EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.

HC Deb 30 July 1902 vol 112 cc199-244

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

(Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith, in the Chair.)

Clause 7: —

Another Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 59, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words, 'shall, where the local education authority are the Council of a county, have a body of managers consisting of a number of managers not exceeding four appointed by that Council, together with a number not exceeding two appointed by the minor local authority. Where the local education authority are the Council of a borough or urban district, they may, if they think fit, appoint for any school provided by them such number of managers as they may determine. '(2) All public elementary schools not provided by the local education authority shall have a body of managers consisting of a number of trust managers not exceeding four appointed as provided by this Act, together with a number of managers not exceeding two appointed (a) where the local education authority are the Council of a county, one by that Council and one by the minor local authority; and (b) where the local education authority are the Council of a borough or urban district, both by that authority. '(3) One of the managers appointed by the minor local authority, or the manager so appointed, as the case may be, shall be the parent of a child who is, or has been during the last twelve months, a scholar in the school. '(4) The "minor local authority" means the Council of any borough or urban district, or the Parish Council or (where there is no Parish Council) the parish meeting of any parish which appears to the County Council to be served by the school. Where the school appears to the County Council to serve the area of more than one minor local authority, the County Council shall make such provision as they think proper for joint appointment by the authorities concerned.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— In line 8, after the word 'schools,' to insert the words 'maintained but.' "—(Mr. Heywood Johnstone.)

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

(9.0.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

, continuing his speech, said he thought the term, "school not provided by the local education authority," covered all classes of the schools that would be maintained by the old education authority. If he understood the Bill, no school would have a right to any grant. At the present moment a school earned its grant and received it from the Education Department, but the right to the grant was now to cease. The money would, instead, be paid to the local education authoritiy. He submitted that the control under the Bill was effective, and trusted, therefore, that the Amendment would not be pressed.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)

said that under the scheme of the Bill there was no such thing as a public elementary school which was not maintained by the local authority. Under the eighth clause, all public elementary schools were to be maintained by the education authority, but his hon. friend desired to entirely remodel that, and to say that a day school might elect to remain out, and still be a public elementary school, receiving the Government grant, and being subject to the control of the Education Department. If that was really his idea, it was a bad policy, and entirely contrary to the scope of the Bill. He hoped that the Amendment would not be persisted in.

MR. M'KENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)

thought the Amendment a very proper one, inasmuch as it gave an option to voluntary schools to remain exactly as they were. It would create a third class of maintained schools, which would receive the grant through the local authority, but would not be maintained out of the rates. They would have to depend on voluntary subscriptions instead of on the rates. It would test the bond fides of the supporters of those schools, because it would enable them to have their exclusive denominational teaching by the simple method of putting their hands in their pockets. The Attorney General had not said one word on the merits of the Amendment; he had only argued that it would not carry out the mover's intentions, and declared that it was bad. What was the reason for saying it was bad? If it were accepted, it would simplify the subsequent procedure on the question of management, for they would then be able to argue with great force that where voluntary schools were unwilling to subscribe anything for themselves they ought not to be entitled to two-thirds of the control.

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)

could not understand anyone who valued popular control supporting such an Amendment. The effect of it would be to enable schools which were not necessitous to keep out of the county system while remaining in receipt of large sums of public money. They had already passed a clause making the education authority responsible for all secular instruction, and yet, although it would have to hand over the grant, it would have really no representative on the management of the school.

MR. M'KENNA

Exactly as at present.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

hoped that the Amendment would either be withdrawn or rejected by the Committee. There was a vital and urgent principle in the Bill, and this Amendment would kill it. He was tired of the way in which the majority of the school children were being put off with inferior education because of the parsimony which was created by the present voluntary system. If this Bill failed to pass, then it would be the duty of the Liberal Party to put before the country a scheme under which all schools would be maintained out of public funds and be under proper popular control. He was opposed tooth and nail to the system of the schools deriving their support from voluntary contributions. It was desirable to get rid of education by charity, as in the case of voluntary schools. To permit voluntary school managers to contract themselves out of the Bill in order to avoid interference should not be tolerated. Cardinal Vaughan had said, "Let the schools remain poor but free." There was no educational freedom in poverty. He went to a voluntary school as a boy, and remembered its transfer to the "godless" School Board. He remembered well the additions immediately made to the equipment and the apparatus of the teaching staff. Whereas there was one old Bible for every three boys under the original régime; under the new each lad had a brand-new Bible. This Amendment would enable the voluntary school managers to do exactly the thing they declined to permit the School Board to do—viz., to contract themselves out of their communal obligations. He would never agree to that, for it would mean that education would continue to starve, because Church persons wanted to avoid interference. He saw by a Return issued to the 31st August, 1899, there were 12,940 voluntary schools in country districts; of these, 709 had no voluntary contributions whatever, and existed on the meagre Government grant, compelling the teachers to submit to terms which were not at all fair; 483 schools received less than 1s. per head per child per year from voluntary sources; 1,045 between 1s. and 2s. 6d.; and 2,046 between 2s. 6d. and 5s. If the Amendment were carried, this penurious system would be continued, for the schools would be contracted out of the Bill in order to avoid the School Board rate.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I should like to ask whether the Amendment is in order, stating as it does that certain public elementary schools shall be withdrawn from the control of the education authorities.

MR. M'KENNA

It applies to the election of managers; it has nothing to do with the control of the local authority, which will remain untouched so far as secular instruction is concerned.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I should like to have the Chairman's ruling.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment has been discussed on the presumption that it is going to except from the operation of the Bill certain schools. If the hon. Member intends to introduce other consequential Amendments, he should have put them on the Paper.

MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE

did not quite understand the objection. The scheme of the Bill was that all public elementary schools should be maintained, as well as provided, by the local education authority. The scheme of his Amendment was that when the school was in the first place not provided by the local education authority and chose not to be maintained, but was content to rely on the Government grants which it earned, the second provision of the right hon. Gentleman as to the board of management should not apply to it.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That is not consistent with the subsequent provisions of the Bill.

MR. M'KENNA

We have not come to them yet.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am not aware that there is any Amendment down dealing with those subsequent provisions.

*THE CHAIRMAN

What does the hon. Member propose to do with a school not maintained, in view of this subsequent provision?

MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE

I shall do nothing, nor need I.

MR. M'KENNA

They have managers under their trust deeds, and those managers will still remain.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

But it is provided that all public schools shall be maintained, and there is no Amendment down to that.

MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE

None is necessary. They are public elementary schools within the meaning of the Education Act, 1870, and are entitled to grants under the Code.

DR. MACNAMARA

Have we not agreed that the local education authority shall have-all the powers and duties of the School Board, and control secular education in all public elementary schools, whether provided or not? In view of that, is the Amendment in order?

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

My hon. friend says that no Amendment to Clause. 8 will be necessary. If no Amendment is put down, there will be no such thing as a public elementary school not maintained.

MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE

I should like to ask whether it is necessary to put down a whole series of consequential Amendments before they are reached—to put down the whole scheme before one can move a preliminary Amendment.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I should say certainly. I think this Amendment shows how necessary it is to do so, because it is impossible to find out what the meaning of this Amendment standing by itself is. I understand that the hon. Member wishes to make an exception in the case of schools not to be maintained. They are to be under the control of the local authority, but they are to retain their present body of managers. I do not understand how they will get any school grant unless some further Amendment is made.

MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE

Having studied the Amendment, I am not able to suggest where an Amendment should come in, or what sort of Amendment.

MR. ALFRED BUTTON

Is the Amendment in order?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I should like to have the ruling of the Chairman on that.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

If no Amendment is in order unless the Amendments consequential to it are on the Paper, the Amendment of the Prime Minister is out of order. In the Amendment occur the words, "Managers appointed as provided in this Act," but there is not a single consequential Amendment on the Paper. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Horsham. Division is out of order, so is the Prime Minister's.

*THE CHAIRMAN

We had better dispose of one question at a time.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I am only using that as an illustration. I submit that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Horsham is absolutely in order.

*THE CHAIRMAN

Further elucidation of the Amendment of the hon. Member is necessary, and I do not see how the Committee can be asked to accept it without further debate.

MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH (Anglesey)

Is the Amendment ruled out of order because it is unintelligible?

*THE CHAIRMAN

I have not ruled it out of order. I am waiting to see if it can be made clear to me.

MR. M'KENNA

I think it can. Under it there will be three classes of schools. Some will be provided and some will be aided, while the third class will not be maintained, and it is proposed to leave these in the position of appointing their own managers.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the Amendment was one which the Government could not possibly accept. The scheme of the Bill was to provide a national system of education, and as he understood the Amendment, it would except certain schools from that system. That he could not agree to.

(9.35.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he wished to raise a point of order upon the whole question before the House, namely, the Amendment of the Prime Minister.

*THE CHAIRMAN

We will dispose of one Amendment at a time.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said if the Prime Minister's Amendment was not the main question, he should like to know what the main question was. This was an Amendment to an Amendment, and he submitted that he was entitled to raise a point of order on the main Amendment before the Committee. If he was out of order in doing that, then the whole discussion was out of order. He submitted that the discussion was out of order, and nothing was in order before the Committee, because the Government had put down an Amendment which contained words which were incomplete in themselves with reference to a consequential Amendment which was not before the Committee. It was most important for the consideration of this Amendment that they should have the consequential Amendment before them. In the Amendment occurred the words, "Managers appointed as provided in this Act," but there was not a single consequential Amendment on the Paper. The question as to how those managers were to be provided was the whole essence of the controversy. They might be provided in such a way as to meet all the objections of hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House, and, on the other hand, they might be provided in such a way as would not meet those objections. He reminded the Chairman that earlier in the debate he compelled the hon. Member for East Mayo to bring the whole Amendment before the Committee. The hon. Member proposed that in 8,000 parishes there should be an exception, and the Chairman ruled that that was not sufficient without taking into consideration the whole scheme. He submitted that the Government were exactly in the same position in regard to their scheme for these 20,000 parishes. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Horsham was out of order, so was the Prime Minister's.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I think I ought to say, first of all, that the hon. Member for Carnarvon ought to have taken exception to this Amendment at the beginning of the discussion. [Opposition cries of "Oh, oh!"] I think at least hon. Members ought to do me the courtesy of listening first to what I have to say when they ask my views. The second objection is that we are not discussing the Amendment, but an Amendment to an Amendment. When we reach the words complained of, I think the hon. Member will be entitled to raise this question. I may say that even then, in my opinion, this point really is not the essence of the whole Amendment, and is really only a detail. I agree that it is necessary when an Amendment is brought before the Committee that the general principle and essence of the Amendment should be before the Committee.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON

thought the Amendment would provide for the consideration of a certain class of schools which were not specially mentioned in the Bill, and which would require special treatment. He wished to know if it was really intended that charity schools should come under the general scheme, and annually receive their grant from the new authority, and he also wished to knew whether they would be subject to the same clause in regard to management as denominational schools. Some of those schools were purely charity schools while some were charity-cum-religion schools and others charity-cum-industry schools. He wished to know whether these schools would have an opportunity of escaping this kind of control, or whether the Government intended to provide for these charity schools in some special way. He wanted to know how these schools were to be treated in relation to the authority and the managers, and whether they would receive special consideration under the Amendment.

MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)

said he wished to emphasise the question which had just been put to the First Lord of the Treasury by the hon. Member opposite. This was a somewhat awkward place to introduce this question, but he saw no other opportunity of getting the difficulty cleared up. He had in his mind buildings provided by private charity with private teaching both secular and

religious. They were not voluntary or provided schools, and they were not public elementary schools. He believed that it was held that these schools were strictly elementary schools, the only difference being one of method and not of subjects. What he wanted to know was, if these schools were taken over by the local authority and maintenance provided out of the rates, would they in every case have to accept a form of management in accordance with the scheme now before the Committee? Would they have to take their four trust managers and two managers nominated by the local authority, or had the Government in view the management of these schools under some other scheme? This was a question which was exciting much anxiety, and he should be glad to get this difficulty out of the way.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST, Cambridge University)

said the questions raised by the hon. Member for Morley and the hon. Member for North West Ham were wholly-irrelevant to the Amendment. The Amendment dealt with public elementary schools, and neither deaf and dumb schools nor charity schools were public elementary schools. Therefore, they did not come within the scope of the Amendment.

*THE CHAIRMAN

proceeded to put the Question, and named the tellers.

MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE

objected to being named as a teller, and said his name had not been handed in at the Table.

*THE CHAIRMAN

But the hon. Member moved the Amendment.

(9.48.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 19; Noes, 299. (Division List No. 333.)

AYES.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Horniman, Frederick John	Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n
Bond. Edward	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.
Broadhurst, Henry	Jacoby, James Alfred	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Cremer, William Randal	Moss, Samuel
Dunn. Sir William	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Fuller. J. M. F.	Sackville. Col. S. G. Stopford-	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Griffith, Ellis J.	Seely, Maj. J. E. B(Isle of Wight	Mr. Heywood Johnstone
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West	Spencer, RtHnC.R.(Northants	and Mr. M'Kenna.
NOES.
Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Joyce, Michael
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F	Donelan, Captain A.	Kenyon, Hon Geo T. (Denbigh
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Doogan, P.C.	Keswick, William
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	King, Sir Henry Seymour
Allen, Chas. P. (Gloue., Stroud	Doughty, George	Labouchere, Henry
Anson. Sir William Reynell	Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Douglas. Charres M. (Lanark)	Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.
Arnold- Forster, Hugh O.	Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th
Arrol. Sir William	Duncan, J. Hastings	Lawson, John Grant
Ashton. Thomas Gair	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart	Lee, ArthurH (Hants, Fareham
Bailey. James (Walworth)	Edwards, Frank	Leese, Sir. Joseph F (Accrington
Bain. Colonel James Robert	Emmott, Alfred	Legge. Col. Hon. Heneage
Balcarres. Lord	Farrell, James Patrick	Leigh, Sir Joseph
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J, (Manch'r	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Balfour, Capt C. B. (Hornsey)	Fenwick, Charles	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Balfour, RtHn Gerald W(Leeds	Fergusson. Rt. Hn. Sir J (Mane'r	Levy, Maurice
Banbury, Frederick George	Ffrench, Peter	Lewis, John Herbert
Bathurst. Hon. Allen Benjamin	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Lloyd-George, David
Beach. Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks	Finch, George H.	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Bell. Richard	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Fisher, William Hayes	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Bignold, Arthur	Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth
Bigwood James	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lundon, W.
Black. Alexander William	Flower, Ernest	Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison
Boland, John	Flynn, James Christopher	Macdona, John Cumming
Bolton. Thomas Dolling	Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.	Maclver, David (Liverpool)
Boscawen. Arthur Griffith-	Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas.J.
Bonsfield. William Robert	Gardner, Ernest	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Brigg, John	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond.	Maconochie, A. W.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Gilhooly, James	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Kean, John
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.	Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton
Bullard, Sir Harry	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Burns. John	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Milvam, Thomas
Butcher, John George	Grant, Corrie	Montagu. G. (Huntingdon)
Buxton. Sydney Charles	Gray. Ernest (West Ham)	Mooney, John J.
Caldwell, James	Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury	More, Robert Jasper(Shr'pshire
Cameron, Robert	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Morgan, David J (Walthamstow
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Hall. Edward Marshall	Morley. Charles (Breconshire)
Cavendish, V.C. W(Derbyshire	Hamilton, Rt HnLordG (Midd'x	Morrell, George Herbert
Cawley, Frederick	Hamilton. Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry	Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hammond, John	Mount, Willliam Arthur
Chamberlain, J. Austin (Wore'r	Hardy, Laur'nee (Kent, Ashf'rd	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Channing. Francis Allston	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Murnaghan, George
Chapman, Edward	Harms-worth, R. Leicester	Murray, Rt H nA. Graham (Bute
Charrington. Spencer	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Churchill. Winston Spencer	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Myers, William Henry
Clancy, John Joseph	Haslett, Sir James Horner	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Clave, Captain Percy A.	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Coehrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Hayden, John Patrick	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Cogan, Denis J.	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)
Cohen. Benjamin Louis	Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Collings. Rt. Hon. Jesse	Helme, Norval Watson	O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid
Colomb. Sir John Charles Ready	Henderson, Sir Alexander	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Higginbottom. S. W.	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Hobhouse. Henry (Somerset. E.	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.
Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)	Holland. Sir William Henry	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Hope. J. F (Shetheld, Brightside	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Craig. Robert Hunter	Hornby. Sir William Henry	O'Mara, James
Cranborne, Lord	Hoult, Joseph	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Crean, Eugene	Houston. Robert Paterson	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Cripps. Charles Alfred	Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Cross. Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)	Howard, J (Midd., Tottenham)	Parker, Sir Gilbert
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil	Paulton, James Mellor
Davies Alfred (Carmarthen)	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Pearson, Sir Weetman D.
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham	Jebb. Sir Richard Claverhouse	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Davies. M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.	Perks, Robert William
Delany. William	Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea	Pierpoint, Robert
Dickson, Charles Scott	Jones, William(Carnarvonshire	Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Plummer, Walter R.	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Walton. Joseph (Barnsley)
Power, Patrick Joseph	Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East	Warde. Colonel C. E.
Pretyman, Ernest George	Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Price, Robert John	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand	Webb, Colonel William George
Purvis, Robert	Soares, Ernest J.	White, George (Norfolk)
Rankin, Sir James	Spear, John Ward	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Rea, Russell	Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)	Whiteley, H(Ashton und. Lyne
Reid, James (Greenock)	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Remnant, James Farquharson	Sullivan, Donal	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Renshaw, Charles Bine	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Renwick. George	Talbot, Rt Hn J.G. (Oxf'rdUn'v.	Wilcox, Sir John Archibald
Rickett, J. Compton	Taylor, Theodore Cooke	Wills, Sir Frederick
Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Ritchie. Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr	Wilson, John (Durham. Mid.)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Thomas, JA(Glam'rgan, Gower	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath
Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)	Thornton, Perey M.	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Robson, William Snowdon	Tollemache, Henry James	Woodhouse, Sir. JT (Huddersf'd
Roche, John	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edward M.	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Rolleston, Sir John F. L.	Toulmin. George	Wylie. Alexander
Ropner, Colonel Robert	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Royds, Clement Molyneux	Tritton, Charles Ernest	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Runciman, Walter	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward	Yoxall, James Henry
Sadler, Col. Samuel. Alexander	Tully, Jasper
Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)	Ure, Alexander	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)	Valentia, Viscount	Sir William Walrond and
Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Wallace, Robert	Mr. Austruther.

(10.2.) MR. ALFRED HUTTON

moved— To insert in line 9, after 'schools' the words 'conducted in a schoolhouse or premises.' The clause would then read—' All public elementary schools conducted in a schoolhouse or premises not provided by the local education authority shall.…' His object was to provide that only those people who had made the sacrifice of providing the buildings in which to carry on the denominational teaching should retain the supreme control of the schools. He took so e encouragement in moving the Amendment from the speech the First Lord of the Treasury made in the afternoon, in which he stated that the great claim for control and management of the denominational schools was that the denominationals had made great sacrifices in building the schools. There were several ways in which schools had been built and provided besides those referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. For instance, there were schools which had been built by people who had a special interest in their neighbourhood or village. Those schools were builtand sometimes endowed, and they were put under trustees, among whom there might have been the clergyman and the churchwarden ex officio. They were not put on the trust to make the schools particularly denominational in character, but it had often happened that the schools had become, by force of circumstances and long usage, denominational under the dictation and management of the clergyman and the churchwarden. There were many schools in that position, although there was nothing in the conditions of the trust or the endowments to justify their being made of a denominational character. Among the schools to which he referred were those which had been provided by railway companies. The railway companies had not provided the schools in a denominational interest, but for the purpose of avoiding rates. There were a great many voluntary schools provided up and down the country with the object of avoiding rates, and although, by falling into denominational hands, they had become denominational, they were built for the purposes of education of an undenominational character.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— In line 9, after (he word 'schools,' to insert the words 'conducted in a schoolhouse or premises.'"—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)

Question proposed, "That those words lie there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he could hardly conceive a case in which the words proposed by the hon. Member would make any difference in the effect of the Clause. There were, however, cases just conceivable in which they would have precisely the opposite effect to that which the hon. Gentleman desired. For instance, a schoolhouse provided by the local authority might be burned down, and someone might lend a building for carrying on the school. The school would then be conducted in a building not provided by the local authority, and thus the Amendment would have an effect contrary to that which the hon. Gentleman desired.

MR. EMMOTT (Oldham)

said that the object of his hon. friend clearly was that only bonâ fiae denominational schools should come within this provision. The right hon. Gentleman had not understood the Amendment aright.

LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)

said the Amendment was one which deserved consideration. He understood the object of his hon. friend to be to deal with voluntary schools under undenominational management. It was quite a mistake to suppose that there were no schools of this kind in the country, or that they were a mere handful. He had an Amendment; on the Paper to provide that if there was an undenominational school under a trust deed used for the purposes of this Act it should be treated in the same way as a school provided by the public authority. It was quite clear that where there was an endowment the result of the generosity of former donors who had not attached any condition whatever to the trust deed, the school was, in effect, of the same class as schools provided by the public authority.

MR. ERNEST GRAY

said that the Committee was entitled to know the full effect of the Amendment. They were in the greatest difficulty, because they were told that certain words were to have no separate sense, and no effect without subsequent words.

MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)

said that if the Committee was in any difficulty it arose from the pernicious practice of discussing one Amendment in its relation to some other Amendment.

*MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden)

said he thought he could make the position clear to some hon. Members. There were a large number of schools in certain districts which had been founded, not for the purpose of promoting denominational education, but with the view of securing adequate instruction to the children who attended them. Many colliery owners, for instance, found it more economical to establish schools and manage them than to allow themselves to be rated for their maintenance by the public. There were thirty-seven such schools in the county of Durham alone. It often happened that in parishes the only individual who took a keen interest in education was the clergyman; and in the case of his own firm, when a certain colliery was closed, a school was handed over to the clergyman. Circumstances and situations varied, and it was absurd that advantage should be taken of them to secure denominational education when the schools were not founded for such a purpose. What was wanted was that, as these schools were not provided on denominational lines, they should be looked upon now as public schools.

MR. BOND

asked why a colliery or railway company which had provided a school should be precluded from having a voice in appointing the persons who were to manage it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON

said the object of the Amendment he now moved was to distinguish between schools founded for denominational purposes and those founded for other purposes. As the Clause stood, no distinction would be made between these two classes of schools.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— In line 8, to leave out the words 'not provided by the local education authority,' and insert the words 'which are held in trust to be conducted in accordance with the doctrines and principles of any particular denomination.'"— (Mr. Alfred Hutton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

SIR JOHN GORST

said he could find no reason why schools founded on other than denominational grounds should be treated with less consideration than those in which denominational teaching was given. He should claim that, not being schools provided by the local authority, the trustees should have a voice in the appointment of managers to carry out the purposes of the trust. He hoped the Committee would reject the Amendment.

MR. M'KENNA

said that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of

the Council had practically exposed the case of the Government by this objection. There must be some other reason besides denominational teaching, else why should there be managers appointed by the trustees when no denominational teaching was given? The control of the secular education was to be with the education authority, and there could be no reason for the parson, churchwarden, and other ex officio trustees being on the management of schools which had not one jot or tittle of the character of denominational schools.

(10.38.) Question put.

The Committee divided:— Ayes, 274; Noes, 122. (Division List No. 334.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Line.)
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Compton, Lord Alwyne	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Cranborne, Viscount	Grenfell, William Henry
Arrol, Sir William	Crean, Eugene	Gretton, John
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton	Hall, Edward Marshall
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Crossley, Sir Savile	Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Balcarres, Lord	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Hambro, Charles Eric
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r	Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham	Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Mid'x
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Delany, William	Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nd'rry
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds	Devlin. Joseph	Hammond, John
Banbury, Frederick George	Dickson, Charles Scott	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd
Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Hare, Thomas Leigh
Beach. Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks	Donelan, Captain A.	Harris, Frederick Leverton
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Doogan, P. C.	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.	Haslett, Sir James Horner
Bignold, Arthur	Doughty, George	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.
Bigwood, James	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Hayden, John Patrick
Boland, John	Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley
Bond, Edward	Duke, Henry Edward	Henderson, Sir Alexander
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Higgin bottom, S. W.
Bousfield, William Robert	Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir. William Hart	Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)	Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Faber, George Denison (York)	Hornby, Sir William Henry
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Farrell, James Patrick	Hoult, Joseph
Bull, William James	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Houston, Robert Paterson
Bullard, Sir Harry	Fergus-on, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r	Howard Jno. (Kent, Faversham
Butcher, John George	Ffrench, Peter	Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil
Carew, James Laurence	Finch, George H.	Hudson, George Bickersteth
Carson. Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire	Fisher, William Hayes	Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)
Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore'r	Flower, Ernest	Joyce, Michael
Chapman, Edward	Flynn, James Christopher	Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh
Charrington, Spencer	Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.	Keswick, William
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Gardner. Ernest	King, Sir Henry Seymour
Clancy, John Joseph	Gibbs, Hn A G. H. (City of Lond.	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Gilhooly, James	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Cochrane Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.
Cogan, Denis J.	Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'ml'ts	Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Gore, Hn. G R. C. Ormsby-(Salop	Lawson, John Grant
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm	Newdigate, Francis Alexander	Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Nicholson, William Graham	Seely, Maj. J.E. B (Isle of Wight
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.	Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesbam	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Smith, HC(North'mb, Tyneside
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)	Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)
Lowe, Francis William	O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)	Spear, John Ward
Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry)	Stanley, Lord (Lanes).
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth	O'Malley, William	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Lundon, W.	O'Mara, James	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Sullivan, Donal
Macartney, Rt Hn. W. GEllison.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Macdona, John Cumming	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.
MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.	Parker, Sir Gilbert	Thornton, Percy M.
Maclver, David (Liverpool)	Parkes, Ebenezer	Tollemache, Henry James
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n	Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.
Maconochie, A. W.	Penn, John	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Pierpoint, Robert	Tully, Jasper
M'Kean, John	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Valentia, Viscount
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)	Plummer, Walter R.	Vincent, Col. SirC. E. H. (Sheff.
Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.	Power, Patrick Joseph	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.	Pretyman, Ernest George	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Melville, Beresford Valentine	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Webb, Colonel William George
Middlemore, Jhn. Throgmorton	Purvis, Robert	Welby, Lt. -Col. A. C. E(Tunton
Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Quilter, Sir Cuthbert	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Milvain, Thomas	Rankin, Sir James	Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-L'ne
Molesworth, Sir Lewis	Reid, James (Greenock)	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Remnant, James Farquharson	Wills, Sir Frederick
Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)	Renshaw, Charles Bine	Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Renwick, George	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Mooney, John J.	Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Morgan, David J (W'lthamstow	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Morrell, George Herbert	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford	Roche, John	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Mount, William Arthur	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.	Wylie, Alexander
Muntz, Sir Philip A.	Ropner, Colonel Robert	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Murnaghan, George	Round, Rt. Hon. James	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Murphy, John	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Gr'h'm(Bute	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander	Sir William Walrond and
Myers, William Henry	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse	Mr. Anstruther.
Nannetti, Joseph P.	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Helme, Norval Watson
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Holland, Sir William Henry
Atherley-Jones, L.	Duncan, J. Hastings	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Dunn, Sir William	Horniman, Frederick John
Bell, Richard	Edwards, Frank	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.
Black, Alexander William	Elibank, Master of	Jacoby, James Alfred
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Emmott, Alfred	Jones, David Brynmor(Swans'a
Brigg, John	Fenwick, Charles	Jones, William(Carn'rvonshire
Broadhurst, Henry	Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Labouchere, Henry
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh	Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry	Lees, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Fuller, J. M. F.	Leigh, Sir Joseph
Burns, John	Furness, Sir Christopher	Levy, Maurice
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John	Lewis, John Herbert
Caldwell, James	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Lloyd-George, David
Cameron, Robert	Grant, Corrie	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)
Causton. Richard Knight	Griffiths, Ellis J.	Mansfield, Horace Rendall
Cawley, Frederick	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen
Channing, Francis Allston	Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)
Craig, Robert Hunter	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Moss, Samuel
Cremer, William Randal	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Moulton, John Fletcher
Davies, Alfred. (Carmarthen)	Harwood, George	Newnes, Sir George
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan	Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-	Norman, Henry

Partington, Oswald	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Paulton, James Mellor	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Pearson, Sir Weetman D.	Soares, Ernest J.	White, George (Norfolk)
Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'thants	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Perks, Robert William	Strachey, Sir Edward	Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Price, Robert John	Taylor, Theodora Cooke	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Priestley, Arthur	Tennant, Harold John	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Rea, Russell	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.	William, Osmond (Merioneth)
Rickett, J. Compton	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr	Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Rigg, Richard	Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings	Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R)
Roberts, John Byrn (Eifion)	Thomas, J A (Glamorgan Gower	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Toulmin, George	Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd
Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Yoxall, James Henry
Robson, William Snowdon	Ure, Alexander
Roe, Sir Thomas	Wallace, Robert	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Runciman, Walter	Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.	Mr. Alfred Hutton and
Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)	Mr. M'Kenna.

(10.55.) MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)

said he wished to move the Amendment standing in his name, which was to insert, after the word "authority," the words "and not being Church of England schools as hereinafter defined." He had placed on the Table a definition clause, which he would propose later: but before that he trusted they would have from the right hon. Gentleman a definition of the new term he had introduced into the Amendment, namely, "trust managers." He would then obtain some enlightenment which might induce him to modify his definition. The object of the Amendment was to assert the possibility and the propriety of exceptional treatment in the case of Church of England schools. When he indicated the nature of his Amendment a few nights ago, an hon. Member opposite declared that he had delivered an anti-State Church speech, and that his object was to penalise the Church of England. There could be no more ludicrous perversion of his purpose than that. He did not in any way intend to raise the question of Disestablishment by his Amendment. On the contrary, he took his stand on the fact that the Church of England was by law established, and in that respect differed from all other Churches. He recognised the State connection of the Church of England, and based on that the exceptional treatment for Church of England schools which he now asked for. So far from wishing to fetter the Church of England, the object of the Amendment was to secure greater freedom, in the shape of more control by the laity. The main ground of his proposal was that he discriminated between the Church of England schools and all other schools, because of the connection of the Church of England with the State. The Church of England differed from all other Churches in this respect—that its doctrines, its institutions, and its practice all existed as a matter of positive law. There was no other Church of which that could be said, not even the Church of Rome. He would quote, in support of his contention, a statement issued by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Salford, who was now Cardinal Vaughan. He said that he thought the contention just that all schools in connection with the Church of England should be considered as State schools, and that, therefore, they should be managed like other State schools under the Education Act. He did not go so far as that himself. He preferred to limit his Amendment to more modest proportions. He did not propose that Church of England schools should be placed on the same footing as ordinary State schools. He preferred a, modified proposal, under which the laity of the Church of England should have additional control. The Amendment had been suggested to him, not by Nonconformists, but by laymen of the Church of England, and he hoped, therefore, that hon. Members who represented the laity of the Church of England would support his proposal. The laity had some right to complain when they found Church schools carried on by managers whose interpretation of Church or England practice did not commend itself to them. There was no Church more free from dogmatic restrictions than the Church of England. It was the most free Church in Christendom in that respect. It was in the interests of the laity that their wishes and beliefs, and opinions of Church of England doctrine and practice should be respected more than they were by many clerical managers. He did not think that the Church party in this Mouse could claim to speak on behalf of the Church of England as a whole. Certainly he did not regard them as entitled to speak on behalf of the laity of the Church of England, in whose interests he moved the Amendment. He did not think there was any other Church in the country in which distrust of clericalism was so deeply implanted in a large portion of the laity as in the Church of England.

It might be asked if there was really any need for the special treatment which he proposed. He believed there was such a need. He would not discuss questions as to doctrine and practice. All parties and opinions were represented in the Mouse, and if he condemned one particular doctrine as being contrary to the spirit of the Church of England, he would probably have to say something which would offend others. Therefore, he would say nothing as to that, but he would give one instance of the sort of thing which he believed the laity disliked and distrusted. There had been placed in his hand by members of the Church of England, for the purpose of being mentioned in this debate, the story of the withdrawal of some 200 children from a Church school, on account of the character of the doctrines and practices inculcated in connection with that school by the predominant manager—the clergyman of the parish. The correspondence revealed a dispute on the question whether the managers had violated the Conscience Clause. The point was that the parents of these 200 children, being members of the Church of England, had been driven to take advantage of the Conscience Clause [An HON. MEMBER: What is the name of the school?] The school was the Michaelfield school. Michaelfield was a place in Yorkshire; it was close to Leeds, and he was sorry that the hon. Member for North Leeds was not there, because he might be able to give detailed information about the case. That was not the sort of thing which would commend itself to the laity. All he proposed tonight was that there was a case for exceptional treatment of Church of England schools, because of the connection between the Church and the State. He would propose a consequential Amendment, that every elected churchwarden of the parish should be an ex officio member of the new Board of Trust Management. The churchwarden was an ancient ecclesiastical officer of the Church of England, and his position was distinctly recognised by law. It was as clear and as undoubted, though not as important, as that of the clergyman of the parish. The rule as to the election of churchwardens was that the vicar appointed one churchwarden and that the parishioners elected the other—although sometimes the clergyman appointed the two. It was not a case in which there was uniformity of practice, as there was a great variation of local custom, which would have to be taken into account in the Amendment he would propose later. He was not sure that there were many restrictions as to the religious belief of persons who might be elected churchwardens; and he believed it was possible for a woman to be a churchwarden. He did not see why Nonconformists generally, whether they had a school of their own or not, should object to his proposal. It neither affirmed nor disaffirmed the principle of disestablishment. He hoped, therefore, that hon. Members representing Nonconformist interests might see their way to consider, and, if possible, to adopt, the proposal. But his main appeal was to the laity of the Church of England, in whose interests this Amendment was brought forward. It was to them he looked for support. The Church of England was a Church as by law established, and, if there was one thing more certain than another about it, it was that it was a Protestant Episcopal Church. He believed that the laity of the Church of England were impatient of clerical control in church matters, and, still more, in the management of schools. He would appeal to hon. Members opposite to remember that their Party had been to a large extent implicated in practices which had been condemned. It had been said, and he believed it to be true, that the headquarters of ritualism were in the high places of the Tory Party. They should not allow themselves to be associated with such practices, and he would appeal to hon. Members opposite to resist the system which had arisen, so far, at least, as the schools were concerned. He begged to move,

Amendment proposed to the proposed 'Amendment— In line 9, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words 'and not being Church of England schools as hereinafter defined.'"— (Mr. Edmund Robertson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

(11.15.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the hon. Gentleman began his speech by quoting a Roman Catholic bishop on the legal position of the Church of England, and he ended by an attack on ritualism. Neither of these topics had very much; to do with the Amendment. Perhaps he did not know much about the high places of the Tory Party, but as far as his knowledge went, ritualism had very little to do with them. The object of the hon. Gentleman was one for which he had constantly expressed his sympathy, and one which this Bill was largely designed to carry out, and would carry out; that was to increase the lay element in the management of voluntary schools. They were told that a great many schools were entirely managed by clergymen, owing to the fact that the clergyman was the only person in the parish who took an interest in education. In future, the whole of the secular work would be under the control of a body popularly elected, and as far as the local management of the schools was concerned, the clergyman would probably henceforth in most cases be only one-sixth of the body responsible for the management of the school; and if the body of management was increased to twelve, the clerical element would be even further diluted. The hon. Member proposed to supplement the efforts made by the Bill to bring about lay representation, and with that object he drew a distinction between the Church of England and every other denomination to the disadvantage of the Church. Whereas Roman Catholics or Wesleyans were to have four out of the six managers of their schools, the Church of England was to have only three. Why should the Roman Catholics be treated better than the Church of England? The hon. Gentleman quoted a Roman Catholic bishop, but that was not a sufficient authority for the House to draw a distinction in favour of Roman Catholics and against the Church of England. Let the Committee consider the machinery by which the hon. Member proposed to carry his Amendment into effect. The hon. Gentleman wished to introduce an additional lay element on the governing body by making the elected churchwarden a. member. If he desired to increase the elected members of the governing body of church schools, which he thought would be grossly unfair to the Church, he might, at all events, have chosen a simple and workmanlike machinery for carrying out that object. He had, however, chosen a most clumsy and antiquated machinery. As the hon. Member said, an elected churchwarden need not be a member of the Church of England; he might be a Nonconformist or a Roman Catholic; the only thing he might not be was a Jew. Why were they to make this distinction between the parishioners who might be on the governing body and those who might not? There was another objection in, the present clumsy and expensive system of electing the people's churchwarden. It was the most expensive and absurd, method of election that could be well supposed. Were they going to have a Parish Council election and also another election for a churchwarden? Who was going to pay for it? He understood that the cost would fall on the Church rate, but the Church rate could no longer be compulsorily collected, and, therefore, it might fall by legal process on the unfortunate vicar, who might be sent to prison because he could not pay the cost of the election of a man to the governing body in order to control himself. The proposal was obviously absurd. If they were to increase the elected body, let them say so plainly; let them do it in connection with Church of England, Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, and other voluntary; schools; but do not let them select one church, and abandon every principle of fair play regarding it. Let them not burden that Church with such a ludicrous method of adding to the elected members of the governing body of its schools by such cumbersome: and inadequate machinery. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment to a division, and that the Committee would not waste further time over a scheme which he was certain was impracticable, and which, he thought, he had persuaded the House was also absurd.

*MR. MOULTON (Cornwall, Launceston)

said that it was a great pleasure to be in complete agreement with the Prime Minister. There was a Latin quotation which spoke of everything that was unknown being supposed to be magnificent. That was suggested to him by hearing a Scotchman speak of the method of electing churchwardens in England. He opposed the Amendment because he was thankful to say that they had reached that state when the Church of England was spoken of as a denomination, and he did not wish any Amendment on the Opposition side to move it from that place to a special one. It would be a very bad example if they suggested in any way that it should be subjected to restrictions because it was the Church by law established. Let them by treating it fairly prepare for the time when it would not be so.

(11.30.) MR. CHARLES McARTHUR (Liverpool, Exchange)

said he wished to support the Amendment, which he thought was worthy of more consideration than the Prime Minister had given it. He desired to recognise with satisfaction the popular control which would be given under the Bill; but he was also desirous of seeing a greater amount of popular control, and he thought the Amendment pointed out a way in which further popular control might be given, without altering the denominational character of the managing board. He failed to see how the Amendment would be a disadvantage to the Church of England. It did not propose to deprive Church of England schools of one of their denominational managers, because in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the churchwarden would be a member of the Church of England. There were good reasons why the Church of England schools should be treated in an exceptional way. At the present day the position of the Church of England afforded ground for very obvious criticism. They all knew that the religious difficulty was at the bottom of all the trouble in connection with the Bill.

But the religious difficulty was not entirely a Nonconformist grievance. They had a Church of England grievance, which was not identical with what was called the Nonconformist grievance, but which was quite as serious. However unworthy, he represented in this matter many hundreds of thousands of people who were sorely troubled by what was going on in their Church of England schools. He thought on that Clause, and on that Amendment especially, he would be in order in asking the Committee to consider the serious objection which many members of the Church of England had at the manner in which their schools were carried on. They felt that there should be some additional safeguard to prevent these schools from being abused for improper purposes. The parents sent their children to the schools in order that they might be brought up in accordance with the doctrines and principles of the Church of England, but in a large number of the schools the children were taught the doctrines and tenets of the Church of Rome instead. They were taught to believe that the chief service of the Church was the mass, and they were also taught the doctrine of transubstantiation.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is getting rather away from the Amendment.

MR. CHARLES McARTHUR

said he thought he would be in order in giving some of the reasons why members of the Church of England thought the protection afforded by the Conscience Clause was insufficient, and that there should be some guarantee that the Church of England schools should be conducted on Church of England lines. The great grievance of Church of England people at the present day was that children in Church of England schools were not properly instructed in the doctrines of the Church of England, but were taught the doctrines of another Church. The children were taught to worship the Virgin, and they were taken to illegal services. The Conscience Clause was not applicable to these cases.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must really confine himself to the Amendment.

MR. CHARLES McARTHUR

said the Amendment proposed a large amount of popular control in connection with Church of England schools. If some butter method of securing that end had been proposed, he would have been glad. It was necessary that something should be done, and as the present proposal embodied the mildest possible form of additional protection that could be conceived, it ought to receive the careful attention of the Committee.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire. Lichfield)

said the Amendment was a most important one from a Churchman's point of view, and he hoped it would be pressed to a division. He failed to see how it could in any way injure the Church of England to have one of its own lay officials put into this office as a guarantee that the laity of the Church should be represented on the managing body. It had been suggested that in some cases the churchwarden would be a Nonconformist. Those were, he thought, the very cases in which a Nonconformist ought to be on the Committee, because if the Church of England was in such a minority that it could not elect one of its own members as churchwarden, surely the Nonconformists ought to have some thing to say in regard to the only school in the parish.

SIR BRAMPTON GURDON (Norfolk, N.)

asked the Vice President for a legal definition of a trust manager. In the case of schools managed under trust deeds the managers had a legal status, but there were many schools, the property of the largest landowner in the parish, which were really managed anyhow, and, though certain persons were recognised by the Board of Education as managers, they had no legal status whatever. He could find no definition of the term in the Bill, and it was difficult to vote on these questions without some explanation.

MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)

thought the Committee were entitled to some information as to the cases in which the number of managers would, be raised to twelve.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said the Amendment was really a most important one, as it had revealed the fact that the Government themselves did not know exactly what they were proposing. The Prime Minister had declared that the Bill would increase the lay as against the clerical element on the managing bodies, but, as a matter of fact, it would make the clergy even more independent of the laity than they had hitherto been. By practically every trust deed, the managers were appointed by the subscribers, and if the clergyman wanted to get the control of the school into his own hands, he had only to find men who sympathised with his views, or who would be prepared to subordinate their ideas to his. He contended that under the Hill the managers would be elected in the future in the same way as in the past—a few subscribers nominated by the parson would do it.

MR. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

said it would depend upon the trust deed, He was a manager of a voluntary school, but he was not appointed by the subscribers.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

asserted that the common form of trust deeds of the National Society provided that the parson should be a manager ex officio and the rest elected by the subscribers. It could not be contended that the whole of the laity in any parish would have a voice in the appointment of managers. Until the Government chose to tell the Committee — who were at present in the dark on the matter—what was going to be done, it must be assumed that the subscribers would do it; and to contend that more representation would be given to the lay element was absurd. Did hon. Members opposite desire to trust the laity of their own Church? If so, that was the object of the Amendment. If they were to have denominational education, he would rather trust the laity of any Church than the parsons of every Church; there was more likelihood of fair play. Why was it that even in parishes where she had a minority of the population, the State Church could build and maintain a school? Because she was able to call on the Nonconformists to maintain her ministers for her. The schools, though nominally of the Church of England, were really parochial schools. They were not built entirely out of the subscriptions of members of the Church of England, and many of them were erected under something very like false pretences. ["Divide."] It required little intelligence to cry "Divide" when unpalatable arguments were being adduced, but proposals which had never been placed before the electors were not to be carried by shouting. His second point was that they ought to have a representation of the laity. His hon. friend was not proposing to elect a churchwarden for the first time, and he thought this was a very fair Amendment. As long as the Church of England was a State Church, they were entitled to claim a representation not merely of the clergy but of the laity as well.

MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N.W.)

said that for the information of the Committee he might state that a model trust deed provided that the election, appointment, and dismissal of teachers should be in all respects under the management and control of the Committee, which consisted of the minister for the time being of the said parish, his curate or curates, if he should appoint any, the churchwardens, if members of the Established Church, and other persons and subscribers, being members of the Established Church. These conditions supported entirely the argument used upon this point by the hon. Member for Carnarvon.

(12.3.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 107; Noes, 274. (Division List No. 335.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Harwood, George	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Allen, Charles P. (Gloue, Stroud	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Robson, William Snowdon
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Helme, Norval Watson	Roe, Sir Thomas
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Holland, Sir William Henry	Runciman, Walter
Atherley-Jones, L.	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Horniman, Frederick John	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B)
Beigg, John	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Broadhurst, Henry	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)	Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea	Soares, Ernest J.
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Jones, William(Carnarvonshire	Strachey, Sir Edward
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Labouchere, Henry	Tennant, Harold John
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Caldwell, James	Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)
Causton, Richard Knight	Levy Maurice	Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower
Cawley, Frederick	Lewis, John Herbert	Toulmin, George
Channing, Francis Allston	Lloyd-George, David	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Cremer, William Randal	Lough, Thomas	Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Dewar, John A. (lnverness-sh.	M'Kenna, Reginald	White, George (Norfolk)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Duncan, J. Hastings	Morgan, J Lloyd(Carmarthen)	Whiteley, George(York, W.R.)
Edwards, Frauk	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Elibank, Master of	Moss, Samuel	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Emmott, Alfred	Newnes, Sir George	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Fenwick Charles	Norman, Henry	Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.	Partington, Oswald	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Fuller, J. M. F.	Paulton, James Mellor	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Furness, Sir Christopher	Pearson, Sir Weetman D.	Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd
Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herb. John	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Yoxall, James Henry
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Price, Robert John
Grant, Corrie	Priestley, Arthur
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)	Rea, Russell	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Griffith. Ellis J.	Rickett, J. Compton	Mr. Warner and Sir
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Rigg, Richard	Brampton Gurdon.
Hardie, J. Keir,(MerthyrTydvil	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Doogan, P. C.	Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir. John E.	Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lawson, John Grant
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Lee, Arthur H.(Hants. Fareham.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Duffy, William J.	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Arkwright John Stanhope	Duke, Henry Edward	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Arrol. Sir William	Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Willam Hart	Leveson Gower. Frederick N. S.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)	Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Faber, George Denison. (York)	Loder. Gerald Walter Erskine
Bain. Colonel James Robert	Farrell, James Patrick	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham
Balcarres, Lord	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r)	Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J.(Manc'r	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Ffrench, Peter	Lowe, Francis William
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.	Finch, George H.	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Banbury, Frederick George	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Fisher, William Hayes	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th
Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lundon, W.
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Flynn, James Christopher	Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Forster, Henry William	Macdona. John Cumming
Bignold, Arthur	Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.	MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.
Bigwood, James	Gardner, Ernest	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Boland, John	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H(City of Lond.	Maconochie, A. W.
Bond, Edward	Gilhooly, James	M'Kean, John
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts	Manners, Lord Cecil
Brodrick, Colonel Montagu	Gore, HnG. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfries-sh
Bull, William James	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim	Melville, Beresford Valentine
Bullard Sir Harry	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Middlemore, John Throgmorton
Butcher, John George	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)	Milvain, Thomas
Carew, James Laurence	Grenfell, William Henry	Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Carlile, William Walter	Gretton, John	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Guthrie, Walter Murray	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Cavendish, V.C.W. (D'rbyshire	Hall, Edward Marshall	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.	Morgan, David J (Walthamstow
Cecil. Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Hambro, Charles Eric	Morrell, George Herbert
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r	Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x	Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford
Chapman, Edward	Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry	Moulton, John Fletcher
Charrington, Spencer	Hammond, John	Mount, William Arthur
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Hardy, Laurence (K'nt, Ashford	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Clancy, John Joseph	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Murnaghan, George
Clive. Captain Percy A.	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Murphy, John
Cochnane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute
Cogan Denis J.	Haslett. Sir James Horner	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Colston, Chas. Edw. H Athole	Hayden, John Patrick	Nicholson, William Graham
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Cox. Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway. N.)
Cranborne, Lord	Higginbottom, S. W.	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Crean, Eugene	Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Cripes s Charles Alfred	Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cross. Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Hornby, Sir William Henry	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Crossley, Sir Savile	Hoult, Joseph	O'Connor. James(Wicklow, W.)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Davenport, William Bromley-	Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham	Hudson, George Bickersteth	O'Malley, William
Delany, William	Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	O'Mara, James
Devlin, Joseph	Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Dewar, Sir T. R. (TowerH'mlets)	Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Dickson, Charles Scott	Joyce, Michael	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Keswick, William	Parker, Sir Gilbert
Dillon, John	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Parkes, Ebenezer
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n
Donelan, Captain A.	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)	Valentia, Viscount
Power, Patrick Joseph	Seely. Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Shef'ld;
Pretyman, Ernest George	Seton-Karr, Henry	Walker, Col. William Hall
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Purvis, Robert	Simeon, Sir Barrington	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Quilter, Sir Cuthbert	Skewes-Cox, Thomas	Webb, Colonel William George
Randles, John S.	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)	Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C E(Taunton
Rankin, Sir James	Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks	Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne
Redmond, William (Clare)	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Reid, James (Greenock)	Spear, John Ward	Wills, Sir Frederick
Remnant, James Farquharson	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Renwick, George	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)
Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Robertson, Herbert (Hackhey)	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Roche, John	Sullivan, Donal	Wylie, Alexander
Ropner, Colonel Robert	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Round, Rt. Hon. James	Talbot, Rt Hn J G (Oxf'd Univ.	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Royds, Clement Molyneux	Thornton, Percy M.
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-	Tollemache, Henry James
Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edv. M.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Sassoon. Sir Edward Albert	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward	Sir William Walrond and
Scott. Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Tully, Jasper	Mr. Anstruther.

Amendment made to the proposed Amendment— In line 9, by inserting, after the word 'shall,' the words 'in place of the existing managers.'" —(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)

*(12.20.) MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland)

moved that there should be two sets of managers, one for the religious education, the other to secure that the control of secular education should be in the hands of the people. He said this was another attempt at compromise on the question. One form of compromise had already been rejected by the Government this afternoon. The object of his Amendment was to make perfectly clear what the Government had expressed to the House to be their intention, namely, that the control of secular education should be in the hands of the people. That control which was proposed hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House considered to be in the main a sham. All that had been put forward hitherto by the supporters of the Church of England had been an offer that, whilst still keeping control of the voluntary schools in their hands, they would allow the denominations to have some access to the schools and some opportunity of teaching their children. A great many on this side of the House sincerely recognised the denominational claim, but they said that, in the first instance, it must be laid down definitely that public control was to be granted. That was done by his. Amendment, and it went further. Having created a secular Committee in the interest of public control, it created a religious Committee, consisting exclusively of the present trust managers who wished to have an opportunity of providing denominational education for the children of parents who were dissatisfied with what they got under the system of popular control. He could not help thinking that this was a compromise which might be eventually accepted. It was a compromise based on an example to be found in some of our Colonies. There popular control was complete, but in some cases, such as Manitoba and New South Wales, there was recognition of the right of the parent to have denominational teaching, if he wanted it—the right of the denomination to come into the school and teach. This was an attempt to give that right, or at any rate, to give it in the case of existing denominational schools. The objection, which would be raised to his proposal was that the denominations, in virtue of the fact that they had built these schools, had a higher and superior claim to control them, and that they had the right to appoint the teachers. He reminded the Committee that in an enormous number of cases the denominations only did so with the knowledge and consciousness that the State was going to maintain them except in the mere matter of bricks and mortar. He would put this question to the Church people. When would their claim terminate? How long after the State had begun to provide the whole maintenance of these schools, and five-sixths of the whole expenditure of the year, was the claim on the part of the Church to have the management in virtue of having built the schools to outweigh the fact that the State was providing the money for their maintenance? It was perfectly obvious that the time must come when the claim of the State must become predominant. It appeared to some hon. Members that that claim was already the preponderating one.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— In line 9, to leave out all the words after the words 'a body of,' to end of sub section (2), and insert the words 'secular managers appointed in the same way as in the case of schools provided by the local education authority, and another body of religious managers appointed as at present under the trust, who shall, if dissatisfied with the religious teaching provided by the secular managers, be entitled to make arrangements for the provision of religious teaching distinctive of their denomination during a period of not less than half an hour at the commencement of every school day for the children of such parents as ask for it in writing. The local education authority shall be required to take such steps as are necessary to facilitate is such arrangements."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'managers' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he did not think the plan proposed by the hon. Member for Elland was a practicable one. He could not imagine that it would conduce to any educational or religious interests, or to the harmonious working of the schools. He was sure that, in whatever direction the much desired compromise between the contending parties might be found, it would not be on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE

said there was no doubt there were some difficulties in the way of the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend. This was only one of the numerous Amendments to be moved from that side of the House which expressed their very strong feeling that the whole question of the management of the schools not provided by the local education authority had not been adequately thought out and provided for by the Government. He had not risen so much to discuss the details of the Amendment, as to make a very strong appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether they had not reached a stage at which the right hon. Gentleman should make some statement showing that he would take time to consider his position, instead of embarking the Committee on long controversies, and that he would allow this matter to stand over to a later stage in the autumn session.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that he did not intend to ask the Committee to try and finish these controversies that night. That, he thought, would be unreasonable.

* MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

said he thought the wording of the Amendment was not as simple and clear as it might be made in order to indicate the purpose his hon. friend had in view; but he thought that it was a reasonable and fair compromise. The First Lord of the Treasury had clearly not grasped the scope of the Amendment, and he begged his attention to it. It was in substance practically the same as the suggestion repeatedly made, after the passing of the Act of 1870, by the most advanced group of educational reformers, and notably Dr. Crosskey the Chairman of the Birmingham School Board, with a view to arrive at an equitable solution of this very difficulty. What they suggested, and what this Amendment offered to secure, was that the denominational managers should retain absolute control of the building, and the right to maintain and direct in their own way their distinctive religious teaching at any time outside the time-table of the secular curriculum of the schools. The school would pass under the complete control of the elected authority for all secular teaching, exactly as by the right hon. Gentleman's proposals it would pass under the new local education authority. In this way all that was essential to the maintenance of this specific religious teaching would be secured, while there would be a real chance of welding together and bringing into a single coordinated system all the schools of a rural district. It seemed to him unsatisfactory if they did not attempt, by some uniform system of management, to bring all the schools into line, and this could be done with security to the denominational character of the school by some such Amendment as this.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON

said that the First Lord of the Treasury must admit that the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend was not meant, and would not have the effect of undenominationalising the voluntary schools. Nonconformists had no desire to destroy the denominational teaching in denominational schools; and they did not think that, if the teachers were under public control, denominational interests would go by the Board. What they wanted to secure was public control over all secular education. When they came to these new schools, he thought that

was a plan which the Government might reasonably adopt, reserving the legitimate control of the people in regard to secular education. Nonconformists had no desire to destroy the denominational teaching in the denominational schools, but the public control of secular education must be secured. It was no part of their demand to say that there should not be any denominational teaching. Perhaps he might be allowed to say that, in his opinion, the Cowper-Temple Clause had preserved religious teaching in this-country so far as it was desirable.

(12.48.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 237 Noes, 86. (Division List No. 336.)

AYES
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.	Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Crossley, Sir Savile	Hare, Thomas Leigh
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Harris, Frederick Leverton
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Davenport, William Bromley-	Haslett, Sir James Horner
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham	Hay, Hon. Claude George
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Delany, William	Hayden, John Patrick
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Devlin, Joseph	Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley
Arrol, Sir William	Dickson, Charles Scott	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset, E.
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Dillon, John	Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside
Balcarres, Lord	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Hornby, Sir William Henry
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Doogan, P. C.	Hoult, Joseph
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Howard, Jno. (Kent, Faversham
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds	Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.	Duffy, William J.	Hudson, George Bickersteth
Banbury, Frederick George	Duke, Henry Edward	Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Jessel, Capt. Herbert Men on
Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks	Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart	Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Faber, Edmund B. (Hants. W)	Joyce, Michael
Bignold, Arthur	Faber, George Denison (York.	Keswick, William
Boland, John	Farrell, James Patrick	King, Sir Henry Seymour
Bond, Edward	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Lambton, Hon. Frederick W m.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Ffrench, Peter	Law, Hush Alex. (Donegal, W.
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th
Bull, William James	Finch, George H.	Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham
Bullard, Sir Harry	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Fisher, William Hayes	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Carlile, William Walter	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.	Flynn, James Christopher	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Forster, Henry William	Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Gardner, Ernest	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Chamberlain, J Austen (Wore'r	Gilhooly, James	Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham
Chapman, Edward	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	Loug, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)
Charrington, Spencer	Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop	Lowe, Francis William
Clancy, John Joseph	Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon	Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft
Cogan, Denis J.	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Grenfell, William Henry	Lundon, W.
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Gretton, John	Macartney, Rt Hn WG Ellison
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Guest., Hon. Ivor Churchill	Macdona, John Cumming
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Guthrie, Walter Murray	MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Hambro, Charles Eric	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Cranborne, Lord	Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'sx	Maconochie, A. W.
Crean, Eugene	Hammond, John	M'Kean, John
M 'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)	Plamer, Walter (Salisbury)	Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk
Manners, Lord Cecil	Parkes, Ebenezer	Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfries-sh.	Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Melville, Beresford Valentine	Power, Patrick Joseph	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Pretyman, Ernest George	Sullivan, Donal
Milvain, Thomas	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Molesworth, Sir Lewis	Purvis, Robert	Talbot, Rt Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Randles, John S.	Thornton, Percy M.
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Rankin, Sir James	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire	Redmond, John E. (Waterford	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Morgan, David J. (Walthamsto.	Reid, James (Greenock)	Tully, Jasper
Morrell, George Herbert	Remnant, James Farquharson	Valentia, Viscount
Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)	Renwick, George	Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield
Mount, William Arthur	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Walker, Col. William Hall
Muntz, Sir Philip A.	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Murnaghan, George	Roche, John	Webb, Colonel William George
Murphy, John	Ropner, Colonel Robert	Welby, Lt. -Col A C E (Taunton
Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute	Round, Rt. Hon. James	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Royds, Clement Molyneux	Whiteley, H (Ashtonund. Lyne
Nannetti, Joseph P.	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Newdigate, Francis Alexander	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Nicholson, William Graham	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert	Wodebouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Nicol, Donald Ninian	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.	Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)	Seely, Maj. J.E B. (Isle of Wight	Wylie, Alexander
O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid	Seton-Karr, Henry	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)	Simeon, Sir Barrington
O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)	Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside	TELLER FOR THE AYES—
O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Smith, Jame Parker (Lanarks.	Sir William Walrond and
O'Malley, William	Smith, Hon. W. F.D. (Strand)	Mr. Anstruther.
O'Mara, James	Spear, John Ward
NOES.
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud	Harwood, George	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)
Broadhurst, Henry	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Roe, Sir Thomas
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh	Helme. Norval Watson	Runciman, Walter
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Holland, Sir William Henry	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Horniman, Frederick John	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Caldwell, James	Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.	Soares, Ernest J.
Causton, Richard Knight	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Strachey, Sir Edward
Channing, Francis Allston	Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington	Tennant, Harold John
Cremer, William Randal	Leigh, Sir Josepi	Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Levy, Maurice	Thomas. David Alfred (Merthyr
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Lewis, John Herbert	Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings)
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Lloyd-George, David	Thomas, J A (Glamorg'n, Gower
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	M'Kenna, Reginald	Toulmin, George
Duncan, J. Hastings	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Edwards, Frank	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Elibank, Master of	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	White, George (Norfolk)
Emmott, Alfred	Moss, Samuel	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Fenwick, Charles	Moulton, John Fletcher	Whiteley, George (York, W.R.
Fitzmanrice, Lord Edmund	Norman, Henry	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Fuller, J. M. F.	Paulton, James Mellor	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Gadstone, Rt Hn Herbert John	Pearson, Sir Weetman D.	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden	Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid
Grant, Corrie	Price, Robert John	Wilson, Henry J. (York. W.R.
Griffith, Ellis J.	Priestley, Arthur	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Rea, Russell
Harcourt. Rt. Hon. Sir William	Rickett, J. Compton	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil	Rigg, Richard	Mr. Trevelyan and Mr.
Harmworth, R. Leicester	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)	Alfred Hutton.

Question put, and agreed to.

(1.0.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said they had now come to the words, "Consisting of a number of trust managers not exceeding four, appointed as provided by this Act." He submitted that this was the very essence of the whole clause. Upon the way these managers were provided would depend the whole of the controversy between the two sides of the House. If this proposal were carried, there was nothing to prevent the First Lord of the Treasury bringing forward a provision that the whole of these managers should be elected directly by the ratepayers. Upon this question depended the attitude of both parties in the House in regard to this subject. The whole controversy turned upon the way these managers were to be provided. They were now Being asked to discuss a clause without knowing the method by which the managers were to be provided, and they were asked to discuss it in the dark. He submitted, as a point of order, that the Government were not entitled to proceed with this Amendment without first submitting their proposals with regard to the provision of managers.

*THE CHAIRMAN

In the first place I do not think that this matter is of the essence of the clause, as I stated earlier in the debate. As a matter of fact, however, the Government have hande in their proposals. [Opposition crises of "Oh, oh!" and An HON. MEMBER: Where are they?] They are in my hand at the present time, along with some manuscript Amendments which have been handed in.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that this was a very remarkable proceeding. Two or three hours ago he submitted a point of order, which was ruled against him, and he accepted that decision. He was told that later on was the proper place to raise his objection when they came to deal with the composition of trust managers. He found that in the meantime the Government had tabled their proposals. He made no further comment on that, but he submitted that they could not possibly discuss the question of the composition of the trust managers without knowing what trust managers were. The very words "trust managers" were new in law. He was not aware that those words occurred in any Education Act or any other Act, and no explanation had been given as to what they meant. How could they discuss this subject without knowing what the proposals of the Government were? He thought it was quite obvious that the right hon. Gentleman could not ask the House to discuss words which at the present time were perfectly meaningless. The whole question depended upon what was provided. The right hon. Gentleman might provide something which met all their objections raid he might not. Was it treating the Committee fairly to ask them to discuss a proposal like this, which was not on the Paper even in out line? Were the subscribers only to be the managers, or were the ratepayers or the laity to be included? He did not think the right hon. Gentleman could have thought out the proposals he had handed in during the course of the discussion. The composition of a body which was to manage 14,000 schools was not a matter which the right hon. Gentle man could think out while attending to the debate. If these new proposals had only been thought out in the course of the-last two hours, he suggested that the Government should take more time to consider a question upon which the future success of their scheme would depend. In the interests of the House of Commons and the Bill itself, and in the interests of of fair play, he did not think the Government ought to invite the House to discuss a project which was not before them, and which was to be "hereinafter provided for" This was not treating the Committee fairly, and he submitted that the right hon. Gentleman should now report progress in order that they might have time to consider what his proposals really were. He therefore moved to report progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said that if his hon. and learned friend had convinced the right hon. Gentleman, he had no desire to go on, and he would, spare the Committee the few minutes which he should otherwise occupy in stating the reasons why the Government should agree to this Motion. They were a little surprised at the objection being ruled out of order, because when they had moved Amendments which referred to some subsequent clause they had been called upon to produce such clause in order to show what "hereinafter provided for" meant. Here they had an elaborate Amendment before them which omitted what was the most material part of the Amendment. One would have thought that this particular point was the most material thing, and that it would have been put upon the Paper earlier, so that they would have known how these managers were to he appointed. With regard to the appointment of the minority of the managers, it was specifically stated how they wore to be appointed, but when they came to the four managers who were to constitute the statutory majority, nothing whatever was told them. The Government had evidently not made up their minds upon this point until the present moment, and now they were being asked to discuss how these four managers were to be appointed without anybody having any idea as to the way in which the Government proposed they should be appointed. Was it reasonable that they should be called upon to discuss this question without any information as to the character of the Government proposals? If the present proceeding was in order, a Motion to report progress was the proper method of dealing with it. It was unreasonable to be called upon to discuss the Amendment as to the character of the persons who were to be governors of 14,000 schools. He hoped that before next Friday the Government would let the Committee know what their scheme was.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire had added anything material to what was said by the hon. Member for Carnarvon. He thought the plea that progress should be reported because the Government had ill-used the House was unjust, as there had never been any concealment as to these denominational managers. They had argued throughout the whole discussion that those managers were to be nominated, and every speaker who had taken part in the debate knew that that was so. Therefore, that was the material, and the only material thing, for the present discussion. If the hon. Gentleman opposite would glance down all the alternative schemes which still remained on the Paper he would see that they all turned on the fact that hon. Members opposite desired to see the number of denominational managers diminished and the number of the elected managers increased. There had been no concealment whatever in the matter, and everybody had known exactly what they had to deal with. The only reason for the delay was the problem presented by the strange condition and variety of the trustees of the schools. He could tell the Committee now what the broad outline of the Government proposals was. He frankly admitted that the Clause was framed with the idea of leaving trust deeds, as far as possible, alone.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

What constituency will elect the managers?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That depends on the trust deeds. It would not be the same in all cases.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

But if there were no trustees?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It would be necessary to appoint trustees, as far as possible in conformity with the traditions of the school, to fit in with this Clause.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

But who appoints the trustees?

SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

asked about schools owned by individuals where there were no trust deeds.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that if there were no trustees it would be the duty of the Board of Education to frame trusts.

SIR JOHN BRUNNER

To deal with my property?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he was glad to see that the hon. Gentleman was so anxious that the owners of voluntary schools should retain their rights. He was, however, afraid that the Committee would not do much effective work in connection with this matter that night, so he should accept the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.