Hon. Charles Seale-

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Paulton, James Mellor

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Horniman, Frederick John

Perks, Robert William

Ambrose, Robert

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Philipps, John Wynford

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Jacoby, James Alfred

Price, Robert John

Atherley-Jones, L.

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

Priestley, Arthur

Banes, Major George Edward

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rea, Russell

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Kennedy, Patrick James

Reddy, M.

Black, Alexander William

Kitson, Sir James

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Boland, John

Labouchere, Henry

Redmond, William (Clare)

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Lambert, George

Rickett, J. Compton

Broadhurst, Henry

Langley, Batty

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Robson, William Snowdon

Burke, E. Haviland-

Leamy, Edmund

Runciman, Walter

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Schwann, Charles E.

Caine, William Sproston

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Caldwell, James

Leng, Sir John

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Cameron, Robert

Levy, Maurice

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Lloyd-George, David

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Lough, Thomas

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Causton, Richard Knight

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Soares, Ernest J.

Cawley, Frederick

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R(Northants

Crombie, John William

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Stevenson, Francis S.

Dalziel, James Henry

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Strachey, Sir Edward

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Sullivan, Donal

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

M'Govern, T.

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Delany, William

M'Kenna, Reginald

Tennant, Harold John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Doogan, P. C.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Mather, Sir William

Toulmin, George

Dunn, Sir William

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Edwards, Frank

Mooney, John J.

Tully, Jasper

Elibank, Master of

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Ure, Alexander

Ellis, John Edward

Moss, Samuel

Wallace, Robert

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Murphy, John

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Flynn, James Christopher

Newnes, Sir George

Weir, James Galloway

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

White, George (Norfolk)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Norman, Henry

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Furness, Sir Christopher

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Grant, Corrie

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

Young, Samuel

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Yoxall, James Henry

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Malley, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Harwood, George

O'Shee, James John

Mr. Channing and Mr.

Hayden, John Patrick

Palmer, SirCharlesM.(Durham)

Humphreys-Owen.

(6.8.) Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 161; Noes, 245. (Division List No. 269.)
THE CHAIRMANruled that the next Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for South Molton, to omit the words of the first sub-section of the clause after "shall," in order to insert "exclude any school or college where any religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any religious denomination is taught," had been disposed of by the Resolution at which the Committee arrived on the first sub-clause.
MR. LAMBERTsuggested that if the sub-clause had been omitted, the County Council would have had a free hand in dealing with this matter. The Committee having decided, however, that the Council should not have a free hand, and that a certain direction should be imposed as to the application of the money, what he proposed by his Amendment was merely another application of the money.
MR. BRYCEsaid that if his recollection was correct, the sub-clause was put only to a certain word, in order that the right to move subsequent Amendments might be reserved.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that did not apply to Amendments which negatived the principle of the sub-clause. The principle of the sub-clause was that the Councils should not consider or interfere with the religious or the non-religious character of any of these institutions. The Amendment of the hon. Member was that the Council should exclude any school or college where any religious catechism or formulary distinctive of any religious denomination was taught. That seemed directly to negative the principle of the sub-clause.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANpointed out that the Amendment referred only to catechisms and formularies, and was really an attempt to introduce into the Bill the Cowper-Temple Clause. It referred, not to general religious teaching, but to the teaching of definite formularies and catechisms, which was a well-known distinction in the days of the 1870 measure.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he quite understood the position of the right hon. Gentleman. He wished to define the expression used in the Bill as being any school where the catechism or formulary of any particular denomination was taught. That Question was in order, and would be raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs.
MR. LLOYD GEORGEsaid that was hardly so. The Amendment of the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs simply proposed to substitute the words "religious catechism or formulary" for the words "particular form of religion," but it did not propose to exclude a school which did teach a religious catechism. The latter was the objection of the hon. Member for South Molton, and it was something very different.
THE CHAIRMANthought he might make the position clear by recalling to the Committee the speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich in moving the rejection of the sub-clause. The ground on which the hon. Member urged the Committee to accept his Amendment was that no public money should be given to an institution which taught any religious worship or gave religious instruction. That raised the whole question, and it was disposed of by the decision of the Committee that sub-clause 1 should stand.
MR. HERBERTLEWISwas under the impression that the statement previously made in Committee was to the effect that the question should be discussed on the proposal to omit the words "or shall not." As to his own Amendment, that was simply an alternative form of words, unless the Amendment of the hon. Member for Swansea, to omit the word "not," were incorporated with it. If that incorporation were allowed, it would certainly raise the question in the form in which he believed the Committee desired it to be raised.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that that question had already been considered and decided by the Committee. The same observation applied to other

989
Amendments on the Paper, the next proposal in order being that of the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs.
MR. HERBERT LEWISthen moved to omit "particular form of religions instruction or worship," in order to insert "religious catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination." His Amendment simply proposed another, and, as he thought, a better, form of words in the place of that appearing in the Bill. The words were taken from the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, and had been found to work well in actual practice. He therefore begged to move.
Amendment moved—
"Clause 4, page 2, line 10, to leave out 'particular form of religious instruction or worship,' in order to insert 'religious catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination.'" — (Mr. Herbert Lewis).
MR. LAMBERTsaid that as, according to the ruling of the Chairman, this Amendment raised the same question, he would be able to make upon it the same speech he had intended to make in moving his own proposed Amendment.
THE CHAIRMANsaid his remarks must have been extremely obscure if they conveyed that impression. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs was in order because it suggested a different form of words in the place of that in the Bill. As he understood the hon. Member for South Molton, he now desired to argue that any school in which a particular form of religious instruction or worship was taught should be excluded and receive no grant. That certainly would not be in order.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that as the Bill stood, it was impossible for the County Council to raise the question of a particular form of religious instruction or worship in giving their grant. If the hon. Gentleman's words were substituted, they could only be debarred from imposing a condition when the point in question was not
990
the character of the religious instruction or worship, but particular formula. Therefore, from the hon. Gentleman's point of view—with which he agreed— he strongly resisted the Amendment as one narrowing the undenominational character of the Bill, and he hoped the hon. Member would not press it.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONdid not consider the words "particular form" sufficiently clear, and suggested that some other phrase should be substituted. He recollected when the words "particular form" were first discussed, and he remembered the hon. Member for Tonbridge expressed the opinion that those words covered what he called undenominational teaching. Several other hon. Members had expressed the view that those words referred only to distinctly denominational teaching. In the course of his remarks just now, the right hon. Gentleman did not give any indication of what he meant by the words "particular form." Two distinct meanings had already been given to those words, and, in his opinion, any educational authority called upon to interpret the meaning of "particular form" would be under a very serious difficulty indeed. Therefore he thought that in any case the right hon. Gentleman would have to seek fresh words in order to make his meaning clear to the County Councils, and if this Amendment did not carry out this intention, some words would have to be sought to give a clear and definite meaning to the Clause. Words which could be interpreted by hon. Gentlemen opposite in one direction, and by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side in a directly opposite direction, could not be considered satisfactory. The effort to put this Clause in such a mandatory form, had led to some confusion, which he thought it would be very difficult to clear up. When they introduced a mandatory instruction they at once got into difficulties, but if they had given the same freedom to the authority which they boasted of in regard to secondary education, in reference to religious education the Government would never have got into this difficulty.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought that they were all agreed as to the object to be attained. The whole object of these words was to prohibit the County Council from making it a condition that a school which was subsidised should teach any kind of dogma applicable to any special form of religion. He did not think the words quite covered this object, for a dogma was not a form of religious instruction. He took it that they might convey a dogma applicable to a particular religion so long as they did not convey it in a special form. He suggested the adoption of the words upon this point from the Welsh Act, of which they had already had ten years experience, and which had worked well. He thought it might be possible for them to incorporate both the words of the Welsh Act and the words suggested in the Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought that that addition was quite unnecessary, and he could not accept the Amendment.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSasked for a definition of the words "particular form."
MR. H. C. RICHARDScalled attention to the protest made by the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes with regard to this very question at one of the hospitals under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. Member was quite wrong because the case he had alluded to had nothing whatever to do with the Welsh Intermediate Education Act.
MR. H. C. RICHARDSsaid this only showed how necessary it was to stand by the Government and not allow hon. Members from Wales to interfere upon this question.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEdenied that the case alluded to by the hon. Member for East Finsbury had anything to do with the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, and said the hon. Member ought to make himself acquainted with the facts of the case.
SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMANsuggested that the First Lord of the Treasury should accept the combination of the words which had been suggested.
MR. HERBERT LEWISasked leave to withdraw his Amendment, in order to move it in a different form—namely, that after the word "worship" should be inserted "or any religious catechism or formulary."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"After the word 'worship' insert 'or any religious catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular d nomination.'"—(Mr. Herbert Leuis.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESproposed to omit the words "or shall not" from the provision that a Council shall not require that any particular course of religious instruction, &c., "shall or shall not be" taught. Clause 4 was not properly a Conscience Clause to determine the question of religious instruction or no religious instruction. What it really meant was that under Clause 2 certain fresh rating powers were given to the County Councils, and by Clause 4 he found very great difficulty in putting any sensible meaning on the Clause as it stood. He thought the words which he proposed to leave were capable of more than one interpretation. It seemed to him that the double negative would result in the possibility of the County Council being able to contradict the general tenor of the Clause by insisting on a particular doctrine being taught in a particular school. He should like to hear the opinion of the Leader of the House on the construction of the Clause as it now stood. As a matter of fact, the words were certainly ambiguous if construed logically. The drafting of this subsection was entirely new, and followed no settled precedent which had been before the courts.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 11, to leave out the words 'or shall not.'"—(Mr. Brynmor Jones.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'or shall not' stand part of the Clause."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he was at a disadvantage compared with the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was much more practised in the interpretation of Acts of Parliament, but he would have thought, reading those words with the eye of a plain layman, that there was no ambiguity or doubt as to what was intended. The Council, in the application of their money, were forbidden to do two things—first, to require that a particular form of worship or formula should be used and, secondly, to prevent a particular form of worship or formula from being used. They were precluded from going to the right or to the left. The limitation put on them was a double one.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that this raised a question of substance. The words, whether read in the strictly legal sense or as a simple specimen of the King's English, would do something entirely unnecessary and unjust. If they were retained, the managers of a secondary school might impose on the children as a condition of entry the subscription to a certain form of belief, and the County Council would be powerless to refuse the grant. He would remind the Committee what was the Conscience Clause in the Education Act of 1870. The CowperTemple Clause was in these terms—
"No religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught in the school."
It might be said the House had already determined that that should not apply. That was one of the grievances of the Nonconformists, and he had no doubt his hon. and learned friend had that in view when he gave notice of his Amendment. The Conscience Clause in the Act of 1870 was as follows—
"It shall not he required, as a condition of any child being admitted into or continuing in the school, that he shall attend or abstain from attending any Sunday School, or any place of religious worship, or that he shall attend any religions observance or any instruction in religions subjects in the school or elsewhere, from which observance of instruction he may be withdrawn by his parent, or that he shall, if withdrawn by his parent, attend the school on any day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which his parent belongs."
There was a similar clause in the Technical Instruction Act of 1869. [An HON. MEMBER: And there is in this Bill.] He
994
thought not, and be would be quite prepared to argue that when they reached the clause to which the hon. Member referred. As he read the clause now before the Committee it would be possible for school managers to say to the children that they must belong to a particular denomination before they could enter the school. If that were so, the County Council would be powerless, so far as he could see, to say: "We will not give you this grant, because you hereafter make it a condition that a child shall belong to a particular denomination before entering the school." If the First Lord of the Treasury could inform them that such a condition would not be imposed he would be quite willing to learn.
MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid the hon. Member had altogether overlooked the second subsection of the clause, in which the words of the Conscience Clause of the Act of 1870 were almost exactly reproduced. If the Amendment were carried, a County Council would have power to demand that a particular form of religion should not be taught in a school. It would be open to them to go to a college and say, 'I believe you teach the Apostles' Creed, and unless you drop that you shall not have any grant." He always thought the law was interpreted with common-sense, but if the interpretation given by the hon. Gentle man were accurate, there could not be much common-sense inside the Law Courts.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that, as far as day and evening scholars were concerned the hon. Member was correct, but in the case of boarders their subscription to a particular form of belief might be made a sine quâ non of entry into the school.
MR. CHANNINGsaid that unless the words were struck out as proposed by the Amendment, the local education authority would have no power whatever, supposing that the whole character of a training college or secondary school provided or aided by the authority were subsequently altered by the local governors or managers. An ordinary secondary school might be converted into a

995
monastic institution with the most sacerdotal teaching, and it seemed to him that the County Council ought to have some discretionary power for appealing to the Board of Education to check a process of that kind. He thought the wording of the sub-section was singularly unsatisfactory. He thought they should have an Amendment accepted which would place students and parents under this Bill in at least as good a position as they stood in under the Technical Instruction Act or under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act. The hon. Member for North West Ham seemed to think that the Amendment would go too far; but what he contended for was that the substance of the Amendment should be adopted.
MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid they were now laying down the lines on which secondary education was to be conducted for a long period, and why should they tie the hands of the County Councils, and prevent them from having the slightest discretion, when approached by purely private bodies, of saying how their own money and that of the public should be disposed of. He apologised for introducing once more the precedent of the Welsh Intermediate Act, which was passed by a Conservative Government, and had worked exceedingly well. It was worked on the only basis on which secondary education could be worked in this country; and that was that all schools receiving aid from the public funds in a new secondary educational system should be schools belonging to all the people alike, and not to one particular section of the community. The greatest difficulty in regard to the establishment of a new secondary educational system in England would be the building of the new schools, and he ventured to say that that would be carried out, not by the County Councils or the public as a whole, but by private associations and by religious sects; and for this reason, that the schools so erected would be maintained for ever after at the cost of the public. The Amendment now being discussed raised the direct issue as to whether, in starting a new system of secondary education which above everything should be general in character and fair to every section of the community, they should tie the County
996
Councils' hands. There was another reason why the Amendment should be accepted. When elementary education was made compulsory it resulted in an enormous increase in the number of children attending the schools; so he believed that, as in Germany and other countries, education at continuation schools would become compulsory and would result in a great increase in the attendance at secondary and continuation schools. If that were the case, it was all the more important that this portion of our system of education, now to be carried out for the first time, should be made a truly national system, and that the public funds provided for secondary schools should be administered under full public control. He did hope that this part of our secondary education would be kept entirely free from the meddling interference of private bodies. He again urged on the right hon. Gentleman to adopt the principle which underlay the Welsh system, which was the only one which could be carried out with fairness and efficiency. At a prize distribution in Wales in a secondary school there were on the platform representatives of the Church of England, of the Roman Catholic, and all the Nonconformist denominations—in fact, of all classes, creeds, sects, and parties. He ventured to appeal to the Committee as a whole to let at least one part of our educational system be thoroughly national, unsectarian, and free to all.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he hoped that the Committee would bear in mind that this clause lelated to existing schools as well as to institutions which might be founded in the future, and that it was entirely in accordance with the principles of liberty. He felt that there might be some cases where an institution associated with a particular Church or denomination might do such excellent work as to entitle it to a grant, and the clause was so drawn that the local authority would be empowered to make such a grant. Some suggestions had been made as to the working of the Intermediate Education Act in Wales, and that it should be conceded that the same system should be adopted in England. He did not think that it would be fair to make the concessions

997
made to Wales some years ago, in the special circumstances of Wales, a ground for their application to England.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid he could not help thinking that whatever might be the opinion of the Committee on the various points raised, they must all agree that the drafting of the Clause was most inconvenient. They must remember that the meaning of the words of the Clause would have to he tested in the Courts of Law, and that matters of the utmost importance might arise from the legal interpretation. The whole of the subsection depended on the use of a double negative, and he asked whether the use of the double negative, whether in conversation or Acts of Parliament, was not one of the most inconvenient things they could have recourse to. The hon. Member for North West Ham seemed to imagine that the County Councils were going to say to the secondary schools, "You will not teach the Apostles' Creed." That was not what would happen at all. The County Councils would not go to the secondary schools, but the secondary schools would come to the County Council's schools; and therefore they ought not to deprive the County Councils of the opportunity of judging whether, in the whole circumstances of the case, a denominational school was wanted or not. He would take a concrete case. Let them imagine that there was an existing boys' school in a locality under the Charity Commissioners, and that the managers wanted to extend its benefits to girls. The Church party might object because they desired to set up on the other side of the road a girls' school with denominational religious tests. What they wanted was that the County Council should in such an instance have the discretion of saying that in the whole circumstances of the case the benefits of the boys' school should be extended to girls, or that a new girls' school should be erected. It would also lead to a great waste of money if they were to have one school on one side of the street and another school on the other. The County Councils should not be debarred from saying that they thought, on the whole, that
998
a denominational school was not wanted. What the Committee was discussing was what were the conditions which a County Council might or might not attach to the grants they gave; and he wished to ask the Vice President if a County Council would under the Clause be debarred from having full discretion in the class of case he had attempted to put.
MR. WALLACEsaid it seemed to him that there was very considerable misconception as to the meaning of the Clause. If a County Council refused an application from any particular school for a grant, and if the reason for refusing it was that a particular doctrine was taught in that school, could any hon. Member point out how that County Council could be compelled to make a grant. The courts of law could not compel any County Council to make a grant to a particular school under any circumstances. Under the Clause as it stood, the County Council had absolute discretion to refuse a grant to any institution in the county, and the Amendment was practically of no value. As to the Clause itself, any lawyer who read it would discover that it left the County Council with most absolute discretion. He defied any hon. Member who had ever attempted to construe an Act of Parliament to point out any section in the Bill by which a County Council could be compelled to make a grant to any educational institution in the county. There was no such power, and the discretion remained absolutely with the County Council. The Clause might be in the nature of advice to the County Councils, but it was advice and nothing more. He gathered that the Vice President assented to that view.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (SIR JOHN GORST,): said he did not take much part in the discussions on the Bill; but he knew, after an experience of seven years at the Board of Education, that although such questions as that before the Committee created interest in the House of Commons, and gave rise to long debates, they did not create the slightest interest outside. As he had been specially appealed to by

999
the hon. Member opposite he would say that what the hon. Member just said was perfectly true. The Clause was not drawn in such a way that a mandamus could be issued to compel the County Council to make a grant. The County Council had absolute discretion. The reason why the words were put into the Clause was that it was presumed that the local authorities would desire to conform to the law, and the words were introduced to call their attention, in the administration of the Act, to their duties as laid down by Parliament. That was to say that in the matter of giving or withholding a grant, they were not to pay any regard whatever to the religious instruction which was given or not given in the school. He did not know whether the Committee would recognise him as retaining any kind of legal knowledge after the number of years that had elapsed since he practised at the profession; but if he might express an opinion he would say that the words of this sub-section were as clear as legal ingenuity could make them. No doubt lawyers were extremely ingenious in finding equivocal meanings in Acts of Parliament, but he could not conceive any local authority —and it was the local authorities that would have to interpret the section—desiring to understand what Parliament meant, having the slightest possible doubt as to what their duty was.
MR. BEYCEsaid the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply a reflection on the legal intelligence of his hon. friends, who had been endeavouring to discover what the words under consideration really meant. He was particularly struck with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks as to the absolute worthlessness of the Clause. Why, therefore, should they be forced to spend so much time in discussing it. Surely, if it would make no difference, the most practical course for the Government would have been to have accepted the Amendment. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the effect of the Clause. There was no legal sanction whatever attached to it. It was merely so much academic or platonic advice given to the County Councils, but under the circumstances was it worth retaining. If it were suggested that it would be of value as advice to the County Councils, then he thought it was bad
1000
advice, and advice which Parliament ought not to give. He agreed with his noble friend that what the advice amounted to was that if two sets of persons were going to create two sectarian schools, the County Council was not to be allowed to consider whether it would not be better for the locality to have one non-sectarian school, instead of two sectarian schools. Did not the right hon. Gentleman admit that that was the meaning of the words?
SIR JOHN GORST: No.
MR. BRYCEsaid he thought that it was generally understood that that was what the words meant. In such a case the County Council would have regard to the denominational character of the school.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid it was not because of the denominational character of the school that the grant was refused, but because there was another way in which the wants of the neigh bourhood could be better and more suitably provided for.
MR. BRYCEsaid it would be a better and more suitable way, because it would not cause denominational division. That was the very point which his noble friend put. They all knew perfectly well that there might be cases in which it would be practically impossible for a County Council to consider the educational needs and requirements of a district, without having regard to religious questions. They were not compelling the County Councils to do that, but they were only asking that they should not be forbidden to fix their minds on the religious question in addition to the other questions which would determine the grant of money. The only effect of keeping those words in the Clause, would be to hamper the County Councils, and prevent people from expressing their real motives as they otherwise would. The County Councils would act on the best view of what was needed, and it was only fair and reasonable that they should be allowed to discuss all the questions at issue.
(7.26) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 255; Noes, 106. (Division List No, 270.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex, F.

Dyke, RtHon. SirWilliam Hart

Long, Col. CharlesW. (Evesham

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Fardell, Sir T. George

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Ambrose, Robert

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fergusson, RtHn. Sir. J.(Manc'r

Macdona, John Cumming

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fielden, Elward Blocklehurst

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Arnold-Forsten, Hugh O.

Finch, George H.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Govern, T.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

FitzGerald, SirRobert Penrose-

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

Balcarres, Lord

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

M'Kean, John

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r

Flannery, Sir Fortescne

Majendie, James A. H.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Flower, Ernest

Middlemore, JohnThrggmort'n

Banbury, Frederick George

Flynn, James Christopher

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Foster, SirMichael(Lond. Univ.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Beach. RtHn. SirMichael Hicks

Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S. W

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants

Beckett, Ernest William

Galloway, William Johnson

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Berosford, Lord Chas. William

Gardner, Ernest

Mooney, John J.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Garfit, William

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Bignold, Arthur

Gibbs, HnA. G. H.(CityofLond)

More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

Bigwood, James

Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'ml'ts

Morgan, DavidJ.(Walth'mst'w

Boland, John

Gore, HnG. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

Morrell, George Herbert

Bond, Edward

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Morrison, James Archibald

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Morton, ArthurH. A.(Deptf'rd)

Bousfield, William Robert

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Mount, William Arthur

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

Green, Walford D.(W'dnesb'ry

Murphy, John

Brassey, Albert

Gretton, John

Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute

Brodrick, Rt Hon. St. John

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Brown, AlexanderH.(Shropsh.

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Myers, William Henry

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hambro, Charles Eric

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hamilton, RtHnLord G.(Mid'x

Nolan, Col. JohnP.(Galway, N.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Carson, Rt, Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Harwood, George

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cavendish, V. CW.(Derbyshire

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich

Heath, ArthnrHoward(Hanley

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Chapman, Edward

Hogg, Lindsay

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon N.

Charrington, Spencer

Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

O'Malley, William

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry

O'Mara, James

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

O'Shee, James John

Coddington, Sir William

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Pemberton, John S. G.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

Penn, John

Colomb, SirJohnCharlesReady

Jessel, CaptainHerbertMerton

Percy, Earl

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohnH.

Purvis, Robert

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Kennedy, Patrick James

Rankin, Sir James

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Kimber, Henry

Ratcliff, R. F.

Cranborne, Viscount

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Reddy, M.

Crossley, Sir Savile

Knowles, Lees

Redmond, JohnE. (Waterford)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Richards, Henry Charles

Davies, SirHoratioD(Chatham

Law, HughAlex. (Donegal, W.

Ridley, Hon. M. W(Stalybridge

Delany, William

Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)

Ritchie, RtHon. Chas. Thomson

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lawson, John Grant

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Leamy, Edmund

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lecky, Rt. Hn. WilliamEdw. H

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Donelan, Captain A.

Lees, Sir Elliott(Birkenhead)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Doogan, P. C.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

Duke, Henry Edward

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(IsleofWight

1002

1003

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Tollemache, Henry James

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E. R (Bath)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

Valentia, Viscount

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Spear, John Ward

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Stanley, Lord (Lincs.)

Welby, Sir CharlesG.E.(Notts

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Stock, James Henry

Wharton, Rt. Hon. JohnLloyd

Young, Samuel

Stroyan, John

Whiteley, H(Ashton-und-Lyne

Younger, William

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset

Sullivan, Donal

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Sir William Walrond and

Thornton, Percy M.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

Rickett, J. Compton

Allen, Charles P(Glouc., Stroud

Hayne, Rt. Hon. CharlesSeale-

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hemphill. Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Runciman, Walter

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Schwann, Charles E.

Black, Alexander William

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Broadhurst, Henry

Jacoby, James Alfred

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Soares, Ernest J.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Lambert, George

Spencer, RtHnC. R.(Northants

Burns, John

Langley, Batty

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Tennant, Harold John

Caine, William Sproston

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Caldwell, James

Leng, Sir John

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Causton, Richard Knight

Levy, Maurice

Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

Cawley, Frederick

Lloyd-George, David

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Channing, Francis Allston

Lough, Thomas

Toulmin, George

Cremer, William Randal

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Crombie, John William

M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin

Ure, Alexander

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Wallace, Robert

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds, S.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Markham, Arthur Basil

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dunn, Sir William

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

White, George (Norfolk)

Edwards, Frank

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Ellis, John Edward

Moss, Samuel

Whiteley, George (York, W. R

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Moulton, John Fletcher

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Newnes, Sir George

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

Norman, Henry

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, John (Duham, Mid.)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading

Woodhouse, SirJ. T(Huddersf'd

Fuller, J. M. F.

Partington, Oswald

Yoxall, James Henry

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Paulton, James Mellor

Grant, Corrie

Pease, J A. (Saffron Walden)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

Perks, Robert William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Griffith, Ellis J.

Philipps, John Wynford

Mr. Brynmor Jones and

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Rea, Russell

Mr. Herbert Lewis.

It being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).
  Clause 4:—
  (9.0.) An Amendment by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS substituting the word "used" for "practised" was inserted in the provision forbidding local authorities to require that any particular form of religious instruction should or should not be taught or practised.
  The CHAIRMANruledseveral Amendments on the Paper out of order.
  MR. CHANNINGmoved the insertion in line 12 of the words "at present

  1005
  existing" after the word "college." The effect would, ho said, be to restrict the operation of the sub-section to existing secondary and technical schools and training colleges. He held that the local authority should have the right to insist that new schools aided by them should be undenominational where they considered it more desirable for the special character of the locality. He had already expressed his objection to the phraseology of the sub-section; the powers conferred by it were of too vague and general a character, and unless they were restricted, great practical difficulties would inevitably arise. It was, in his opinion, not clear that the local authority could provide or aid strictly undenominational schools. The question whether this power should be limited to existing schools raised most important points. It was important with regard to the prevention of the creation of objectionable schools, and it was still more important with regard to the freedom of action of the local education authority to provide undenominational schools when desired.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 12, after the word 'college,' to insert the words 'at present existing.'"—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he did not think the Committee could consent to the restriction proposed by the hon. Member. The effect would be that, although practically the Council, in regard to existing schools, was forbidden to take into account there particular religious teaching in determining whether or not they should be aided, yet in the case of new schools and colleges to be hereafter created, not by the County Council but by other persons, their religious character was to be taken into account in determining whether or not a grant should be made to them. That was he thought going too far. The Amendment, he would like to point out, did not raise the question to which his right hon. friend had promised consideration earlier in the day as to the conditions to be observed in schools set up by the
  1006
  local authority itself, but would distinguish between schools set up independently and divide them into two classes, one of which would be under restrictions and the other not.
  MR. BRYCEsupported the Amendment on the ground that there was a substantial difference between existing schools innocently set up and new-schools, perhaps set up for sectarian purposes, but which the County Council might think ought to be unsectarian. He thought the Amendment deserved fuller consideration than the Government seemed disposed to give it.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLopposed the Amendment. He objected to a distinction being drawn between schools already-existing and future schools, because the result would be that twenty years hence, great confusion would be produced in our educational system by having schools conducted under different orders. The hon. Member for Northampton had spoken of "objectionable" schools. What did he mean by that term? Presumably his objection was based on denominational grounds, but his remark seemed to indicate that the liberty which he professed to claim was to be one-sided, that liberty was to be given in one direction but taken away in another. It was necessary that the local authority should have regard not only to the suitability of schools but' also to the efficiency of education. He objected to a system founded on chronological distinctions which could have no logical basis or element of endurance. He did not wish the views of any extreme party of any denomination to prevail, but he did desire freedom for all, and he believed that anything which restrained freedom and restricted liberty was injurious to the cause of education. He, in fact, welcomed everything in the Bill which favoured freedom and gave security to it. because he believed such principles to be the very essence of sound education.
  MR. YOXALLsaid he thought it only right that the governors of a school should be free to deal with their own property as they liked, but not free to deal with money supplied by the State.

  1007
  But the hon. Baronet who spoke last went further than that. The sub-section would enable County Councils to subsidise out of public funds, schools which were definitely denominational, but which possessed no conscience clause. It was a power which County Coucils had never before possessed, and all the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire asked was that that should be limited to existing institutions. He would like to draw the attention of the Committee to two examples of schools which would be affected by this provision. The Girls' Public Day School Company—accordingly as there were funds at the disposal of the central body—were setting up schools of an undenominational character all over the country, and on the other hand there were the Woodard schools, which were also being set up all over the country as quickly as funds were available. Scholastically, they were excellent institutions, but they, aroused much irritation and sectarian feeling among large sections of the population, and unless this Amendment was carried the governors of those schools would be justified, whenever they started a new school, in applying to the County Council for rate aid for that new school, and the Council would have no power to refuse it. That was not desirable, and hence the proposal to limit the action of the sub-section to schools, etc., at present existing. The Amendment was necessary, and the compromise was one that might fairly be accepted.
  SIR ALBEET ROLLITsaid it seemed to him that they were beginning to change sides on the question of denominationalism. He, for his part, was opposed to religious tests, first because he considered them wrong in principle, and secondly, because experience had taught him that they were illusory. He sacrificed his position on the Council of King's College rather than submit to those tests, which had happily now been removed. His view of a conscience clause was that it was the corollary of the grant and acceptance of public funds. What was it that this clause did? It seemed to him to be such as would have met once, if not now, the desire of many hon. Members opposite, in that it prevented local authorities from interfering in the domain of dogmatic religion. If the Councils were to be guided in making the grants by religious views or
  1008
  ecclesiastical principles, there would be much wrangling and scrambling, with most injurious results, not only to the Council but to education and to the various teaching institutions. This was no new departure. Under the Technical Instruction Act, which included, in a large measure, secondary instruction, such aid as was contemplated here had been given and there had been no complaint and, practically, no religious difficulty. Grammar schools, whish had been spoken of by an hon. Member opposite as generally Anglican, had been aided by the Corporations hitherto, and surely they were not now going to terminate that aid. Take for another example the case of King's College. There the conscience Clause had been granted and religious tests had been abolished; but was the House prepared to say that it would not aid King's College in its great secular and scientific Educational work, always costly and beyond support by mere fees alone, because it happened to be a denominational institution, although the students were adequately protected by a conscience Clause? It was this consideration which led him, in a recent division, as to the need and right of conscience clauses, to take the same views as and to vote with hon. Gentlemen opposite. What they had to look to was, not to intermix with secondary education the religious difficulty, but to the secular results of their great teaching institutions, and wherever they found them progressing and established, and protected by a conscience clause and the absence of theological tests, they ought to encourage them by the aid they could render. They could not, if they would, remove the principle which invested so many minds, and which was the strongest of all convictions, that education without distinctive teaching was to them almost impossible. Even if one did not agree with it, that was largely, whether rightly or wrongly, English human nature and a feature of their national character, and if they suddenly reverted to a different system by declining to encourage learning because it was contaminated with denominational teaching, such a course would not be favourable to educational progress.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that the hon. Member who had just sat down informed the in that at King's College

  1009
  they had been compelled to remove the tests and adopt a conscience Clause, and he also asked the Committee whether on that account this college was unfit to receive recognition in regard to its secular and scientific work. His reply to that argument was that King's College would not have been fit to receive that recognition if it had continued to maintain religious tests, and the fact that it had been compelled to remove religious tests was an exact illustration of what they wore anxious to secure for all kindred institutions. All they were asking for was that they should have the same safeguards which the hors. Member opposite had just been praising. That was all they were asking for, and that was what was being denied to them. As the Clause stood, if a County Council established a new school ho very much, doubted whether they would be able to require that any kind of religious teaching at all should be given in their own school. Everything depended upon the meaning of the words "particular form," which might be held to cover such teaching as was now given in board schools under the name of "undenominational religious teaching." He did not raise this question simply for a quibble, but he thought hon. Members ought to know what they were doing. By this Clause they seemed to be giving instructions to County Councils which would prevent them from being able to provide that kind of religious teaching which had been considered acceptable to all denominations. That was really a very serious consideration, for it was actually putting a premium upon the new growth of denominational schools everywhere. They were giving the opportunity and offering a premium to people to establish any kind of schools they liked, and then they would be able to say to the education authority: "Here we are occupying the ground, and you cannot do anything to damage us, for we have got our buildings and our teaching staff, and you cannot damage the work we have just started." In this way the local authority would be called upon to respect all the now schools which might spring up like mushrooms here, there, and everywhere.
  MR. BONDsaid the hon. Member for West Nottingham had stated that public money had not been applied under any previous Act
  1010
  to the assistance of denominational schools or colleges, but there was something in this Clause which compelled the new education authority to make grants to this or that school without exercising any discretion. The whisky money had already been applied certainly in London, and he believed in other districts, to assist secondary schools of a denominational character. Moreover, the money granted by the Science and Art Department was public money, and that was frequently given to schools which could not be described as other than of a denominational character. This money had been granted to Roman Catholic schools, and it would have been granted to Jewish schools providing they applied for it, and were efficient. An attempt was made in the Bill to prevent local authorities taking into account certain considerations, but it had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Perth that they could not bind people to do this, but they might say: "You cannot grant this money ostensibly for certain religious teachings." If a member of any local education authority desired to oppose any particular grant, nothing in this Act would prevent him. To say that this was compulsory, was to make a statement which a mere perusal of the Clause would show was entirely unfounded. The only thing to be regarded was educational efficiency, and the place which a school held in the educational system of the district. If it could be shown that a school of any denomination would be able to do better educational work if slight or considerable assistance was given to the local authority, then it would be the duty of that authority to consider whether assistance should be given or not. That was a wholesome and sound educational doctrine, and one which ho was surprised that anybody who spoke as an educational authority should think of controverting.
  MR. PERKSsaid that this Clause must be read having regard to the vast number of councils which would now have to exercise these powers under the Act. During the progress of this Bill through Committee several Amendments had vested this power of dealing with grants in a vast number of Councils, some of them large and important bodies and some of them extremely small and

  1011
  unimportant. He would venture to point out what might occur if they looked forward, not twenty years, but a couple of years. What would happen when a proposal came before a small municipal council to grant aid either towards the erection or maintenance of some sectarian institution within its boundary? Take as an example some convent school erected by foreign institutions in various parts of this country, a good many of which now existed. They were officered by accomplished teachers, and were attracting inside them the children oven of Protestants. Imagine that a proposal came before a town council for a grant towards the technical portion or the secular part of the instruction given in such a convent school. The Chairman of such a town council, directly a religious argument was raised, would be in order in ruling it out, and in saying to the councillors, "You must assume that this is an unsectarian school, and must not be guided by your religious predilections." But would that course be pursued by a single town councilor? It was a doctrine of perfection, or imperfection. Suppose the proposition was to make a grant not to a Roman Catholic convent school but to one of Canon Woodard's schools where the children were marched to mass. Would it be possible for an ordinary mortal to divest his mind of his sectaarian bias? The Vice-President suggested that some other reason for rejecting the grant must be found than the theological character of the institution, such as educational inefficiency, but if the statute was to be interpreted in relation to something that was not in it, it was evidently defective. They did not want every one of these councils to become the arena of ecclesiastical strife, but this clause would achieve that result; just as was the case with the London School Board some years ago, these councils were now to be plunged into fierce and bitter sectarian strife. The First Lord of the Treasury had constantly confronted him with the case of the Wesleyan schools, and he had asked him earlier in the evening, What are you going to do about the Wesleyan schools?" They had upon the Consultative Committee Dr. Waller, but he was not the mouthpiece of Wesleyan policy, and he had been disavowed recently by 90 per cent, of the Methodists, but, nevertheless, the First Lord of the Treasury was
  1012
  willing to hang on to the coat tails of this excellent ecclesiastic, whom he held up as the representative of the Methodist Church. The Wesleyan Church absolutely repudiated him as an exponent of their educational policy. The First Lord of the Treasury selected for his argument the proposed new training institution in connection with the Wesleyans. One of the principles which they had laid down with regard to this institution was that it should be unsectarian, and that there should be a conscience clause for every student, and yet the Government were, with the assistance of the Gentleman he named, struggling might and main, to make this new training college a denominational and sectarian institution, where young people could only be admitted who were members of the Wesleyan Methodist Church, and who paid a penny a week, or a shilling a quarter, towards the support of the institutions of that excellent Church. Wesleyans repudiated that notion altogether. The right hon. Gentleman, in the argument he had used upon his point, was drinking from a tainted source. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to know the views of a large section of the Wesleyan Methodist community upon this point, and would make inquiries, he would find that in what he had just stated he had accurately represented the views of nine-tenths of the members of the Methodist Church in this country. For these reasons he should certainly support the Amendment of his hon. friend.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid absurd exaggeration as to what was likely to happen if this clause was carried had been used by gentlemen who really seemed to have denominationalism on the brain. The present Amendment would create an absurd state of things, as it would divide the schools which might be aided into different classes, according to the date at which they were established. That was not a thing which could be logically justified, or would produce satisfaction. If certain conditions were objectionable, and the Committee had decided them to be so, they were just as objectionable to one class of schools as to another.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEthought the Committee were getting into very great difficulties with regard to the payment for sectarian teaching. The subsidising of sectarian schools out of the rates was being provided for to an extent never before contemplated, and now, when they wished to limit this system of payment to existing teachers, they were met with the argument that they would be creating two classes of schools. The question involved in that discussion was whether they were to permit the extension of a system of sectarian institutions practically supported out of the rates, ft might be said that they ought to trust County Councils not to subsidise sectarian schools, but from his knowledge of County Councils he was by no means certain that they would be as liberal and broad-minded in this matter as some members of the Committee thought. He was quite sure that this clause would introduce a spirit of religious animosity into County Council elections. It was said that the Councils, in making grants, should be guided alone by secular results. That was a very popular principle, provided that all educational establishments were on an equality. But there would be districts in which sectarian schools would be producing good secular results, and practically monopolising the secular teaching in those districts; as long as they produced those good secular results they would be maintained to the exclusion of other schools into which the children of Free Churchmen could enter. That would be an injustice to those who, for conscientious reasons, could not avail themselves of the facilities which the sectarian schools offered. He thought it was admitted on the other side of the House that, whatever they might be prepared to do in the way of leaving existing colleges and schools untouched, they were not prepared t o extend and make permanent this system of denominational education maintained so largely out of the rates. The right hon. Gentleman had assured them that under this Bill the friends of undenominational education would have great advantages, but it seemed to him that they were extending the principle of paying out of the rates for the maintenance of sectarian institutions and sectarian teaching. He appealed to the Government not to
  1014
  increase the disabilities, and aggravate the situation, so far as the Nonconformists were concerned. What they asked for was liberty; they did cot ask for advantages for their own denomination; but if they could not be placed in a position of equality with regard to existing institutions, they asked that they should not be placed under greater disabilities by the extension of this principle.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid the hon. Member opposite had appealed for equality. The object of the Bill was to produce equality in. certain matters. In his opinion the true view of equality was that schools in which, by the desire of the parents, a certain kind of sectarian education was given and schools in which, also by the desire of the parents, the children were taught in an unsectarian way should be treated alike by the State for the purposes of higher education and secondary instruction. The question was whether or not religious considerations were to interfere with the proper distribution of these grants for secular education. The principle of the clause was that those considerations should not enter into the matter, but hon. Members opposite seemed to think that they should. Did hon. Members contend that if a school, on general educational grounds, was entitled to grants for secular education, those grants should be withheld because it happened to be a Roman Catholic school? If so, the Amendment was certainly not likely to promote equality of treatment. In their extreme desire to better the clause, hon. Members failed to keep in view the object of its provisions, and also that the Amendment would apply to both parts of the sub-section.
  SIR EDWARD GREYthought the hon. Member had overlooked the fact that this particular sub-section was a disabling section, and that its deletion would not tie the hands of the County Council; it would leave them perfectly free. If the Amendment were carried, the County Council would be perfectly free to give a grant to any denominational school. As he understood the matter, the Government contemplated the local

  1015
  education authorities having to deal with schools established by bodies other than themselves, and that they would be concerned solely with the question of giving grants to those schools. Under those circumstances the Government had decided that the Council should not require that any particular form of religious instruction or worship should or should not be taught. But suppose the local education authority, in order to satisfy the need^ of a district, decided to establish a school; what would be the effect of this particular sub-section on the local authority? It seemed to him that when they came to deal with a school, established and maintained by the County Council, this particular subsection would disable it from arranging any form of religious instruction at all. This was a question which ought not to be left in doubt. They ought to know whether if a County Council established schools of their own they would have a perfectly free hand in deciding whether any, and if so what, kind of religious teaching should be given in those schools.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that if a County Council established schools of their own, they would have a perfectly free hand to decide whether any religious instruction should be given, and an Amendment would be moved to give the Council a perfectly free hand in regard to the schools established by them. The only exception would be that no one should be excluded from the school on the ground of religious belief.
  MR. LLOYD-GEOEGEthought that the Government ought to go further than that, and say not merely that the schools should be open to everybody, but that there should be no dogmatic teaching in them at all. The more the Bill was gone into the more was the whole conspiracy unmasked. It was now perfectly clear that the intention of the Government was not only to strengthen denominational education in primary schools, but also to enable the County Councils, wherever the Church party were in a majority, to found secondary schools in which dogmatic teaching would be permitted. Such a proceeding ought not to be tolerated. This was not a question in which only
  1016
  large and responsible authorities like the County Council were concerned. It was a question of enabling little cathedral towns, with a population of about 10,000, completely dominated by the cathedral clergy, to found sectarian secondary schools. That was simply devolution run mad, and a limit ought to be placed upon it. He was not sure, however, that the Amendment in its present form answered the purpose. It sought to confine the subsection to existing schools, but unless a further Amendment were carried, limiting the powers of the County Councils in regard to schools founded in the future, the present Amendment would be rather dangerous. When they came to the small areas it was quite a different matter, and he did not think they ought to trust them with this power. The existing schools would not be entitled to make these conditions, but schools in the future would be able to get their grant on the understanding that their teaching would not be given as a condition of the grant.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, no.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Amendment of his hon. friend was to confine this clause to existing schools, so that with regard to future schools the County Councils and these little authorities would be perfectly at liberty to make any conditions they pleased. They ought to say that these County Councils should not be entitled to subsidise secondary schools out of the public funds which gave religious teaching to any denomination. His hon. friend opposite did not think it was fair that schools which gave a teaching which was special to any donomination should be placed at a disadvantage. Let them consider for a moment the case of an undenominational school. In that school every appointment was open to every religious denomination, and the religious teaching would not offend the consciences of the Members of any other denomination. In such schools there would be no teaching derogatory to the religion of any hon. Member of the House, but it was a totally different matter when they came to a school which taught the dogmas of any particular denomination. Such a school would exclude from its

  1017
  appointments on the teaching stuff those who belonged to any other denomination, and his point was that if anybody desired an exclusive school for himself, or his particular sect, he should be prepared to pay the penalty. They had no right to treat these little sectarian, schools in the same way as schools which were open to everybody. The Amendment of his hon. friend was a very doubtful one unless it was carried much further, for if it was confined to existing schools, it would be perfectly open to these little councils not only to subsidise, but to found, denominational schools. The greatest difficulty really was that these councils, instead of setting themselves the task of founding a first class educational system for their district, would simply subsidise private schools. Hitherto they had avoided that danger by excluding all these private venture schools. There would be the pressure of personal interest, and those interested in a particular denomination, who desired to get a grant from the County Council, and instead of getting a public school system built up according to modern ideas they would get a lot of schools established for which the council was not responsible. Under these circumstances he thought it would be undesirable to press the Amendment to a division.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESagreed that there would not be much advantage gained by accepting the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for East Northamptonshire. He had risen not for the purpose of continuing the general discussion upon this Amendment, but to take this opportunity of giving a further instance which had occurred to him as to the effect of the legislation proposed under Part 1 of this Act. By Clause 4 a limitation was placed upon the action of County Councils. Under the Intermediate Education Act of 1889 a system of secondary education had been created, but it had not been created simply by the levying of the rate of ½d. in the £ but by virtue of a combination of efforts, It had been done by the various bodies working in conjunction with the Charity Commissioners and acting together under the Endowed Schools Act of 1869 and the Amending Acts. By Clause 88
  1018
  of the scheme of the County Council of Glamorganshire, it was provided that religious instruction in accordance with the principles of the Christian faith should be given in the schools by members of the ordinary staff, under such regulations as might be made from time to time by the school managers. That was agreed to by the House, because at the time they were getting certain ancient endowments. The practical question he wished to put from this argument was whether County Councils could give to any one of these schools any part of the 2d. rate.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is relevant to the Amendment.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid his point was that if the Glamorganshire County Council could only give and. rate then it became an important question to limit the new County Councils as much as possible. He wished to know if the County Councils could give to the school any part of the 2d. rate.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the Committee seemed to be in some little difficulty with regard to the meaning and effect of this Amendment, and perhaps this was not surprising when they considered what the effect of the clause would be. He would try to explain what he thought was the effect of his hon. friend's Amendment. It was intended to exclude the case of future schools. Future schools might be of two classes. They might be schools established by some associations or private persons, or schools established by the local authority itself. He understood that his hon. friend refrained from dealing with the case of schools established by the local authority, because it was understood that such schools were to be governed by the Amendment which the First Lord of the Treasury had undertaken to move. The right hon. Gentleman had intimated that he would accept an Amendment limiting the power of the local authority in regard to the establishment of future secondary schools, and the effect of that was to be that the local authority would not be able to establish sectarian schools. That might mean a school with no conscience

  1019
  clause, or one which was managed by a religious denomination. When the Amendment was moved it would be for the Committee to consider whether it made the school sectarian in the broader sense of the term where it had a conscience clause, or whether it directed that the schools should be unsectarian in the broader sense of the term. Future schools were to be dealt with by the Amendment promised by the First Lord of the Treasury, and that was his answer to the objection to the Amendment taken by the hon. Member for Carnarvon, and the hon. Member for Swansea. Were it not for the Amendment to be moved by the right hon. Gentleman, there would be very great force in the criticisms made in regard to this Amendment. Therefore he would confine himself to the other cases, and not to the schools to be established by the local authority. His hon. friend's Amendment was useful with regard to this clause. There was one thing that was most likely to happen under this Bill. When the Act was passed, and when the question of establishing these secondary schools arose, it was quite probable that various sectarian organisations would endeavour to cover the ground with sectarian schools. It might well be that the local authority would think that sectarian schools would not be best fitted to meet the needs of the district. The hon. Member for East Somerset said that what they had to think of was efficiency, and that it would not do to draw a distinction between two classes of schools. But surely they could draw a distinction between efficiency and the question of a class of people to whom a school appealed. A sectarian school appealed to a very small class, and had a claim upon some particular denomination. It was not accessible to all children, although it might be so tinder a conscience clause, but children were not there by the same full right as those who belonged to the particular denomination. Let them imagine themselves members of the County Council. Let them suppose that they were aware that two or three sectarian organisations were going to endeavour to establish sectarian schools in a particular county. Surely they might reasonably think, without any prejudice or animosity of any kind, that an unsectarian school was likely to be more useful than a
  1020
  sectarian school, and holding that view they would be entitled to argue in favour of distributing the grants to unsectarian rather than to sectarian schools. In such a case when the ground was going to be covered, the local authority might fairly warn the sectarian organisations that it preferred to see unsectarian schools, and that if they persisted in establishing unsectarian schools they need not look to the local education authority for grants. That was a matter of educational policy, because it was intended to do that which would be for the benefit of the greatest number. For these reasons he submitted that his hon. friend's Amendment was a very good one, and was entitled to their support upon the ground that in a very large number of cases it would prove to be the best way of meeting the general wishes of the people.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that he understood the principle of this Amendment to be that in no secondary school hereafter, whether provided by the local authority or by some other sectarian organisation or otherwise, would aid be given by the local education authority if the school was of a sectarian character. It was not a question of a conscience clause, but what they desired was that at no future time should any public funds be given to a sectarian school, whether provided by the County Council or by a local organisation of a sectarian character. They did not know the terms of the Amendment which was to be proposed by the First Lord of the Treasury, therefore they were in a difficulty in discussing this Amendment. According to the clause as it now stood, they practically said to the education authority in regard to secondary schools "Hands off! you cannot dictate that anything shall be done in these schools, or require that anything shall not be done." He would put to the Committee a couple of concrete cases. He assumed that if the education authority were not permitted to speculate at all, in considering the application of the money, upon the religious tenets taught or practised in the school, and in the discussion upon the appointment of teachers, no religious consideration could come in. Supposing a teacher were appointed. If no inquiry was made into the form of religion the

  1021
  teacher might he a religious or an irreligious man. Supposing a County Council found hereafter that the head master of a school was an Atheist, and they found that he was inculcating in the school the principles of Atheism. Would they be allowed to make any representations at all? Take the case of a man whose religion was not inquired into, and he turned out to be a Ritualist and indulged in practices to which the majority of the parents of the children in the school objected? According to the clause as it now stood the very County Council had no voice at all in telling this man that he must not carry on Ritualistic practices. The right hon. Gentleman said that the school managers would take that into account, but were they to be able to control this matter when the educational authority could not? They had not provided in this Bill that the educational authority should provide any scheme at all. If they had provided schemes like the Welsh scheme, and made provision for unsectarian religious education, then they would know where they were. Who were to be the managers of the secondary schools? He failed to see anything in the Bill which indicated that they were to be managed as the elementary schools were managed.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid the existing secondary schools were under schemes settled by the Charity Commissioners.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he was not discussing the existing schools at all. The Amendment dealt with schools which did not exist. There was no provision to show how the managers were to be appointed or got rid of, or how a scheme was to be promulgated or provided by the County Council. The only proper rotation of the difficulty so far as future schools were concerned was to provide that, whoever established them, they should not partake of a sectarian character at all.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid the Amendment of his lion, friend was most important in relation to the provision of technical education by sectarian organisations. Everybody in the House knew that,
  1022
  owing to history and many other causes, there was one denomination in this country which possessed by far the greatest amount of wealth, and that denomination was able to far more richly endow educational institutions than any other religious denomination in the country. He was in favour of the proposed limit because he believed the perpetuation of the sectarian element would be bad for the future education of the country.
  DR. MACNAMARAasked for information as to the intention of the Government with regard to the future of secondary education and the action of the local authorities. He thought the Committee should know exactly the view of the Government with regard to the Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the sole object of the Amendment was to exclude from the general purview of sub-Section I. schools to be founded in the future. Those schools, at first sight, were either provided by the local authority or by other agencies, and they must confine-the sub-section as it stood to schools not provided by the authorities. As to local schools, the Government proposed that they should be in the same position as schools now in existence. He did not say that they could all agree upon that, but it was a clear issue, and he honed the Committee would come to a decision upon it.
  MR. MOSSsaid they were told that the object of the Bill was the betterment of education. It was known that for the past thirty years the secular schools had turned out better scholars than the schools where denominational education was given. If that was challenged he could produce statistics to prove the statement. It was a great hardship to citizens who held other views that a dogma distinctive of any particular religious denomination should be taught at the public expense.
  SIR WILLIAM MATHERsuggested that they should leave the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education to determine exactly the course to be pursued in relation to the subject raised by this particular Amendment.

  1023
  He understood the Amendment to mean that in future the schools to be established by any organisation should open these schools, without religious tests, to students of all denominations. [Cries of "No."] Anyhow, he thought it might be left to the Consultative Committee. Many questions would arise in future; which could not be anticipated in framing the Bill.
  MR. MOULTONpointed out that this Amendment might be very valuable to the cause of secondary education. It still left it open to the Government to make a deliberate choice with regard to denominational schools in future, but it was most important, in the interests of secondary education, that they should draw the line, by way of compromise, between those that existed and those to be created in future. It had struck him in the course of the debate that all the speakers had spoken of secondary education as if it were in pari material with primary education. They forgot that in secondary education was included purely technical education. However proper it might be that religion might be taught in schools of a higher grade than elementary, it was absurd to say that any religious denomination might set up a chemical school and teach religion in the intervals of dscussing the density of bodies or the structural formulæ of organic acids, and that the educational authority must be party to it. If the future of technical education was to be sandwiched with lectures on the Apostles' Creed, then we should never get into the position we all so earnestly desire. A man might be thoroughly religious in all his life, but he did not want to mix up his religion with his mathematics, and he did not think of Job and pakæontology at the same moment. Surely we might

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Brigg, John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cremer, William Randal

  Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

  Bruuner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bryce, Kt. Hon. James

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Caldwell, James

  Edwards, Frank

  Black, Alexander William

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Ellis, John Edward

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  rise above these miserable sectarian views of life, and realise that we are doing the best thing for religious education when we recognise that serious studies may very well be carried on at times when we do not devote our thoughts to religion. There were a great many schools which must be called secondary schools at present in existence, but he regretted to say that very few of them were technical in the sense in which he was using the word. He hoped that in future those technical schools would abound. The Amendment conceded to existing schools that no County Council should stipulate that a certain religious formula should or should not be taught, but to say that in the future no County Council should stipulate that for a technical school no particular religious formula should be taught was to start secondary education with the brand of sectarianism. He asked the Government not to look upon this as an Amendment which tied their hands in regard to the future of secondary schools. Let us agree so far as we can. Let them take this Clause with its extraordinarily severe restrictions as applying only to existing schools, but let them leave for more careful thought the decision as to what powers the County Councils should have with regard to new schools.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENasked whether the Amendment now proposed would interfere with the power of the County Council to give help out of the new 2ds. rate to the Welsh intermediate schools. He hoped the Amendment to be moved by the First Lord of the Treasury would soon appear in print, so that they might be able to appreciate it.
  (11.8.) Question put,
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 105; Noes, 263. (Division List No. 271.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Spear, John Ward

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Spencer, Rt. Hri. C. R (N'rthants

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Grant, Corrie

  Mather, Sir William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E (Berwick

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Tennant, Harold John

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Moss, Samuel

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. CharlesSeale-

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Thomas, F. Freeman. (Hastings

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Newnes, Sir George

  Toulmin, George

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Joicey Sir James

  Perks, Robert William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swans'a

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

  Priestley, Arthur

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilson, FredW.(Norfolk, Mid.

  Lambert, George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Langley, Batty

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Layland-Rarratt, Francis

  Runciman, Walter

  Leese, SirJoseph F.(Accrington

  Russell, T. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh

  Mr. Channing and Mr.

  Leng, Sir John

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford

  Samuel Evans.

  Levy, Maurice

  Saipman, Dr. John G.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Acland-Hood, Capt. SirAlex. F.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Ambrose, Robert

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Colomb, SirJohnCharles Ready

  Flower, Ernest

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Balcarres, Lord

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Foster, SirMichael(Lond. Univ.

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S. W

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Balfour, RtHn(Gerald W. (Leeds

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Gardner, Ernest

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cranborne, Lord

  Gartit, William

  Bathms, Hon. AllenBenjamin

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Godson, Sir AugustusFrederick

  Beach, RtHn. SirMichael Hicks

  Crossley, Sir Saville

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Gore, Hn G. R. C, Ormsby-(Salop

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Bignold, Arthur

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Goschen, Hon. GeorgeJoachim

  Bigwood, James

  Davis, SirHoratioD (Chatham

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bill, Charles

  Delany, William

  Green, Walford D.(Wednesb'ry

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Greene, SirE. W(B'rySEdm'nds

  Boland, John

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Gretton, John

  Bond, Edward

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Dillon, John

  Groves, James Grimble

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Brassev, Albert

  Doogan, P. C.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley

  Brown, AlexanderH.(Shropsh.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

  Bull, William James

  Dyke, Rt, Hn. Sir William Hart

  Helder, Augustus

  Butcher, John George

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Caatley, Henry Strother

  Fellowes, Hon. AilwynEdward

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. SirJ. (Manc'r

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Howard, John(Kent, Kav'rsh'm

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Finch, George H.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  1026

  1027

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Mowbray. Sir Robert Gray C.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Murphy, John

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B(Isleof Wight

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Kenyon-Slamy, Col. W. (Salop

  Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Knowles, Lees

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Lambton, Him. Frederick Wim.

  Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.

  Smith, HC(North'mb, Tyneside

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Law, High Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tinperary Mid

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs).

  Lawson, John Grant

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Connor James (Wick low, W.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  O'Malley, William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Talbot, Rt Hn J. G (Oxf'd Univ.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  O'Shee, James John

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Peel, Hn. Win. Robt. Wellesley

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Penn, John

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S

  Percy, Earl

  Valentia, Viscount

  Loyo, Archie Kirkman

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E(T'unton

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Purvis, Robert

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Rank in. Sir James

  Whiteley, H(Ashton-und-L'ne

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Reddy, M.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  MacVeagh. Jeremiah

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  M'Govern, T.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  M'Kean, John

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Renwick, George

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Richards. Henry Charles

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Staly bridge

  Worley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Ridley, S. Horde (BetbnalGreen

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wylie, Alexander

  Middlemore. John. Throgmorton

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Wyndham-Qurn, Major W. H.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Young, Samuel

  Mooney, John J.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Mora, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Morgan, DavidJ(W'lthamstow

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Sir William Walrond and

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

  Mr. Anstruther.

  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it would be in the recollection of the Committee that at an early stage in the afternoon he had promised to move an Amendment to the Amendment in the sense of the Amendment moved by his hon. friend below the Gangway, and also of the Amendment on the Paper of his hon. friend behind him on the same subsection. The Amendment which he now proposed was to add to the words already passed, "Shall or shall not be taught or used in any school or college" the words "aided but not provided by the Committee, and no pupil shall be excluded from any such school or college provided by the Council on the ground of religious belief ". That embodied the proposal of his two hon. friends, and in
  1028
  accordance with the suggestion he had made in regard to the scheme, and he now moved the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  "In page 2, line 12, after the word 'college,' to insert the words 'aided but not provided by the council, and no pupil shall be excluded on the ground of religious belief from a school or college provided by the council.'"—(Mr. A. J. Baljour.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BRYCEsaid of course he recognised the action of the right hon. Gentleman in giving the promise he had made, and he was glad that he had moved this Amendment. He was afraid, however, that it did not meet the wishes of that side of the House. From the very first

  1029
  they had desired something much larger—that no council should in future have the power of providing out of its funds, which were public funds, any school of a sectarian character. The light hon. Gentleman's Amendment did riot go that length. It only provided that no pupils should be excluded on the ground of religious belief; but what they desired was that no preference should be given to any one religious body over another, but that a real and absolute religious equality should prevail; that though there might be religious instruction of different types provided for the wishes of different denominations, these denominations shall all be on an equality, and that no public funds should be in the hands of one religious denomination more than another. They asked that on two grounds. In the first place it conformed to those just principles of equality which the Legislature had long ago adopted in dealing with this question. There had been exceptions, such as the grants to the denominational schools, but against these exceptions they had never ceased to protest. In the second place, it had been recognised in the case of the ancient Universities, to a very large extent indeed in the case of the schools under the Endowed Schools Act, and it had even now been recognized in the case of King's College, which had been founded by the Church of England.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman was arguing in favour of a Cowper-Temple Clause for these schools and colleges to be hereafter erected by the education authority. He suggested that that would be more convenient and
  1030
  quite legitimately discussed as a proposed addition to the clause.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he really had no-objection to what the right hon. Gentleman had suggested. Ho had only thought it was more respectful to the right hon. Gentleman to let him know at the earliest possible moment that his proposal was not sufficient.
  EARL PERCYsaid he wished to ask the exact meaning of what the Amendment would be. They were all agreed as to the object of the Amendment, but it might confine this clause to the schools and colleges already aided.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that they had provided in the sub-section already passed for schools and colleges "aided, or to be aided." They now came to such schools and colleges as were provided by the Local authority, and his Amendment said that no persons should be excluded from a school or college provided by the local authority on the ground of any religious belief.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he thought that it would be desirable that the term "college" should include "any day or residential college for the training of teachers."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid with all respect that to make the addition of these words would spoil the drafting of the Bill. It was perfectly clear and obvious that the reference was not merely to ordinary secondary schools, but to schools devoted to training teachers.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he would suggest, as a pure matter of grammar, the words "no child shall be excluded from any school or college."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had already asked the Chairman to put it in that form.
  MR. BEYCEsaid it seemed to him that it would be a little awkward to provide for the less before the greater. It was quite clear that the Amendment on which they were afterwards to take a discussion ought not to follow, but to come before the word "person."
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he entirely agreed with the remark of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, because the Cowper-Temple Clause covered the whole position, and what they were giving now was a conscience clause applicable to new colleges and schools established by County Councils. A great many hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House were very clearly of opinion that where new colleges were established they should be of an unsectarian character. They were quite prepared to preserve to the existing colleges their present privileges, but where they were going to take public funds, and nothing but public funds, for building new colleges, that was another question. Consequently a conscience clause would not be needed, for the Cowper Clause would cover the whole position.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid his hon. friend appeared to think that the Cowper-Temple Clause was the better o the two. He himself did not take that
  1032
  view. The Amendment which was before the Committee was the one which was promised by the Government; and if it were passed, his friend would have an opportunity afterwards of voting for the Cowper-Temple addition to it.
  MR. MOULTONsaid that the last words in the Amendment raised a very serious question as to the status of future public schools.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked, on a point of order, whether the Cowper-Temple Clause was in fact raised by the Amendment at all?
  THE CHAIRMAN: No, That is raised by the Amendment to the Amendment.
  MR. MOULTONsaid he was not referring to the Cowper - Temple Clause. He merely wished to point out that the last words of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opened up a new question altogether, which was quite apart from the question touched on in the earlier words of the Amendment. Pie would suggest that they should first discuss the first part of the Amendment, which had reference to schools or colleges aided, but not provided, by the local authority.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he did not think there was any difficulty in dealing with the Amendment in its present form. Of course, it would be necessary for hon. Members who believed that the proviso should extend not merely to schools provided by the local authority, but also

  1033
  to schools aided by them, to endeavour to amend the Amendment. He would propose to insert after the word "college" in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment the words, "to be established hereafter, and provided or aided by the council."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would reintroduce the point which had been decided by the last Amendment.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid his hon. friends and himself were desirous of discussing whether the proviso was to apply to all secondary schools in the future, and he hoped that a discussion of that kind might be in order.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid it seemed to him that the last part of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman contemplated the idea that the County Councils or the local authorities could in future establish denominational schools or colleges. He strongly objected to the words, and could not imagine anything more subversive to public feeling. He wished to ask if his interpretation was right.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the County Councils could act as suggested by the hon. Member, but not as a consequence of his Amendment. Of course, they would not be able to do so if the addition suggested by hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway were accepted. That would make it impossible.
  MR. LAMBERTasked if the right lion. Gentleman would accept his hon. and learned friend's addition.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Wait until we discuss it.
  MR. LAMBERT: But the two hang together.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid that they ought not to empower the local authorities to set up denominational schools or colleges. It was impossible for them, however, to discuss the matter properly without seeing the Amendment in print; and he would, therefore, suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should report progress and put the clause as amended on the Paper. If the County Councils were to be empowered to establish denominational colleges, he would be obliged to vote against the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, oragainst any other Amendment that would bring that about.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid he wished to suggest to his right hon. friend that it was now clear that by making concessions to the Opposition he was only prolonging the debate and running the risk of destroying the Bill. He would suggest to his right hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment now, and bring it up on Report, which would enable him to make any change which was desired, without giving the Opposition an opportunity of delaying the progress of the Bill.
  MR. ABEL THOMASsaid he wished to understand what the Amendment really was. Did it mean that any denomination could start a school of its own, and work it as a denominational school

  1035
  although it was supported out of the rates? IF that was the moaning of the Amendment ho certainly did not want concessions of that kind. It was not a concession at all, and instead of being in the interests of the education of the country, it would simply continue the ill-feeling which existed in the country.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid it would be impossible to misrepresent the meaning of the Amendment more than it had been misrepresented by the two last speakers. The Amendment was perfectly clear. It first of all restricted the sub-section to the case of schools which were aided, but not provided, by the local authority. With regard to schools' provided by the local authority, it was enacted that no pupil should be excluded from them by reason of his religious conviction. Did any hon. Member dissent from those two propositions? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen desired a further Amendment, which would apply the Cowper-Temple Clause to all schools aided by the local authorities, but that could be discussed tomorrow. It did not in any way affect the proposal of his right hon. friend, which simply carried out the conclusion at which they had arrived in a previous discussion.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Amendment made things worse than they were. As the sub-section stood, there was grave doubt as to whether the local authority could found a denominational school; but with the Amendment added, there could be no doubt about it. The words of the subsection were, that the Council should not require in the application of money
  1036
  that a particular form of religion should be taught in any school or college. That, surely, meant that if they founded a college they should not require that any particular dogma should be taught in it. If the Amendment were added, it would mean that the local authorities would be entitled to found a sectarian college, although they could not exclude from that college a pupil on account of his religious belief. Surely, by implication, that meant that the local authority could found a sectarian college. It was all very well for the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich to call this a concession to the Opposition, bat it looked more like a concession to the noble Lord and his Party.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid he had already appealed to his right hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that he agreed with the noble Lord. He thought the words exceedingly dangerous without the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he would oppose the Amendment very strongly if the words he suggested were not accepted.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSasked what would be the position of teachers under the Amendment. Would they be subjected to a religious test?
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid the Amendment did not affect the position of the teachers in any way.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid it would be unfair to ask the Committee to decide on the question without

  1037
  seeing the various Amendments on the Paper. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to report progress.
  MR. WHITLHYsaid that for once he found himself in agreement with the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, and he thought they would be well advised to oppose the Amendment in its present form. He had always held the view that if a council applied money to a school, it should not be empowered to make the religious instruction in that school a condition of the grant. The First Lord of the Treasury assented to that view, but the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment went in a totally contrary direction, as, by implication, it meant that a council might establish a really denominational school or college. He thought that if the right hon. Gentleman withdrew the latter words of his Amendment, they might be able to arrive at an agreement; otherwise they would be bound to oppose it with all the strength in their power. He hoped the Committee would not come to a hasty decision on the matter, as if the Amendment were passed it would entirely upset what they understood to be the meaning of the Clause.
  MR. GRIFFITHsaid he desired to join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment. He regretted that the noble Lore the member for Greenwich should be thought fit to lecture the Opposition. H would inform the noble Lord that legitimate discussion in the House of Common was a fairer method of Parliamentary opposition than loitering in the lobbies The question they had to consider was whether the right hon. Gentleman's
  1038
  Amendment put them in a better position. He submitted it did not. As the Bill now stood there was no hint, or suggestion, or advice to the councils to found denominational colleges or schools; but he submitted that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was a direct suggestion to the councils to found such colleges and schools. If the Amendment were passed in its present form, the councils would conclude that the normal state of affairs was that they should establish educational schools and colleges, and as a concession to Nonconformist they would not be excluded from them, le thought that was a humiliating position; he submitted that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman aggravated the injury, and he trusted the Committee would reject it.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow progress to be reported. Various opinions had been expressed as to what the effect of the Amendment would be; and he was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to report progress, as they could not possibly discuss the matter tonight. He begged to move to report progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Samuel, Evans.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would not oppose the Motion. He had moved the Amendment, because the House generally, and not least the Opposition, at an earlier stage of the discussion thought that it would be a proper Amendment to move, and that that was the proper place to move it. Certainly it was his intention to act in accordance

  1039
  with the views of hon. Members; but he might have to consider whether that was possibly not the best way of attempting to carry on the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress.
  To sit again Tomorrow.

  POST OFFICE SITES (RECOMMITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. Grant Lawsonin the Chair.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENmoved to report progress.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid be would appeal to the Committee not to object to the progress of the Bill. It was an unopposed measure, and had passed through a Hybrid Committee with only a Single Amendment, which he himself moved in response to a pledge he had given in the House. Its only object was to secure two sites for post office premises, one in Dulwich, and the other in the neighbourhood of Oxford Street. The latter was urgently needed' not only for ordinary postal purposes, but also for the post-office telephone service; and on its early acquisition depended their power to bring the post-office telephone system into operation in that part of London. It would cause very great inconvenience to many business houses if it were delayed, and he hoped that after the explanation he had given the Bill would be allowed to go through.
  1040
  Clauses 1 to 6 were agreed to without Amendment.
  Clause 7:—
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he would not object if it were understood that the clause would not be regarded as a precedent.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendments.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he would appeal to the House to allow the Bill to be read a third time.
  MR. FLAVINsaid that one stage ought to satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that of course he could not press his Motion if the hon. Gentleman objected; but it was a matter of great public convenience.
  MR. FLAVINsaid that in the circumstances he would not object.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  OUTDOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1:—
  Committee report progress; to sit again upon Friday.
  Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.