Commons Sitting of 8 May 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—
  Tiverton Market Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—
  Barrow Hæmatite Steel Company, Limited, Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  NORWICH CORPORATION (ELECTRICITY, &c.) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  SCARBOROUGH TRAMWAYS BILL (KING'S CONSENT SIGNIFIED).
  Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (No. 1) BILL,
    WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY BILL.
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 83 relating to Private Bills, informed the House, That, in his opinion, the West Ham Corporation Bill, though unopposed, ought to be treated as an opposed Private Bill.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

  PLYMOUTH, DEVONPORT, AND SOUTH WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.
  SCOTTISH EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
  STREET URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  ISLE OF WIGHT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PETITIONS.
  BOROUGH FUNDS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Bethnal Green, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  BURGH POLICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Perth, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; From Carlisle; Margate: and Brighton and Preston; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; From Little Hulton; Oxenhope; and Hinckley; to lie upon the Table.
  FRESH-WATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Perth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' CERTIFICATES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Perth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petition from Bethnal Green, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From Brown Edge; and Little Hulton; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Melplash, against; to lie upon the Table.
  OUTDOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) BILL.
  Petition from Bethnal Green, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Keighley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Droylsden, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From Norwich; Sheffield; Idle; and, Low Moor; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP CLUBS BILL.
  Petition from Stratford-on-Avon, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY TRADING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From Gourock; and Scottish National Sabbath School Union; to lie upon the Table.
  TIENDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Perth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TIED HOUSES ABOLITION BILL.
  Petition from Perth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (GREAT BRITAIN).
  Copy presented, of Forty-fifth Report of his Majesty's Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools for 1901. Part I. List of Schools and Detailed Reports [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, with Appendix, 1901–2 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Census of England and Wales, 1901 (County of York) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ARMY (MEDICAL DEPARTMENT).
  Copy presented, of Report for the year 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.

  TEMPORARY LAWS.
  Register of Temporary Laws for the Third Session, Twenty-seventh Parliament, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, pursuant to Report of the Select Committee on Expiring Laws in Session 1866; to be printed. [No. 175.]
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Teachers' Registration.
  MR. THORNTON: To ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in the forthcoming Order in Council regarding teachers' registration, the restriction excluding primary teachers possessing academical and other educational distinction necessary to qualify for admission to Column B, until they have worked for twelve months in a school other than elementary, will be removed.
  (Answer.) The Board of Education have no present intention of proposing an alteration in this regulation.—(Board of Education.)

  Tiumpan Head Lighthouse.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate whether the diary kept by the light keepers at Tiumpan Head Lighthouse, Island of Lewis, shows that trawlers have been observed illegally trawling in Broad Bay; and, if so, will be say on how many occasions.
  (Answer.) I am informed by the Fishery Board that the diary kept by the Tiumpan Head light keepers shows that trawlers were observed working illegally in Broad Bay on two occasions in 1901, and once during 1902.—(Scottish Office)

  Caithness Medical Officer of Health.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that on 8th March last the County Council of Caithness appointed a duly qualified medical practitioner to be medical officer of health for the county, and that this practitioner has not yet entered upon his duties consequent on
  1070
  delay on the part of the Local Government Board in intimating whether he will be allowed to have consulting practice; and whether he can state when the decision of the Department will be communicated to the authorities in Caithness.
  (Answer.) On the 12th March the Local Government Board were informed that the County Council of Caithness had appointed a county medical officer, with permission to engage in consulting practice. The Local Government Board did not interfere with the appointment nor hinder the new officer entering on his duties. It was necessary, however, to consider whether the grant in aid of the cost of medical officers should be payable to the County Council in respect of this appointment. The rule is that where the medical officer engages in consulting practice the grant is not given unless the Secretary for Scotland is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances justifying this arrangement. The necessity of considering these circumstances in this case caused some delay, but the County Council have now been informed that the grant will not be given.—(Scottish Office.)

  India—Civil Service—Pensions.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the fact that the pension of a member of the Civil Service has been held in this House to be deferred pay, will he explain why Kanty Chandra Mookerjee, late Extra Assistant Commissioner, Assam, on being dismissed from the Government Service of India in February, 1889, was deprived of the pension which up to that date he had earned in the form of deferred pay during eighteen years service.
  (Answer.) I am not aware of any expression of the opinion of this House to the effect stated in the Question; but the rule of the Service in India, as in this country, is that a pension, whether it be regarded as deferred pay or not, may not be granted to an officer removed from the service of Government for misconduct.—(India Office.)

  Indian Railways—Contracts for Locomotives.
  COLONEL DENNY: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state how many engines

  1071
  have been delivered to Indian railways by other than British contractors, and in how many cases has the guaranteed delivery date been exceeded.
  (Answer.) I am unable to say how many locomotives have been obtained from foreign contractors for those Indian railways which are managed by companies. For Indian State railways thirty-four locomotives have been thus procured; they were delivered under four separate contracts, and in each case the delivery in India was slightly later than the contract date; but the lateness did not in any case amount to more than six weeks, and I have reason to believe that it was in each case caused mainly, if not entirely, by a difficulty in procuring freight.—(India Office.)

  Merchant Shipping—Boys under Reduced Light Dues Clause.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEForest of Dean): To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state what number of boys is now carried under the Reduced Light Dues Clause of the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act of 1898.
  (Answer.) 1,523 boys have been enrolled, but it is difficult to estimate the number actually carried at any given moment.—(Board of Trade.)

  Braunton Lighthouse, Devonshire.
  MR. SOARES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet decided as to the advisability of connecting Braunton Lighthouse, in North Devon, with the telephone.
  (Answer.) I communicated the suggestion of the hon. Member to the Postmaster General, but I have not yet received his observations on the matter.—(Board of Trade.)

  South-Eastern Railway—Penge Station Accommodation.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the case of Graveley v. the South Eastern Railway Company, in which Judge Addison, at the Southwark County Court, on the 29th April, delivered judgment against the plaintiff, who brought
  1072
  his action on account of the inconvenience which he sustained through being unable to leave Penge railway station immediately after his arrival by train, in consequence of the door giving egress from the station being kept locked until after the train had left the platform, so that the plaintiff was unable to catch another train by which he had arranged to travel; and will he consider the advisability of taking such steps as may be necessary, by legislation or otherwise, to require railway companies to arrange for the immediate egress from railway stations of passengers arriving by train.
  (Answer.) I have no information as to the case referred to other than that given in the newspaper cutting which the hon. Member has been good enough to send me. I observe that the county court judge is reported to have expressed the opinion that nothing could be more reasonable than what the railway company had done. The Board of Trade have no power in the matter, and I do not think any need exists for such action as the hon. Member suggests.—(Board of Trade.)

  Irish Kelp Industry—Rent Charge on Seaweed.
  MR. DELANY: To ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the recent decision of the Head Land Commission in the cases of Lee v. Nolan and Folan v. Berridge, in which Mr. Justice Meredith held that, under Section 8 of the Act of 1881, the landlord was entitled to rent on seaweed collected for the manufacture of kelp; and whether the Government propose making any alteration in the law to counteract the effect of this decision upon the occupiers of small holdings on the sea coast in Ireland.
  (Answer.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.—(Irish Office.)

  Achill Island—Foreshore Rights.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the landlord of the Clive estate, in Achill Island, county Mayo, has any claim on the ownership of the foreshore at Annagh, in Achill Island, county Mayo; and, if so, what is that claim, to whom was it granted, and what is the date of the granting of it.

  1073
  (Answer.) Since notice of the Question was given I have been informed that the owner of the Clive estate claims the ownership of the foreshore at Annagh. I am not aware that the Crown has parted with their rights in the foreshore, but any evidence which the owner of the Clive estate may submit in support of his claim will be considered by the legal advisers of the Board.—(Board of Trade.)

  Irish Intermediate Education Board— Programme and Rules.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the programme and rules of the Intermediate Education Board have been heretofore published at Easter in each year; what is the reason for the delay in the publication in the present year of the programme and rules for the examination in 1903; when such publication will be made; and if he can give any assurance that no radical changes will be announced which the present delay will render almost impossible for teachers to adopt.
  (Answer.) The programme and rules of the Board were published in the month of June during the past three years. The programme and rules for 1903 will be ready for publication in the course of a week or ten days, and I cannot, by anticipation, make any statement as to their effect.—(Irish Office.)

  Irish Local Government Board Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 3) Act (1901).
  MR. COGAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Order required by Section 25 (2) of the Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1901, has yet been printed; and, if not, how soon will it be ready for circulation; and whether he is aware that inconvenience has been caused to the secretaries of the County Councils in Ireland by reason of this Order not having been printed and made available prior to the Act coming into operation on the 1st of April last.
  (Answer.) The Order, as amended, was received at the Stationery Office on the 7th April, and on the 25th April it was published and placed on sale as a Statutory Order. The Order only came
  1074
  into operation as from the 1st April. I am not aware that inconvenience has been caused, such as alleged in the concluding part of the Question.—(Irish Office.)

  Woolwich Arsenal and Dockyard Labourers.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the number of unskilled labourers employed in Woolwich Arsenal and Dockyard whose rate of wage is 21s. per week; whether the War Office have received a petition asking that unskilled labour should be paid at the rate of 24s. per week; and, if so, whether any reply has been made to that petition; and, seeing that the market rate for unskilled labour outside the Arsenal is 24s. per week, that the Government contractors employed in the Arsenal pay unskilled labour at this rate, and that the municipal authorities at Woolwich pay unskilled labour at the rate of 26s. per week, and having regard to the rents prevalent in the borough, whether he will take into consideration the question of increasing the wage of unskilled labour employed in the Woolwich Arsenal.
  (Answer.) It is not possible to calculate the number of labourers receiving 21s. a week without considerable labour in consequence of the extra payments for overtime and piecework. The petition referred to was received, and after full inquiry and consideration was refused. I must point out that this whole question was thoroughly discussed in the House during the consideration of Vote 9 of the Army Estimates, on the 10th March.—(War Office.)

  Hong Kong Barracks Buildings.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for War if the persons who advised Major General Black to recommend the purchase of the hotel at the Peak, Hong Kong, for barracks at a cost of £39,000 are still consulted by the War Office; and, having regard to the value of the building when purchased, will care be taken that competent valuers are in future consulted under similar circumstances when the purchase of buildings by the War Office is in contemplation.
  (Answer.) I have nothing to add to the answers I have already given the hon. Member on this subject.—(War Office.)

  Gibraltar—Cuby's Bank Loss of Regimental Funds.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War, with regard to the inquiry promised into the details of the stoppage of payment by Messrs. Cuby's Bank, Gibraltar, with reference to the regimental funds in the hands of that bank, can he now state the result of the inquiry, and who is held responsible for those funds, and what dividend has been paid; whether he is aware that two regimental canteens have lost £800 and £900 respectively, and that one of these canteens requested permission to cease banking at Cuby's, which permission had been refused; have steps been taken to inquire into the action of those senior officers who entrusted such funds to a private bank instead of to a recognised bank; and who allowed balances in excess of the regulations to accumulate.
  (Answer.) This matter has been fully considered by the confidential Committee presided over by General Sir Reginald Gipps, and the necessary disciplinary action has been taken by the Commander-in-Chief. Deficiencies affecting regimental institutes have, by a very recent Army Order, been brought under the regulations dealing with the responsibility for losses of regimental property. I may point out to the hon. Member that the regulations do not fix a maximum to the bank balances of regimental institutes.—(War Office.)

  Army Pensions—Statistics.
  MR. NOLAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the number of non-commissioned officers and men retired on pension in the years 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, and 1901 respectively, with the average per head in each grade.
  (Answer.) I am afraid I cannot undertake to give all the details asked for by the hon. Member, as their preparation would entail considerable clerical labour. The figures available are as follow :—

  Number of Non-Commissioned Officers Men discharged to Pension.

  Average Rate and to Pension awarded.

  ——

  s.

  d.

  —

  1896–1897

  2,508

  1

  3¼

  per diem.

  1897–1898

  2,609

  1

  4

  per diem.

  1898–1899

  2,834

  1

  3¾

  per diem.

  1899–1900

  2,547

  1

  2½

  per diem.

  1900–1901

  5,738

  1

  4½

  per diem.

  The statistics for 1901–1902 are not yet quite complete.—(War Office.)

  Milk-blended Butter.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will, immediately after the 15th May, take such steps as may be necessary to test the value of the standard for butter set up by the Board of Agriculture, so that the uncertainty now existing whether after that date milk-blended butter containing a higher percentage of moisture than permitted by the standard can still be sold may be determined.
  (Answer.) It has not been the practice of the Board to anticipate the action of local authorities for the purpose of testing the effect of statutes, and in view of the full powers of local authorities I do not think that any special necessity for doing so arises in this case. The authority given by statute to the Board has been fully exercised in issuing the regulations.—(Board of Agriculture.)

  Arrangement of Opposed Private Bill Business.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is intended to amend the present system of private Bill legislation, and whether another arrangement will be made to enable the discussion of opposed private Bills at a suitable hour; whether he would be disposed to allow a sitting of the House at mid-day for that purpose when required.
  (Answer.) No proposal to amend the present system of private Bill legislation can be entertained until the Committee shortly to be appointed to investigate the subject has reported. As at present advised, the proposal to have a sitting in the afternoon for the purpose of dealing with opposed private Bills does not seem advisable.—(Treasury.)

  Irish Gold Ornaments.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, as the case for the recovery of the Irish gold ornaments is expected to come on soon after Whitsuntide, if he will cause the Royal Irish Academy to be informed of the date of the trial, when it

  1077
  is fixed, in accordance with the undertaking given recently by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  (Answer.) The Treasury solicitor, who has the case in hand, will inform the Royal Irish Academy of the date fixed for the trial as soon as he is in a position to do so.—(Treasury.)

  (2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    South African War—Nationality of Prisoners.
    SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many of those captured or who have surrendered since the beginning of this year are inhabitants of the Transvaal or the Orange Free State, how many are inhabitants of Cape Colony or Natal, and how many are Europeans or other foreigners to South Africa.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,: There are no statistics at present available to enable me to give the required information. The Colonial authorities are taking steps to obtain them, but difficulties have arisen from the unwillingness of some of the prisoners to give the information.

    Martial Law in Cape Colony.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to what occurred in the Supreme Court of Cape Colony on 12th April, when two convictions of the resident magistrate of Clanwilliam were held to be illegal and quashed; and especially whether he is aware that the Chief Justice declared, with the concurrence of his colleagues, that the present system under which magistrates have to administer Martial Law regulations is unfair to the magistrates and fatal to the due administration of justice, and that therefore the additional duties so imposed upon the magistrates are inconsistent with the due performance of their duties as Administrators of the ordinary law of the Colony, and ought, if possible, to be avoided; and, whether he will take steps to put an end to a system thus condemned by Chief Justice de Villiers and his colleagues.
    MR. BRODRICK: I have no information on this matter.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): As this Question should properly have been addressed to me, I may say, perhaps, that I have seen a newspaper account of the proceedings referred to. The matter is one which primarily concerns the Cape Government, and I have not as yet been informed of their views on the subject.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I put the Question to the Secretary for War because it deals with martial authority, which is presumably directed by Lord Kitchener. Will further inquiry be made?
    MR. BRODRICK: No. Representations must come from the Cape Government in the ordinary course.

    Vryburg Military Hospital.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information as to the insanitary and crowded state of the Military hospital at Vryburg at the end of April, and the absence of tents for the use of the sick, for whom there was insufficient accommodation in the hospital.
    MR. BRODRICK: I have no information of the condition of Vryburg Hospital later than the 4th April. Will the hon. Member kindly supply me with the information on which his Question is based.

    Richmond Park—Volunteer Drills.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can obtain a reconsideration of the decision not to permit a more extended use of Richmond Park under proper regulations for the training of Metropolitan Volunteers.
    MR. BRODRICK: As I have already explained to the House, the field training of the volunteers must be mainly carried out in camps. My right hon. friend the first Commissioner has already expressed his willingness to consider the extension

    1079
    of the area now used for volunteer drills, and is in communication with the Ranger on the subject.

    Fuze Time Rings.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the character of the nuts at present in use for fixing the time ring on fuzes which require the use of tools or spanners to fix them, and seeing that the explosion of shells is either hastened or delayed by the nuts allowing the time ring to shift, whether he will consider the advisability of adopting a lock nut which can be fixed by hand and thus insure greater certainty and increased speed.
    MR. BRODRICK: The question of improved fuzes is under consideration.

    Post Office Volunteers on Active Service.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that it is inconvenient to relieve the Post Office Volunteers who have served continuously in South Africa since the outbreak of the war, and that they are, moreover, deprived of their holidays falling due while on active service, and are only entitled to a few week's leave prior to being called upon to resume duty in the Department, he will consider the advisability of granting them, by way of compensation, an extended holiday upon their return home at the close of the war.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): On the return of the Army Post Office Corps to this country the Postmaster General will give further consideration to this question in communication with the Secretary of State for War.

    Dockyard Reserve—Shipwright Pensioners.
    MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the shipwright pensioners entered in the Dockyard Reserve in November, 1899, are entitled to the benefit of the Admiralty Order of 30th October, 1899,
    1080
    which gives to similar pensioners in the Fleet Reserve the non-continuous service pay of their ratings; and whether he is aware that at present a differentiation in pay is being made, although both bodies do precisely similar work.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The shipwright pensioners entered in the Dockyard Reserve in November, 1899, are entitled to the benefit of the Admiralty Order of 30th October, 1899, referred to. The only instances in which lower rates of pay are given are a few remaining cases of unskilled ratings of the carpenter class entered with lower qualifications under the old regulations in force before 1899. These men are understood to be employed on work of a less skilled character, and in every case in which such men have been reported to be efficient and qualified workmen actually employed on skilled labour in common with other pensioned shipwrights, they have been allowed the higher rate of pay.

    H.M.S. "Medusa."
    MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will give the names of the cruisers of the "Medusa" class that have their forced draught fan engines and fans fitted to and above the protective deck, as is being done in the "Medusa" at present at Jarrow.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: None of the other cruisers of the "Medusa" class have their forced draught fan engines and fans fitted to and above the protective deck. The cruisers referred to in my previous answer as those in which this arrangement has been adopted, were, as then stated, second-class cruisers, and are the four ships of the "Arrogant" class. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, the "Medusa" is not a second-class but a third-class cruiser.
    MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile that statement with the one he made to me on a previous occasion?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a matter of argument.

    Trans-Atlantic Shipping Combination.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information has reached the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs relative to the proposed acquisition by an American Company or syndicate of certain British ships including those of the White Star Line, or of the shares of the British companies owning those ships; if so, when was that information received, and from whom; and when was it communicated to the Board of Trade. Have any representations been made, or any information transmitted to the Foreign Office by His Majesty's Embassy, or any of His Majesty's Consulates in the United States, relative to this proposed acquisition of British ships or of the shares in the companies owning them. And will any Papers on the subject be laid before the House.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,: Neither His Majesty's ambassador at Washington, nor his Majesty's Consuls in the United States were informed officially or unofficially of the operations of the syndicate, and the only information sent to the Foreign Office on the subject was derived from public sources. No communications have passed between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government in regard to it.

    Russia and Persia Railway Concessions.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is in existence an agreement between Great Britain and Russia guaranteeing the integrity and independence of Persia; and if so, whether he will lay a copy of that agreement upon the Table of this House, and if in the meantime, he will inform the House whether the prohibition by Russia of the construction of railways in Persia would be consistent with or a violation of that agreement.
    LORD CRANBORNE: The agreement as to the integrity and independence of Persia will be found in the Parliamentary Paper, Miscellaneous No. 2 (1898). If the hon. Member's second Question has reference to the agreement understood to exist between the Russian and Persian
    1082
    Governments for deferring the construction of railways in Persia, I beg to refer him to the answer which I gave him on March 25th. †

    Panama Canal—America and the Danish Antilles.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have received any information as to the purchase or proposed purchase by the United States Government or United States capitalists of the rights of the Panama Canal Company, or of the Danish possessions in the West Indies; and, if so, when and in what form was that information received. Has any communication passed between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States with reference to either of these subjects; and, if so, what is the effect of such communications, and will a copy of the correspondence be laid before this House.
    LORD CRANBORNE: Despatches dating from January, 1901, have been received from His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington, and His Majesty's Minister at Bogota, relative to the proposed purchase by the United States Government of the rights of the Panama Canal Company. Information dating from January, 1902, has also been received from His Majesty's Representatives at Washington and Copenhagen to the effect that a Treaty has been concluded for the sale to the United States Government of the Danish Antilles; that the Treaty has been ratified by the Senate of the United States, and is at present under the consideration of the Danish Rigsdag. No communication has passed between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States with regard to either subject.

    Railway to the Persian Gulf.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, are His Majesty's Government aware that Mr. Pierpoint Morgan is a leading Member of the syndicate for carrying out the concession granted by Turkey to Germany for the Railway to be constructed through Asia Minor and thence to the Persian Gulf; and have they any information showing that any
    † See (4) Debates, cv., 987.

    1083
    English financiers are interested in that enterprise, and, can any Papers relating to the matter be laid upon the Table of this House.
    LORD CRANBORNE: No Sir. His Majesty's Government have no information to the effect suggested by the hon. Member's Question.

    Cheque Stamp Duty.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that since the delivery of his Financial Statement proposing the extra cheque tax, cheques have reached London and other banks bearing an extra penny stamp; whether, with the view of preventing a recurrence of this mistake, and to remove the uncertainty in the public mind on this extra stamp question, caused by the delay in making known his final decision upon it, he can now say whether the extra stamp tax will be enforced; and, if not, whether a refund will be made to those who have put extra stamps on cheques; and, if so, will it be made through the Treasury, the post offices, or in what manner.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (for Sir M. HICKS BEACH): My right hon. friend, who is detained on the Savings Bank Committee upstairs, wishes me to say he will announce his decision as to the cheque tax on Monday. Meantime he does not see why any one should have affixed an extra penny stamp to a cheque as yet, because it was publicly stated that the new duty would not commence until July 1st, and no instance in which it has been done has been brought to the attention of the Board of Inland Revenue. If any such cases have occurred, the value of the extra stamp could be recovered by application to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under the provisions of Section 10 of the Stamp Duties Management Act, 1891.

    Suggested Tax on Meat and Butter Imports.
    MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advantage of withdrawing the cheque tax and replacing it by a small tax on
    1084
    meat and butter imported from countries outside the British Empire, or which do not contribute to Imperial taxation.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (for Sir M. HICKS BEACH): I do not know whether I am to understand that the suggestion contained in the Question would be supported by the hon. Member and the Party to which he belongs, but I do not think its adoption would diminish any difficulty in the present situation.

    Ministry of Commerce and Labour— American Inquiry.
    MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the House Committee on Commerce at Washington have begun hearings on the plan of creating a new Department of the Government, presided over by a Cabinet officer, to be known as the Department of Commerce and Labour; and if he will take steps to furnish Members desiring them with copies of the evidence given before the Committee, and of the Report of the Committee.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I believe the facts are as stated. I propose to endeavour to obtain copies of any documents relating to the subject for the use of the Board of Trade, and when I receive them I shall be happy to give the hon. Member facilities for consulting them if he wishes to do so.

    Police (England and Wales)—Compensation for Injury.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state how many policemen were injured during the year ending the 31st March last in England and Wales while in the discharge of their duties; in how many instances those injuries resulted in death or permanent disability; and whether in such cases police officers or their immediate relatives are entitled to recover compensation out of the local rates in this country.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): The information asked for in the first two paragraphs is not in the possession of the Home Office. The grant of pensions to police officers injured on duty in England and Wales or to their widows and children is regulated by the Police Act, 1890.

    Irish Salt Butter Industry.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can state what is a sufficient disclosure which the vendors of Irish salt butter have to make, in order to escape the operation of the limit and the penalty for selling the same, considering the fact that in paragraph 5 of the Interim Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the fixing of a standard of water in butter it is stated that those interested in the production and distribution of Irish salt firkin butter say it necessarily contains a higher percentage of moisture than is found in any other butter coming into the market, and how is this disclosure to be made.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): As I have already stated, I cannot express an opinion as to the view the courts may take upon the question of whether the regulations may be evaded by merely disclosing the fact that the article sold contains water in excess of the limit fixed by these regulations.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the evidence before this Committee went to show that Irish salt butter could not be made with less than 20 per cent. of water, and that this new regulation "will kill" the industry.
    MR. HANBURY: I am not aware of that but I am aware that the evidence showed that Irish butter would have a much better chance in the market if salted instead of brined.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Yes, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that experts are of opinion that unless brine is used it cannot be made for keeping purposes?

    Post Offices and Telegraphic Business.
    MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state what is the minimum requirement, as regards number of telegrams per year and letters delivered per week, to entitle an office to be raised to the 38s. and 40s. a week scale respectively; also what is the practice of the Department in counting transmitted messages.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In fixing the scale of salary applicable to an office, the whole of the business transacted in it is taken into account, and not only the two items mentioned by the hon. Member.
    MR. KEARLEY: What is the practice in counting transmitted messages?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot answer that off hand.

    E.C.D.O.—Postmen's Accommodation.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state the actual number of postmen employed at the East Central District Office at the date of the publication of the Report of the Tweedmouth Committee; what is the present number of established, auxiliary, and temporary postmen respectively at present employed at the East Central District Office: and what material alterations have been effected at that office since 1897.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The actual number of Postmen employed in the East Central District Office on the 1st April, 1897, was 975, these being all established men: and at the present time there are 1297 on the books, comprising 1184 established, 123 temporary, and 113 auxiliary, the 123 temporary men standing against absent reservists or vacancies. Of these totals, the largest number on duty at one time—on 1st April, 1897, was 495, and is now 565. Since 1st April, 1897, the retiring-room area available for the postmen's use has been increased from 2501 to 4087 square feet, and sanitary accommodation has also been materially increased.

    Sub-Post Offices and the Coronation.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General will consider the advisability of making the duties in sub-post offices on the Coronation days the same as on Sundays, and not merely as on bank holidays, which really means, to the majority of country sub-offices, no holiday at all.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has decided that sub-post offices generally shall be opened on Coronation Day during the same hours as on Sundays, but that sub-offices which are not open at all on Sundays shall on Coronation Day be opened from 8 to 10 a.m. No Parcel Post, Postal Order, Money Order, or Savings Bank business will be transacted.

    Postal Employees' Organisations.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if connection with a postal trades union like the Fawcett Association would in any way interfere with the official prospects of postal employees; and will he state whether in Dublin, when minor clerical appointments were being given, confidential reports were made concerning the connection of applicants with the Fawcett Association.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No such reports as are referred to in the Question were made at Dublin, nor would connection with a Trades Union interfere with the prospects of promotion in such cases.
    MR. NANNETTI: Were not confidential representations made at Dublin with reference to an officer of the Fawcett Association?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think so. But that is not the Question on the Paper, which I have inquired into.

    Australian Immigration—Anglo-Japanese Agreement.
    MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether provision has been made under
    1088
    the terms of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty to relieve Japanese subjects from the disabilities attaching to Asiatic immigrants to Australia; and, if not, whether His Majesty's Government will urge upon the conference of Colonial Premiers the necessity of recognising the equal international rights of Japanese subjects within the British Empire with the subjects of other friendly foreign Powers, and call on all self-governing British colonies to extend to Japanese subjects all the privileges and rights as to residence, trading, settlement, and colonisation enjoyed by subjects of other foreign Powers.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Anglo-Japanese Agreement has been laid before Parliament, and the hon. Member will see, on referring to the text, that it does not touch on the question of immigration, It is not proposed to discuss the position of Japanese subjects at the Conference of Colonial Premiers.
    MR. JAMES O'KELLY: Are Japanese subjects not to be treated as those of a civilised Power?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: There is not the slightest foundation for that suggestion.
    MR. SWIFT MACNETLL: Your ally! Your ally!

    New Guinea.—Rumoured Establishment of a Dutch Penal Settlement.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any intention on the part of the Netherlands Government of establishing a penal settlement at Marouke, in New Guinea, and whether any representations have been made by Queensland on the subject; and what action he proposes to take.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: In reply to an inquiry from the Foreign Office, the Netherlands Minister has informed His Majesty's Government that deportation to a colony is unknown in the penal code of the Netherlands or its colonies. The rumour, he states, probably originated from the fact that, in accordance with the usual

    1089
    policy of employing convicts on public works in the Netherlands Indies, a certain number have been temporarily despatched from Java with the necessary staff and materials to Marouke, in New Guinea, to construct a Residency at that place. The substance of this Note has been telegraphed to the Governor General, for communication to the Governor of Queensland.

    Civil Service—Higher Division Clerks.
    MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the grounds upon which the Treasury formed the opinion that the work done by Higher Division clerks in the Secretary of State offices requires higher qualifications than work done by Higher Division clerks in the Board of Trade; and whether a similar conclusion has been arrived at in respect to the character of the work done in the Local Government Department.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The opinion is based upon the character of the work done in the different offices. It applies to the Local Government Board as well as to the Board of Trade.

    Education Code—School Sanitation.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he will say why it has been deemed advisable to omit from the Education Code for 1902 the schedule which sets forth the regulations to be observed in the planning, building, warming, ventilating, and general sanitary arrangements of elementary schools.
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST,: It was considered by the Board of Education that building regulations did not properly form part of the Code; and such regulations will be issued shortly as a separate Paper.

    High Courts of Justice—Lack of Accommodation.
    CAPTAIN CLIVE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the fact that two Judges of the High
    1090
    Court of Justice are not provided with Courts, Mr. Justice Grantham sitting in the Old Hall of Lincoln's Inn, and Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady in some room under the Bar Library; and whether, under these circumstances, it is proposed to provide additional Courts.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,: It is a fact that there is not sufficient accommodation in the Royal Courts of Justice for the Judges of the High Court from the present time until the end of the sittings. The Lord Chief Justice has had to apply to the Benchers for the use of the Old Hall at Lincoln's Inn for Mr. Justice Grantham, and Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady is sitting in a room wholly unfitted for the purposes of a Court. In the event, as is possible, of one of the three Judges now on circuit returning to town before the 16th, there will be absolutely no Court in which he can be accommodated. This inconvenience is certain to occur under present arrangements from time to time during other periods of the legal year. Four or five more Courts will be required for the accommodation of the Judges unless the existing arrangement of circuits can be entirely remodelled, so as to ensure greater uniformity in the number of judges in town, which in my opinion is very desirable.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Is it proposed to make any structural alteration?
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Two remedies are possible, One is an addition to the Law Courts, and the other is a re-arrangement of the circuits. I, personally should prefer the second.

    Royal Irish Constabulary—Transfer for Debts.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Inspector General of Royal Irish Constabulary is aware of the complaints made by traders in Ireland of the difficulty in getting payment of legal debts from members of the force on being transferred to various stations;

    1091
    and whether there is any departmental rule or regulation dealing with constables or other officers of the force who refuse to discharge their legal obligations.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,) (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The regulations of the force provide that any members who are known to be in debt shall not be transferred to other districts, and that such members, if transferred, may be sent back to their former stations, should the creditors desire to take legal proceedings against them. A member who fails to discharge his legal obligations is liable to dismissal from the force.

    Nenagh Labourers' Cottage Scheme.
    MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that at the Local Government Inquiry held at Nenagh, North Tipperary, on the 15th April, with regard to the Guardians' proposed scheme for additional labourers' cottages in Nenagh Union, the application of four labourers, namely, J. Duff, J. Creamer, J. Starr, and J. McCarthy, from the districts of Portroe and Castletown, were refused on the ground that they were working at the slate quarries; and, seeing that the evidence of the District Councillors for the divisions showed that these men were bonâ fide labourers, inasmuch as they worked for the neighbouring farmers during the harvest season, being obliged to work in the quarries during other slack times, and that they were at present living in hovels, whether he will take steps to have these men and their families provided with proper houses and the plots of land under the Act.
    MR. ATKINSON: The Local Government Board expect to receive the Report of their inspector who conducted the inquiry into this scheme in the course of a month or six weeks. Pending the receipt of the Report the Board are unable to say what conclusion was come to by the inspector.

    Proclamation of County Cavan—Protest of Cavan County Council.
    MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that at a meeting of the County Council of county Cavan, held on the 1st instant, which included ten magistrates of the county, five of whom are extensive landlords, a resolution was unanimously adopted protesting against the action of the Government in proclaiming the county under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, and refusing to pay the cost of the extra police sent into the county, on the grounds that there was no necessity for the use of extra police as the county is in an almost crimeless condition; and, seeing that the action of the Irish Executive in proclaiming the county Cavan and sending extra police to Black Lion has been condemned by all classes in the county, will steps be taken to have the proclamation and extra police withdrawn.
    MR. ATKINSON: A resolution to the effect mentioned has, I believe, been passed by this County Council, upon whom, however, the duty of preventing and punishing crime does not rest. I disagree with the hon. Member that the action of the executive is condemned by all classes in that county; on the contrary, it is, I believe, welcomed and approved of by many. The reply to the last inquiry is in the negative.

    Belfast Corporation Accounts.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the two last reports of the auditor of the Local Government Board, on the annual statement of accounts for the county borough of Belfast, have not been given to the members of that Corporation; whether this fact affects the payments for deputation expenses which have been condemned as excessive, and are being paid up to date nevertheless; whether he is aware that in the last report the auditor disallowed and surcharged against certain members of the Corporation sums of money; and whether he can state what steps the Irish Local Government Board propose to take with

    1093
    regard to these surcharges, and to enforce the publication of these reports of their auditor for the future guidance of members of the Belfast City Council.
    MR. ATKINSON: The Local Government Board are not aware whether or not the reports referred to were communicated to the members of the Council individually. The auditor in one of these reports took strong exception to the expenses incurred by deputations of the Council. He made no surcharge in respect of these expenses, and I am unable to say what action has since been taken by the Council in the matter. On the occasion of his last audit, the auditor surcharged sums amounting to £3,017 in respect of interest on overdrafts, and £1,406 expended in the purchase of motors for utilising electricity. The first of these surcharges has been remitted; no decision has yet been arrived at respecting the second. In reply to the last query, my right hon. friend has already stated that a Bill has been drafted amending the Local Government Acts, which contains a provision enabling the Board to prescribe rules as to the publication of the reports of its auditors.

    Grants for Irish Fishery Piers.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the fund for the erection of fishery piers in charge of the Board of Works, Ireland, is exhausted; and, seeing that applications have been made and promises given for the building of such piers at Liscannor and other places around the coast, whether he will arrange to bring in a measure to provide the necessary funds to enable those works to be carried out with the co-operation of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland, and the local ratepayers interested.
    MR. ATKINSON: My right hon. friend stated, so recently as the 24th of April, that he was considering legislation which, if passed, will assist in placing certain fishery harbours in a more satisfactory position, but that he was unable at the present stage to give pledges in respect of particular harbours.

    Annaghmore Prosecutions.
    MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps will be taken to protect the Roman Catholic witnesses who have been summoned to give evidence against the parties who are charged with being concerned in the riot at Annaghmore; and whether he will take steps to provide that those rioters who are Orangemen shall be tried at Petty Sessions by a Court of which no member is a master of an Orange Lodge.
    MR. ATKINSON: It is a fundamental duty of the police to afford every necessary protection to all members of the community without regard to, and quite irrespectively of, their religious denominations. That duty the police will discharge in the present instance without any instructions from head quarters. From proceedings which have taken place in other parts of Ireland, the hon. Member must be aware that the Executive Government have no power to prevent a magistrate from sitting at Petty Sessions even though they had reason to believe he is prejudiced; but the hon. Member may rest assured that the Executive will do everything in its power to bring to justice all persons against whom there is satisfactory evidence.
    MR. M'GOVERNinquired if the clerks at the Table had any right to alter his Question without consulting him.
    MR. SPEAKER: They do communicate with hon. Members whenever possible. But it is sometimes difficult to do so, and in that case they sometimes have to judge whether the alteration is such that the hon. Member would prefer to postpone the Question or to have it put down in its altered form.
    MR. M'GOVERN: In regard to the answer to the Question, may I ask if it is competent for a magistrate who is a Member of an Orange Lodge to try another member of the same lodge.
    [No answer was returned.]
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why don't you challenge the magistrate.

    Limerick Postal Arrangements.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state whether the inhabitants of the County of Limerick will have the same facilities as regards postal arrangements under the new mode of conveying the mails by car on the Limerick and Kerry route instead of by train as heretofore, and, if not, what will be the arrangements.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The railway company recently gave notice that they could not continue the present mail train service on the Limerick and Kerry line except for a very much higher payment than is now made to them; and as the Postmaster General would not be justified in agreeing to such an increase, there is no alternative but to forward by car those mails for which suitable trains will not be available. The best service practicable under the circumstances will be afforded, and a statement of the alterations will be sent to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: But will the inhabitants of the towns along this line enjoy the same postal facilities as hitherto; get their letters as early, and post them as late?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have said I will send a statement of any alterations to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    Achill Island Foreshore Rights.
    DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Crown has any right over the foreshore at Annagh, in the Clive Estate, Achill Island, County Mayo, and, if so, will he state what are those rights; if the Crown has parted with those rights to whom have they been granted, and under what statute have they been granted, and what is the date of that grant.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The foreshore at Annagh, in County Mayo, is prima facie the property of the Crown.; So far as I know, the Crown have not
    1096
    parted with any of their rights in the foreshore at this spot, but since notice of the Question was given, I have been informed that the owner of the adjoining estate claims the ownership of the foreshore. Any evidence which he may submit in support of his claim will be considered by the legal advisers of the Board.

    Education Bill—Voluntary School Debts.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it will be possible for the managers of any voluntary school which may be in debt at the date of the passing of the Education Bill now before the House to meet such debt out of any funds paid over to them by the proposed new Education Committees or by the Board of Education subsequent to the passing of the Bill.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The local education authority will not be liable for any expenditure incurred previous to the date of their becoming responsible for the maintenance of the school. The grants from the Board of Education which accrue subsequent to that date will be paid to the local education authority. Those which have accrued to that date will be paid to the managers.

    Shipping Subsidies—Freights on British Goods.
    SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that British shippers have entered into a combination to keep up the freights on British goods, while goods from foreign ports are subject to open competition, and that consequently freights on British produce are in excess of those charged on foreign goods; and, if the Select Committee on Shipping Subsidies will not have power to inquire into these matters, whether he will enlarge their powers to enable them to do so.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am consulting my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade on the subject. As it is one of some importance, perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the Question in a few days.
    MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that goods manufactured in this country can be sent to a continental port, and shipped thence to a foreign country at lower rates than are charged for sending them direct from this country by British shipping?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that.

    Preferential Railway Rates.
    MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the need of legislation to prevent railways in Great Britain and Ireland granting more favourable rates to foreign products under cover of through rates, or otherwise, than are given for the transport of home products.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This Question raises a matter of oldstanding controversy. We are not prepared to submit any legislative proposal to Parliament at the present time.

    Loan Bill.
    MR. DILLON: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Loan Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As at present advised, I should propose to take the Loan Bill immediately after the Second Reading debate on the Budget Bill is concluded.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
Ordered, That the proceedings on the Education (England and Wales) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply.—[Mr. A. J. Balfour.]

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
[FOURTH DAY'S DEBATE]
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [5th May], "That the Bill he now read a second time."
Which Amendment was—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "—(Mr. Bryce.)
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not propose in the course of my observations to criticise the machinery of the Bill, but I shall simply endeavour to present, as shortly as I can, the Nonconformist case against the principle of the measure. Those who heard the speech of my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo must have felt that the case for the denominational schools had been presented with great ability and moderation, and as a Nonconformist, I thank him for the very sympathetic treatment he accorded to our case. I believe it would have been more sympathetic had he known more about it. The representatives of the denominational schools have given frequent assurances that they are prepared to consider the grievances of Nonconformists in Committee. I do not feel very convinced that those assurances will bear much fruit when the time comes, but still, I feel confident that the hon. Member for East Mayo will fulfil his pledge and will vote for such Amendments as will enable us to make the best of a very bad Bill. All he desires, as I understand, is to protect the Catholic schools, and he is not anxious to rivet the old clericalism on Nonconformists in the rural districts of England and Wales. Now I come to the speech of the Attorney General. It struck me that it was based on a very badly-drawn brief. He quoted in support of the Bill a resolution passed by the County Councils Association, and asserted that the County Councils had met in conclave in London and passed a resolution in favour of the Bill. I should like the House to hear the first few lines of that resolution, which the hon. and learned Gentleman claims to be in favour of the Bill. It says—
'" Without expressing any opinion on the controversial questions raised by the Education Bill," etc.
Can the hon. and learned Gentleman point to a single clause in the Bill which is not controversial? If he can, then he may claim the resolution as being in favour of it, but I submit that he cannot. The Attorney General also said there was no proselytism in Church schools. That shows how he was instructed. The

1099
hon. and learned Gentleman cannot possibly have known what is going on in the rural districts of England and Wales, or he would not have made that statement. This is what a diocesan inspector of the Church schools wrote to the chief organ of the Church, the Guardian—
"Our syllabus is arranged so as to give distinctive denosminational instruction. I always saw it was given, and always asked the children, chiefly the children of Nonconformists, questions bearing upon it. Thus, in fact, we trained the children of the Nonconformists to be children of the Church."
That was Canon Pennington, a diocesan inspector for twenty years. It is obvious that to say there is no proselytism is absurd.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: When was that written?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: On the 4th August, 1897. The hon. and learned Gentleman rather indicated who instructed him when he came to analyse his ideas on definite religious teaching. The only illustration which he gave of dogmatic teaching given in Anglican schools which Nonconformists could not support, and which could not be given in board schools, was the historical view of the Reformation. But as I understand it, the view accepted by all Protestants, whether Anglicans or Nonconformists, of what took place at the Reformation was the same up till recently. There is, of course, a fundamental difference between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant view, and I can quite understand it is absolutely impossible to teach that history in such a way as not to be unfair to the Catholics. The view of the Reformation accepted by Nonconformists was that accepted by Anglicans until recently. But if it is wanted to have a new view of the Reformation taught in rate-aided schools, a view which is not acceptable to Protestants, if the managers of Church schools want that, then let them frankly throw in their lot with the Catholics. We shall then know how to deal with them. They have no right to pose as members of the Protestant Church and to proceed to create dissension and strife with regard to dogmatic teaching, purely in order to teach views of the Reformation which, by their own oath of office, they are bound not to
1100
take. It is very significant, and I hope the Protestant Church of England will take note of it, that the Attorney General has said that a new view of the Reformation is to be taught.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He never said that.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: "A different view from that taken by Nonconformists and Protestants"—what does that mean, then? What did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean when he said there was nothing which could not be taught in board schools by common acceptance of all Protestants, but not of Catholics? He said you want something different, that you want something definite which belongs to Anglicans; and I say that everything that belongs to Anglican Protestants equally belongs to Nonconformist Protestants. What becomes of his contention that that is the one thing which divides him from the Nonconformists? Yet it was the only illustration he gave of the different kind of teaching that was required. If he simply wanted to make a case for the Catholic schools, I should agree with him. But where is the case for the Anglican schools, which is a far more important matter? I agree with the hon. Member for East Mayo that the question of the authority is really not the important point of the Bill. There is only one important question that divides us—that of rate aid for teaching religion, of which a large section of the ratepayers do not approve, That is the whole question, so far as we are concerned Speaking from observation and experience in Wales, I say that if the people are in earnest about education, and if the source, at any rate, of the authority is the electorate, it does not much matter what the authority is. I cannot comprehend why my hon. friend the Member for Haddington said the authority was everything, and advised Nonconformists not to mind these religious squabbles. You cannot base any good system of education on an injustice to a large section of the community. What is the injustice, and where does it come in in this case? If you are perpetuating an injustice you are doing the greatest harm in the world to the cause of education. Politically speaking, my hon. friend seems always to be above the snow-line. His counsel was very serene in its purity,

1101
but rather sterile. Let him descend from the region of eternal snow and come down to bare facts, and he will find that things are not so easy to settle as they seem. The religious difficulty is the one we have got to settle before we can get a good system of education in this country. The Government are going to got rid of the School Boards. [An HON. MEMBER: No, no.] The hon. Gentleman opposite says no, but the Government are simply going to put an end to their corporate existence and financial capacity, and that is what you do to a criminal when you execute him. You are setting up another authority. Personally, I do not mind that, so long as it is a representative authority; so long as you give real control to the people of the country, for then you will have a watch-dog on the Committee. He will, I know, be only one watch-dog, as against two parsons, and that is unfair odds. But the great evil is that the popular representative will be in a permanent statutory minority. He will know that, and so, too, will the others. It is not like the case put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, where the man in a minority has a chance of converting the others. He will never be able to do that. I agree in one respect with the Member for Ton-bridge——
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: I have not spoken as yet.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member cheered a sentence, and thus showed that he agreed with me when I said you cannot build any good system of education upon injustice. Perhaps he meant by his cheer that the injustice was on the Church side. I maintain it is on the Nonconformist side. Every hon. Member who has spoken on that side of the House has admitted there is a Nonconformist grievance—every one except the hon. Member for Cockermouth.
MR. RANDLES: I do.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am glad to hear that the hon. Member belongs to the Nonconformist National Scouts.
1102
He has won his commission by fighting against his own people. But I say that, by common consent, there is a Nonconformist grievance. What is the grievance of the Church? The Catholics, put in a different category. Special advantages and privileges are given to the Anglican denominational schools which are not given to the Nonconformists and to the board schools. The Church have over 12,000 schools in the country, which are mission rooms to educate the children of the poor in the principles of the Church. In 8,000 parishes there are no other schools, and the whole machinery of the law is there utilised to force the Nonconformist children into them. You tell them: "You will have no religious instruction at all unless you are prepared to take the instruction of the Church of England. The total expense for the staff of these schools is £3,400,000 yearly, and the State gives £3,600,000 per annum, so that the staff engaged in teaching Church of England principles is wholly paid by the State. Another advantage possessed by the Anglican Church is the patronage of 60,000 excellent appointments in the Civil Service—exclusive patronage to 60,000 appointments to one of the best, most remunerative, and most honourable careers that a child can possibly enter upon. A Member on the other side said yesterday that the Nonconformists have a grievance there. So they have. Out of 2,000,000 children in Anglican schools, 1,000,000 are Nonconformists. Are hon. Members aware that there are 700,000 Methodist children in these Church schools?
MR. TALBOT: Will the hon. Member say on what basis those figures are calculated? There has been no census.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The Methodist Connexion have gone very closely into the matter, and it is upon their authority, which is quite good enough for me, I make the statement. In Wales, at any rate, the vast majority of the children in the Anglican schools are Nonconformists, yet they are not allowed to enter the teaching profession except on condition of their becoming

1103
members or attending the services of the Church of England. The hon. Baronet he Member for Oxford University said yesterday—
"Here is a grievance from which Nonconformists are suffering; I am prepared to redress it."
How?
"I am prepared to support any Amendment, compatible with the denominational character of the schools, by which the Nonconformist children should be allowed to enter the lower grades of the teaching profession."
There are 1,000,000 of these children, containing among them probably the best suited for the teaching profession, but, however well-behaved, able, and bright they may be, all you say to them is, "We will allow you to become a lower grade official in this school, but nothing beyond that." Where does the principle of equality come in? All we ask is equal treatment, especially in these 8,000 parishes.
MR. ERNEST GRAY: Entering the lower grade would give them the opportunity of advancing to the higher.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Really, the hon. Gentleman might take the trouble to master the elements of the denominational case. If he had only listened to the speech to which I referred——
MR. ERNEST GRAY: I did.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Then perhaps he has forgotten that the hon. Baronet said he would not make them principal teachers. Does the hon. Member really mean to say that in any Anglican school in those 8,000 parishes a Nonconformist would be allowed to become a head-teacher?
MR. ERNEST GRAY: No. I say the argument has been entirely misrepresented. The statement made yesterday was to the effect that under this Bill the training of teachers would occupy a totally different position. Instead of it being necessary for a pupil teacher to go into an ordinary elementary school to get his training, the Nonconformist or Anglican child would go into a proper establishment for the training of teachers and get his training there
1104
altogether apart from denominational influences. The entire argument has been that this Bill redressed the grievance of which complaint was justly made.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That argument has the disadvantage of being irrelevant. I am coming to the question of training colleges, but at present I am dealing with elementary and State schools in these parishes, and I say that, even after the concession of being allowed to enter the lower grades, a Nonconformist can never hope to become the chief teacher in any one of these schools. But take the training colleges. Most of them are denominational, but built largely and maintained almost exclusively out of State funds. Only one-twentieth of the expense of maintaining the Anglican Colleges is provided by the subscriptions of the Anglican Church. Take the case of the Oxford Diocesan Training College. The total expenditure was £1,300; the voluntary subscriptions from individuals were nil, and from the Diocesan Board £13 10s., the remainder coming out of Government grants and the pockets of the students themselves. These are denominational colleges, and the hon. Gentleman says they enjoy no advantages which Nonconformists have not at the same time.
The fourth difference is that in these parishes the prestige and influence which come from having the complete control of these communal institutions are in the hands of the Church of England.
These are the advantages—60,000 positions in the Civil Service, the control of these communal institutions, the machinery of the law to force children into the schools to be taught the doctrines of their particular faith—and what do they give for them? They give £650,000 a year, as against £4,000,000 from the State. Taking their own claim as to the number of the adherents of the Church in this country, that is exactly a farthing per week per head for every adult adherent. This is the intolerable strain for all these privileges, but the maintenance of the schools is now to be thrown entirely on the rates; they have simply to keep the schools in repair. They are grumbling even at that. The Duke of Northumberland writes to complain of it. At the very outside, the repairs will come to

1105
£60,000 a year, representing, say, one-tenth of a farthing per week for every adult adherent of the Church of England—one-fifth of the widow's mite, and Dukes grumble at it! There is no coin of the realm sufficiently trilling and insignificant to mark the maximum of sacrifice which these fierce religious zealots are prepared to make for their faith. It is simply imposing on the credulity of the country and the House of Commons to say that it is simply their earnest desire to give definite dogmatic teaching to the children of the land. Let them give some proof of it. I am not so sure that this slackening in the desire for definite religious teaching is not attributable to something else. An interesting report was published a few years ago by the National Society. The Secretary wrote to the comptroller of the funds of the National School in each district for a report as to the condition of the school, and some of the replies are very interesting. Here is the reply from the Monmouth Archidiaconal Secretary—
"I fear, however, that the laity are beginning to get tired of supporting Church schools. I regret to say that I know many who consider themselves to be good Church people, and yet who fail to recognise the duty of supporting religious education. There seems to be an increasing idea that the hoard school Bible reading is nearly, if not quite, as good."
That is really the explanation of the desire of the friends of religious education to throw the schools on the rates. Their own people are beginning' to get the idea into their heads that the religious training-given in the board schools is quite as good, apart from the pure question of proselytism.
Then we are told there is equality at the present moment. Says the Anglican: "The Nonconformists have their schools and we have ours. The board schools are Nonconformist schools." Let us see how thoroughly preposterous that statement is. The control of these schools is in the hands of the ratepayers, a majority of whom, according to hon. Members opposite, are Church people. More than that: the majority of the members of these Boards throughout England and Wales are denominationalists—Catholics and Church people; and some of the largest and most influential Boards in the Kingdom, such as in Liverpool and Manchester, are run entirely by the denominationalists. For years
1106
the London Board was run by Mr. Diggle and Mr. Riley, who are not, I believe, very fierce Nonconformists. How absurd it is to say that board schools are Nonconformist schools! But that is not all. There are several School Boards run in the interests of voluntary schools. Some districts are so poor that they cannot find the money for a voluntary school. The Board of Education insist on a school being set up, and, in order to prevent the absolute breakdown of the denominational system, the School Board is called upon to run up a school as a supplement—that is, the School Boards are used as a means of buttressing denominational schools in several large districts in the country.
Let me give another reason to show that board schools are not Nonconformist schools. The teacherships are open to Churchmen, Catholics, and Nonconformists. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich admitted the other day that the majority of the teachers were Church people. Of course they are. Can it be said that they are Nonconformist schools? Let me instance two parishes that I know, both overwhelmingly Nonconformist, the one with a School Board and the other with an Anglican school. In the latter there has not been a Nonconformist teacher since I have known it. Every one of the Nonconformists who enter the teaching profession have to go through the portals of the Church, although five-sixths of the funds of that school are provided by the Nonconformists. Go to the next parish: The School Board is Nonconformist; the head teacher in the school is a Churchman; the two masters are Churchmen; the majority of the appointments in the school are filled by Church people, although it is kept up by Nonconformists. Where is the equality of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks? Go to the next parish: The same state of things exists there. There is never any distinction made. We are told that the religious teaching given in Board Schools is Nonconformist, but why are we told this? Is the Bible a Nonconformist book? It is not for me to repudiate the suggestion, but we do not claim a monopoly in it. I could understand that argument from a Roman

1107
Catholic point of view, because I understand their Bible is different from ours. But why should the education be said to be Nonconformist? Hon. Members who say that the religious teaching given in these schools is undenominational, and therefore, must be Nonconformist, do not know what they are talking about. There is no such thing as undenominational education in England. The differences in dogmas between the different sects of Nonconformists are quite as great, in their own view, as the differences between Nonconformists and members of the Church of England. Some differ so much that they will not admit the others to communion. But Nonconformists recognise that they must make some sacrifices for the common good. What would have been the situation if Nonconformists had taken as greedy a view as some denominationalists, I am sorry to say, set up? Suppose, for instance, that they had insisted upon having their own schools and their own doctrines taught in every district by their own masters. The difficulty would not have been the question of providing school buildings, for in almost every case they have already school buildings, and use thorn on Sundays. The result would have been that, instead of there being one school in the district of a fairly good stamp, there would have been five or six miserable and ill-equipped schools, giving no such education as is even given now. Therefore, the Nonconformists say that as it is a matter of education, which is a matter of national life, they must all sacrifice some convenience for the benefit of the rest of the community. Therefore, they say, "Teach the Bible. We have such confidence in the character of our religion that we shall be able afterwards to teach our dogmas and creed." But hon. Members say," It is an education which satisfies you, but which does not satisfy us." But does it satisfy the Nonconformists? If by that you mean that they regard the teaching as sufficient without its being supplemented, it certainly is not satisfactory. They supplement it at their Sunday schools and their Bible classes in the evening, where they teach their own dogmas in their own way. This is the position of things in this country. This is the only country I have over heard of where, the community being divided up between five or six
1108
powerful sects, one sect has monopolised the control of education. America is divided up among a number of powerful sects, of which the Congregationalists are the most numerous, but there is no one sect monopolising the conduct of education. Lord Salisbury, on Wednesday night, said he was full of admiration for the type of manhood turned out by our colonies, but that type of man is not turned out by the kind of education supplied in this country. In Holland you have the same state of things; no religious teaching is given with the other lessons which is obnoxious to anybody, but the clergymen of each particular denomination are permitted to come to the schools after school hours and teach their own doctrine to their own particular flock. This is the system which should be adopted in this country. I quite agree that if we, as a large sect, insist on denominational teaching for our children, we have no right to object to other sects insisting on it also. I was in a Church school for years, and I went through all the catechism. For better or worse, I am the sort of article that denominational schools turn out. In Church schools you have a time table, providing so much teaching which is dogmatic and so much teaching that is not dogmatic. One morning you will read the books of Kings. Judges, and Samuel—and I defy anyone, however dogmatic he may be, to extract any dogma out of the operations, military or otherwise, of those monarchs. On the following morning you have the ten commandments, and the following day you have the catechism; and what I ask hon. Gentlemen to do is to follow out in their minds this arrangement. Would it be more difficult to, say teach the books of Kings, Judges, and Samuel, and the undogmatic part of the Bible, in the early part of the day, and leave the clergyman of each denomination afterwards to give his catechism? The present system is the worst, from the point of view of the clergyman teaching, that ever was.
The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, in his eloquent speech the other day, held that the time was coming when Nonconformity and Anglicanism would have to fight Shoulder to shoulder against unbelief. Is the present system the best method of fighting? Is not the teaching in the Church schools apostasy? In the Church schools the majority of

1109
the children are Nonconformists—[Cries of dissent]—yes, certainly. What is the use of denying such a truism? There are hundreds and hundreds of schools in which the majority of the children are Nonconformists. Take a school of that kind, if you like, with a majority of Nonconformists. The noble Lord says that the whole basis of doctrinal teaching is baptism into membership. What does that mean? I know perfectly well that when you question a child the first thing you ask is "What is your name, M or N?" and so on. For every Nonconformist child in the school it is untrue; it is false. What a training against unbelief that is! It starts with inculcating a doctrine that every child in the school knows, so far as he is concerned, is false in fact, and which his parent teaches him is false in principle. That is not training against unbelief. It is training for scepticism in matters religious. No: whether it is for the interests of education or the interests of religion, it is better that we should agree. Let us have one school, In America what are they doing? They have discovered what mischief there is in education in these little rural schools, and, instead of taking the school to the child, they choose the reverse order, and there, now, there is a sort of State arrangement for the purpose of building one large school and carrying the children for miles and miles to one school, in order to have them altogether and to have a bigger school and a better staff. Whilst our most important rivals have learned that lesson, we are bringing in a Bill to reverse the order and split up the rural schools into five or six. What folly, from the point of view of education to begin with, and; also from the point of view of citizenship and good feeling! It is most important that we should learn to act together in a country like this. The Premier was full last night of the dangers to which we are exposed—dangers internal, dangers external, dangers from foreigners, from our own colonies, and from our own people. There is no doubt that the time will come when we will have to stand shoulder to shoulder against some of those dangers, and how are we preparing for it? By perpetuating a system that splits up this country into an infinite number of hostile camps. I think the lesson of Ireland might very well be taken to heart. I am not sure that a
1110
great many of the evils of Ireland are not attributable to the fact that you have two bitterly hostile religious camps—people who have been trained, as it were, disciplined and taught from their childhood not to act together, but to act in hostility and bitterness towards each other. With the lesson of Ireland, the lesson of the colonies, the lesson of Germany, the United States and Holland, before us, we are going back and teaching our people to split up, to quarrel, and to keep alive those religious dissensions among us. It is folly of the worst type, and not statesmanship.
My hon. friends from Ireland were candid with the Nonconformists, and I should like to give one candid word to them. I deeply regret that they support this Bill. If it were purely a Bill for starting Catholic schools for the teaching of their own children—not proselytism—I could not complain. But this is but a tenth part of the whole of this controversy. It is a Bill not for starting such schools, not for teaching children in the religion of their parents. It is a Bill for riveting the clerical yoke on thousands of parishes in England. Who are the men who rejoice most at the introduction of the Bill? The bitterest enemies of Ireland. Who are the men who will be saddened most because they have done it? The best friends of Ireland. Let me put another consideration. We are a small minority in the House opposing the Bill; we are impotent to stop it, whatever the force of public opinion behind us may be, if the Government force it through. Is it because the people of the country are against us on clericalism? No; I believe the people of England are as determined as ever that they will not have the clerical yoke. If we had a straight issue on the question of the control of our schools by the State priesthood, I venture to say that, as we boat them in 1868 with the help of the Church, and defeated them in 1885 against the Irish, we would do it again on that straight issue; but, unfortunately, we are in a minority—for one reason, and one reason only, and I am not ashamed of it. It is because we committed ourselves to the cause of Ireland. Now, this is what I put to my hon. friends. It is rather hard. In 1886 we threw over our most cherished leaders in this

1111
country—Spurgeon and Bright, Dr. I Allan, Dr. Dale, and even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West: Birmingham. We threw them over for one reason only: because we felt what was due to Ireland; and it is rather hard, I think—if they will forgive me speaking candidly—to be put in this plight of being beaten down for the cause of Ireland, and that Irishmen, of all people, should help our foes and theirs to make our defeat the more intolerable. Let them remember this. Who are the people who will benefit by this Bill? The people who benefit by it are the people who coerced Ireland, and supported every measure for throwing the leaders of the Irish people into prison, and for keeping Ireland down with soldiers and police. Who are the people who are hit by the Bill? The people of Wales. We were offered, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, Disestablishment, if we would throw over Home Rule. We did not do it, and some of the men who declined to do it will be sold up for rates under this Bill, and probably imprisoned under the mandamus of this Bill. They will remember that the instrument under which that happened was forged partly by the Irish Members. In the matter of Home Rule even the chiefs of their own Church have not been as good friends as the chiefs of Nonconformity. Cardinal Vaughan, a priest of their own Church, passes them by when they are fallen on the roadside. I am not sure that he did not join in helping their assailants.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid that Cardinal Vaughan had never expressed an opinion on Home Rule.
MR. LLOYD - GEORGE: Cardinal Vaughan did his very best to help to return hon. Members opposite. Yes, the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, and the other Nonconformist Samaritans, from the Catholic point of view, who are distant as the poles in their religious views, declined absolutely to listen to the appeals of religious bigotry, and helped them, notwithstanding all the risks which they foresaw. I do appeal to hon. Members from Ireland sincerely, for the sake of their own country—I am
1112
not merely a Nonconformist; I believe in the sacred cause, as they do, of small nationalities, of which they have been the guardian in this House—I appeal to them not to join, in oppressing Nonconformists who have been their friends, with the enemies of their faith and their race.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: The hon. Member, in the remarkable speech which he has just delivered, appealed to the Irish Members not to oppose the Welsh Nonconformists because they fought for the Irish Roman Catholics in favour of Home Rule. I suppose the Welsh Nonconformists supported Home Rule because they believed it right and good, and I suppose the Irish Roman Catholics will support this Bill because they believe it is right and good to maintain denominational religion in the schools. Does the hon. Member suppose that for the sake of a mere Party or political advantage, the Irish Roman Catholics are going to give up what they hold dear to themselves, namely, their belief in their Roman Catholic schools? Surely this is bringing down this question to a mere question of bartering. Surely it is coming very far down from the high level which the hon. Member struck at the beginning of his speech, but surely he cannot suppose that the Irish Roman Catholics should give up their principle any more in this matter than the hon. Members opposite will give up their principle of Home Rule if they are called upon to do so for the sake of a Party advantage. The hon. Member opposite has stated the Nonconformist case. I am not disposed to say that he has stated it unfairly. I am not in the least anxious to be unfair to Nonconformists. I am most anxious in the discussion of this measure that we should all try to be fair and to understand one another. When the hon. Member speaks of the grievances of Nonconformists, I rather think he has made some statements which will not bear investigation. He speaks of 14,000 places where the Church of England school is the only school.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I said 9,500.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: Well, the actual number does not matter. He says there are 9,500 places in which

1113
Nonconformist children are proselytised. I say it is unnecessary to call them mission rooms. It is natural that in denominational schools the religion of the denomination should be taught. The same might be said of Roman Catholic schools and of Wesleyan schools. The hon. Member entirely forgets the "conscience clause." Nobody need be proselytised who does not wish to be proselytised. The conscience clause secures the withdrawal, if desired, of every child who objects to the religious teaching in the Church schools. I think it is hard that the children in 9,000 schools can only be taught the religious dogmas of the Church of Englandor no religion at all. We Churchmen fully admit the grievance. In 1896 we made a perfectly fair offer that separate religious instruction should be given to every child according to the faith of its parents at a separate hour. But who rejected that otter? It was the Nonconformists. [Cries from the Opposition Benches of "No."] At any rate they caused its withdrawal. I regret myself that that bargain is not repeated on this occasion; but it may not be impossible to insert such a provision for separate religious facilities in the Bill in Committee. I have always been in favour of having separate religious facilities outside the schools. Why on earth cannot we meet on common ground there? Why should not the children be withdrawn from all the schools in order to obtain separate religious instruction according to the belief of their parents? If that were done we should have accomplished something to bridge over the gulf which separates us on this question of religious education. The hon. Member opposite repeated the assertion so often made, that according to the Bill the State would pay, as is alleged it does pay now, the cost of denominational education. I deny entirely that that is the case. The Church has built schools of the capital value of £26,000,000 and the annual value of these schools is equal to far more than the cost of the religious instruction given in them. All that the Bill says is, "Let us make these voluntary schools educationally efficient, and let the managers, by providing the school buildings and by their voluntary contributions, keep providing their children with their own religious instruction"—that is to say that the
1114
State should pay for the secular instruction which the State prescribes, and for which I say the State ought to pay. We are told that Nonconformist children cannot become teachers; but there is nothing at the present time, or in the Bill, to prevent them. On the contrary, the child of any Nonconformist can become a teacher. Of course, I fully admit that a head teacher of a voluntary school would not be appointed if he were a Nonconformist. That is only reasonable, because how else can you maintain the denominational character of a school unless the head teacher is a member of that denomination? But there are other schools in which Nonconformist lads and young women may seek engagements. There are the board schools on which Nonconformist teachers are already appointed. The real answer to the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite is that if the Nonconformists want to make more places for teachers of their own creed, they ought to build more schools. I really do not think that very much can be made of the grievance alleged by the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs. The hon. Member says that this is the only country in the world where the Church has the control of educational appointments.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Of course I made no such statement. I know several countries where the Church is all-powerful. What I said was that this is the only country in the world where one sect, one church, has practically the whole control of education.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: I quite accept my hon. friend's correction. But let me ask, how it is that the Church of England has obtained this position of pre-eminence? It simply is, that because for sixty years before 1870, the State neglected its duty towards education, The National Society was founded in 1811; and the first Government grant to education was made in 1833. In the latter year there were 1,225,000 pupils in the Church schools. Attempts were made to work up the State to its duty in this matter; and Lord Brougham in 1820 brought in a Bill to set up a national system of education. That Bill, I am sorry to say, was lost on account of the opposition of

1115
the Nonconformists—an opposition similar to that which is trying to prevent the Bill before the House passing. On that occasion, Lord Brougham said—
"No sooner had he given power to the parish minister to put his veto upon the schoolmaster if he chose, than his worthy and esteemed friends, the Dissenters, took the alarm. It was in vain that he reminded them that he had left the door of the school which he proposed to establish, not only ajar, but thrown right hack upon its hinges, for the admission of their children. They met, they combined, they reasoned. They felt more; than they reasoned, and they were more led by their passions than by their feelings or their reason."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Who was to have the control of the schools?
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: The control of the schools would have been very similar to that proposed under the present Bill; and it is the same class of people who, led more by their passions than their feelings or their reason, oppose the Bill of the present year as they did that of 1820. The policy of hon. Members opposite is perfectly plain. They wish to destroy the denominational schools, but I venture to say that they cannot do that. Since 1870, the voluntary schools have had a hard fight. They have had to compete with the board schools which are supported by the rates, but notwithstanding that, whereas the voluntary schools in 1870 numbered 8,281, they now number 11,319. The voluntary scholars in 1870 were 1,693,000; now they number 3,056,000. The contributions to the voluntary schools in 1870 reached £418,000; now they amount to £863,000. I submit that these are cardinal facts that lie at the root of this Bill. The denominational schools exist, and you cannot get rid of them. Are you to leave them as they are, or if you cannot destroy them, are you to leave them weak educationally and inefficient, not up to date as regards the salaries of the teachers, the buildings, or the apparatus? The wiser policy is to tell frankly the managers of the voluntary schools, that as long as they maintain efficiency in the secular instruction of their schools, they will have the support of the country. That is the policy of the Government in the Bill before the House, and hence I support it. The
1116
hon. Member opposite has spoken of the grievances of the Nonconformist, but he has said nothing of the grievances of Churchmen. I do not wish to put these too high, but the fact remains, and cannot be contradicted, that ever since 1870 they have been paying out of their own pockets for the support of their own denominational schools, and at the same time they have had to contribute through the rates for the support of the board schools. I do not say that the board schools are Nonconformist schools, but I maintain that in these schools religion is taught which Nonconformists accept. [Opposition cries of "No, no!"] Well, they teach a religion with which Nonconformists appear to be satisfied. [Opposition cries of "No, no!"] Well, you are content with it, and we are not.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: We supplement it in our Sunday schools.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: So do we, but we believe that the religious teaching given in the board schools is of such a nature that we cannot accept it. It is so imperfect that we believe it to be, in many cases, positively injurious. I only wish that we could, for the sake of education, come to some real understanding. I approach this question, not from the denominational point of view, but from the educational standard. I say that in this Bill, now before the House, there is the potentiality of a great educational reform. I cannot imagine a greater reform than the single authority which the Government are setting up. I have seen something of secondary education as a member of the Endowed Schools Committee. Hon. Members who take an interest in the question know that we had an opportunity of dealing both with elementary and secondary education, and that we were often able by means of scholarships to advance children from the elementary to the secondary schools and thence to the university, because we were, within our limited powers, a single authority. That is, I think, a strong argument in favour of the single authority proposed in the Bill. At the present time there are School Boards, Voluntary School Managers, Technical School Committees,

1117
Higher Grade School Committees, Endowed Grammar School Committees, Continuation School Committees, and so on. I ask how it is possible to have any real progressive system under these circumstances, until all these different Committees are swept away and one single authority is set up. There are 2,550 School Boards, 14,000 Voluntary School Boards of Managers, and 120 Technical School Committees, and all these will be swept away by this Bill, and placed under one central authority. I support the Bill because it is fair to the denominational schools. I hope, however, the optional clause will disappear, and, like many other hon. Members, I confess I wish that the introduction of this Bill bad been accompanied by a Treasury Grant equal to the extra amount it will cost. Education is essentially a national service, and I think that the great bulk of the cost should be paid out of national resources. In conclusion, I most earnestly hope that we will find in this outside facilities, such as I have indicated, for religious instruction, and that the Government will do their best to pass the Bill into law.
MR. C. P. SCOTT: There was one passage in the speech of the hon. Gentleman with which, I am certain, both sides of the House will cordially agree, and that was his plea for peace. If there is one thing necessary to the interests of education, to the vital interests of the country, it is good feeling, a common understanding, and a willingness to work together for a common aim on the part of all sections of the community. If I thought this Bill would make for peace, I would be the last to oppose it. If I thought it would help us to unite together, and to build up a system which might be permanent, which might heal discord, and which might form the foundation from which we might progress to the educational standard of other great countries, I would make great sacrifice of prejudice, of feeling, I might almost say of conviction, in order to join with other hon. Members in passing this Bill. But it is precisely because it does not make for peace that I feel myself totally
1118
unable to support it. Why does it not make for peace? Because it is based on opposing and conflicting principles.
What does the Bill propose? It proposes in the first place to establish everywhere a public authority for education. I have no fault to find with that. I think it is a very admirable thing. It is what we on this side of the House have been hoping and praying for for thirty years. It is proposed to make the authority the municipal authority. I have no fault to find with that either. Some of my hon. friends are opposed to the establishment of municipal authorities for education. I am in favour of it. I do not, indeed, desire to overthrow by a mere act of power—I think it would be the height of folly—those great ad hoc authorities which for thirty years have been doing the educational work of the country. I think that would be a foolish thing; and I hope, whether this Bill be adopted or not, whether the optional clause be passed or not, that at least no hasty steps will be taken to overthrow the great School Boards of the country. That would produce dire confusion and disaster; but on the principle of municipal authorities for education, I am entirely in accord with the Bill. Why am I in favour of a municipal authority? Because it is popular; because it is strong. I should, however, like to point out that the municipal authority is, in one respect, less popular than the ad hoc authority. It excludes women and clergymen. That is, I think, a serious matter. Every one will agree, I am certain the Vice-President will admit, that women have been among the most useful members of our School Boards, and that some of our best educationalists have been clergymen. In Manchester and Salford the chairmen of the School Boards are clergymen, and they are among the most practical and useful educationists we have. That is true also of other parts of the country. But, on the whole, the municipal authority is a thoroughly popular body; and I only hope that in the course of the Committee stage in this Bill, we may see that it gets a free hand. It is also a powerful authority. The most powerful of the institutions of this country is its local government.

1119
Why is it powerful? Because it is in direct contact with the daily lives of the people. I believe that it is stronger even than Parliament itself, and that if our other institutions were to cease tomorrow, and we were only left the great municipal organisation of the country, all other institutions could be built up again from that foundation.
The cardinal principle of this Bill is, in my opinion, that it attaches to the service of education the mighty engine of popular self government. But having done that, it proceeds at once to place checks and impediments in the way of the working of these public bodies. Are the County Councils and County Boroughs, the great educational authorities to be set up, to be given a free hand? Far from it. The first thing the Bill does is to limit their power to the expenditure of money. Not a thing can they do themselves for education. The whole administrative work of education is relegated to Committees, and these Committees are not to be genuinely representative. They are to be Committees on which, for the first time in the municipal history of this country, outside bodies are to be allowed to nominate members, who are to have an equal share of power with the representatives of the municipalities. That, however, comparatively speaking, is a small matter.
The other great principle of the Bill is, that it places all the private voluntary schools on the rates. I do not say that that is necessarily wrong; but I do say that if these schools are placed on the rates, they will have to accept the invariable principle of municipal government, that where the ratepayer pays the ratepayer controls. If I were the most bitter enemy of denominational schools, I might look with some favour on a proposal of this kind; because I believe the Bill will set at work forces which you will not be able to restrain. I believe that if you place denominational schools on the rates it is absolutely inevitable—I do not say tomorrow or next day—that they will be placed under the complete control of the ratepayers. That will not happen in a day; it will not happen without a struggle. You are preparing the beginning of a conflict which will rage in every district in the country, in
1120
every corner of the land, and which will continue until the principle of our system of local government has been vindicated, and the ratepayers are the real masters of the schools for which they pay. That is why I am opposed to this Bill. I am opposed to it because it is the beginning, not of peace, not of a large and generous settlement, but of war, and of an internecine and bitter conflict. That is not what we desire in the education of this country. We may be asked—Are the enormous number of denominational schools to be left to starve? I do not think they ought to be left to starve. I think we ought to do our duty, and to raise up, as far as we are able, these schools to the general level of the board school education of the country. That is our plain duty; but if that is to be done it implies certain conditions.
I do not desire to abolish denominational schools altogether. I think that the plea which the hon. Member for East Mayo made yesterday for the Roman Catholic schools was a powerful plea. I think where we have schools frequented entirely, or practically entirely, by the children of one denomination, and where it is part of the faith of the parents that the children should have an education permeated from beginning to end with their own religion, that there is a case for separate schools. But to how many schools will that definition apply? It applies to Catholic schools, and, perhaps, to a certain number of schools of other denominations, especially in the great towns; but it does not apply to cases in which there is only one school in a district. It is a disastrous abuse of the plea of religious scruple that one sect should, by power of superior wealth, superior organisation, superior knowledge and all the advantages of a State Church, lay hold of these schools and say, "These are our schools and you must pay for them." I would say to the denominational schools: "Do not come on the rates; make some sacrifices, even if they are a little hard, and take the rest from the State." If these schools are to be maintained out of the rates, they must inevitably come under the ratepayer's control. If I were sitting on that side of the House, and deeply concerned for these schools, I would say, "God forbid that we should take too

1121
much of the public money for them, and, above all, God forbid that we should touch the rates." If I thought it were possible so to amend this Bill in Committee as to secure the great advantage of a universal public system, and at the same time to avoid those internecine conflicts, which I foresee are inevitable, I would vote for the Bill. It is because I do not see any prospect of that kind, but only an interminable vista of wrangling and bitterness that I feel compelled to vote against it.
MR. TALBOT: With regard to this debate, I think the Government must be congratulated on the course which it has taken, because, notwithstanding the adverse criticism that has been brought to bear upon the Bill, a great deal of favour has been shown to it by those who are yet going to vote against it. Even those who are going to vote against it have felt bound to give a great deal of favourable criticism to this Bill. On the whole they support the principle of it, even the hon. Member who has last spoken is in favour of the general principle, because, he says, if it was not for something which he does not find in it, or for something which he does find in it, he would vote for it. In the earlier part of the debate we had a most interesting speech from the hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire, which on the whole was perhaps the best commendation of the Bill which we have heard, and the hon. and learned Member said that he could not vote against it. From his point of view that was a great thing to say, but had he been in the House I would have asked him whether he could not have gone one step further and given his vote in favour of it. The debate has been remarkable for some of the most impressive speeches that have been heard for some time. We have had a speech from the hon. Baronet the Member for the Berwick Division of Northumberland, and, above all, we had a most impressive speech from my noble friend the Member for Greenwich the day before yesterday. Anybody who listened to those speeches must have been convinced that the best days of Parliament had not come to an end. They were worthy of the best traditions of Parliament and of the
1122
country. The Government is to be congratulated on this debate, because it has done another good thing. It has brushed away a good deal of that froth and frenzy which has animated a certain section of the public outside on this question. If anybody has read the utterances reported in the newspapers and has read what has been said at the Free Church conferences, they would have come to the conclusion that this was the most intolerant Bill ever brought into this House. But when they come to this House these lions roar like sucking doves. Taking the tone of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen generally, the tone in this House is in marked contrast with the frenzy heard outside, and I trust that when we come to the Committee stage of this Bill reasonable consideration will be given to the proposals which the Government have made.
Before I go further into the question of the Bill, may I ask the House to remember some of the facts which belong to this controversy. First of all, there is the great fact which has been referred to today—the existence of the voluntary schools; and though this seems to be a truism, yet if it were not for that great fact we might deal with education in a very different manner to that in which it is proposed to deal with it now. But we have the fact that not only are the voluntary schools in existence, but they have been growing ever since 1870, nay, they have doubled since that time, and yet throughout these years they have had to compete with the rate-aided schools of the country. It may be said that these schools increased in number, because people wished to avoid the School Board rate, and I will not deny that this may be one reason for their growth, but that is not the only reason, because it is incredible that when you are able to be economical at your neighbour's expense, you should go to the trouble of spending money, and incurring, it may be, obloquy in order to add to the number of voluntary schools. I believe that one great reason for the increase of voluntary schools is summed up in one short word "faith." It is because people believe in the principles in which they have been brought up that these schools have increased and multiplied. We saw

1123
a notable example of that in that very impressive speech at the close of yesterday's sitting from the hon. Member for East Mayo. Roman Catholics have had to make great sacrifices—greater sacrifices even than we have made, but they make them because they believe in the principles which are embodied in their schools. I claim that hon. Gentlemen should give us in the English Church credit for convictions as deep as those which belong to the Roman Church.
That is one fact, but there is another fact that we must recoginse. Some people prefer undenominational schools, just as some prefer denominational schools, and, that being so, it is quite right that the Government in this Bill should recognise that these schools should be put upon an equality; but there is another fact that has not been sufficiently considered, I mean the limitation of the possibilites of the improvement of rural education. It is not true to say that the rural schools of England are, generally speaking, bad schools; many of them are excellent, and have turned out young men and young women who have been able to attain to good positions in life, young men and young women whoso whole training was in these village schools. One hon. Member opposite spoke of the educational condition of our peasants being worse than that of any peasants in Westean Europe, but we all know that that is merely a figure of speech. The rural schools of this country are doing useful, and invaluable work. It is not easy work and it is done at a great sacrifice. But whatever system is established you can never make the rural schools of England equal to the great schools of which you are so proud in the towns. You cannot expect to obtain the same standard of education in them as you obtain in the large urban populations. What follows I Simply this, that you must leave the management of these schools to the men who understand their limitations. They can be managed by the voluntary school managers, and the Government propose that, in addition, there shall be certain persons nominated by the county authorities who shall take care that the efficiency of the schools shall be as high as it possibly can be. I should like hon. Members to justify some of their statements. We
1124
have been told that this is a Bill for placing schools under the control of Churchmen. No more extraordinary statement could be imagined. No doubt, there are village schools under the control of the clergy for the simple reason that they are, very often, the only people in the neighbourhood who take any interest in education. But now, for the first time, outside people are to be brought in to help the clergy, and yet the opponents of the Bill, shutting their eyes to this fact, declare that it will increase clerical control. Clerical control cannot be increased by bringing in people from outside.
Then there are the deficiences in the schools which we are all anxious to have supplied. But the money must be paid by somebody. People sometimes talk as though there was an unlimited fund in the clouds from which the money is to come pouring down in a golden shower for the purposes of education. There are only three means of paying for these schools—taxes, rates, and voluntary subscriptions. We shall still have to pay a good deal in voluntary subscriptions, but the schools must be mainly supported out of either the rates or the taxes. Personally, I should have thought it would have been a good plan for the Government to have contributed more largely from the taxes than they have done. It is clear something will have to come out of the taxes—the grants, for instance—but a great deal of the support of these schools, voluntary and undenominational, will come out of the rates. I do not hesitate to say that this will be a very heavy burden on the rates. I believe the hon. and gallant Member for the Chelmsford Division intends to vote against the Bill because his constituents cannot bear any addition to the rates. I would remind him, however, that if he were to throw out this Bill—which happily he cannot do by his single vote—he would find himself in a very uncomfortable position, because in time to come, if those schools ceased to exist and a system of universal School Boards were established, the people in Essex would find their rates much more seriously increased.
I come now to the objections which have been raised. It has been objected that there is no control, or that there is

1125
less control than before. One outside man may not be much, but, at any rate, if he cannot make his vote prevail he can make his speech to be heard. I have sat on a good many public Boards, and I have always found that two or three men, though in a hopeless minority can make it exceedingly unpleasant and very disagreeable for the majority to go against them. I am far from believing that the influence of people from outside can be measured merely by their number. The mere fact of the existence of an outside element will make the Managing Committees at any rate cautious as to how they trample on the liberty of the subject—which many hon. Members appear to imagine they will attempt to do. That the Bill will increase the rates is an unfortunate but undeniable fact. But if the Government were induced to withdraw the Bill, and the voluntary schools ceased to exist, the increase of the rates would be, as I have already said, considerably higher.
Another, and perhaps more difficult subject is the Noncomformist religious grievance. No doubt there is a grievance in parishes where the only school is a voluntary school. How can the matter be arranged? I want Members to come forward with some plan that can be discussed. It would not remedy that grievance to substitute another for it. If, instead of the grievance to the Noncomformist conscience, you were to substitute a grievance to the Church conscience, the matter would not be bettered, and to make these Church schools into schools offensive to the conscientious convictions of Churchmen would be simply to substitute one grievance for another. There is one suggestion I would respectfully submit; I do not know whether it has the least chance of being accepted. There are precedents for what I may call outside facilities—that is to say, allowing parents, who do not conscientiously agree with the religious teaching given in the school, to have their children taught outside the school in religious matters. Any arrangement of that kind, if acceptable to Nonconformists, I should be perfectly willing to consider. I am told that that is the case also in Ireland, under a regulation of the Commissioners of National Education. And there is also a provision to the same effect in the regulations of the Liverpool School Board. As to facilities for religious instruction
1126
inside the schools, that was the proposal of the Bill of 1896, but when I interrupted the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs just now he did not appear to approve of it at all, and said it would not solve any of the difficulties.
I mention these things to show that the attitude in which I approach the question is not the irreconcilable attitude so often attributed to Members of the Church of England. I have always said, and I think Churchmen generally have said, that what we ask in this matter is no favour, but fair treatment. We ask that the doctrines in which we believe shall be taught as freely, and with as little hindrance or let, as the doctrines of any other denomination. It is not always remembered that in large urban School Board districts members of the Church of England suffer from a religious disability, which this Bill, excellent though it is in many respects, does nothing to remove. It will still be, the fact that in many urban districts and in some rural districts, however deeply convinced a man may be of the doctrines of the Church of England, or of the Church of Rome, or of any other Church or religious body, he can send his children only to a school in which it is forbidden by law to give those children the definite religious instruction the parent desires. That is a grievous religious disability. We are told that the parents do not care. How do you know they do not care? But supposing there is even only one man in a district who does care, why should he be compelled to send his child to a school in which the religious instruction is of a kind of which he entirely disapproves?
SIR HENRY FOWLER: There is a choice of schools in a large town.
MR. TALBOT: The right hon. Gentle man must not go away with that delusion. That is not the fact. There are urban districts in which it is impossible to find a school other than a board school, in which the Cowper Temple Clause prevents religious instruction in any dogmatic form.

1127
I come now to the advantages of the Bill. After many anxious years I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done. I know how difficult this matter is. I know the many thorny questions which surround it, and I know that it is one of those subjects in regard to which it is impossible for men, however anxious they may be to agree, to come to exactly similar conclusions. I do not say that this is the Bill I should have introduced if I had had the framing of it, but I do say that for the first time we have provided here a framework which may hereafter be most adequately filled up. You have the single authority; you have a recognition of the duty of the State to provide secondary education. I do not say that much is done for secondary education. After urging for so many years the absolute necessity of putting secondary education on a firmer basis, we are now going to pass a Bill the chief result of which will be to better primary education. But I shall not quarrel with the Government on that account, because I see in this Bill the groundwork on which a great deal may be done hereafter for secondary education. After listening to the whole of this debate, I have come to the conclusion that the mind of this House is earnestly set upon the development of secondary instruction. We are dealing with the popular institutions of the country, elected by the voice of the people. I have no fear but that, the mind of the country being so earnestly set on the development of secondary instruction, the County Councils and the Borough Councils will fairly represent the view of this House and will carry out that instruction in a very thorough manner. I am also gratified with the Bill because it seems to me to carry out the true principles of religious liberty. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite take a precisely opposite view, but I believe that in this measure we have for the first time a frank recognition of the great work that has been done for education by the religious bodies of this country, and I believe this is a proper safeguard for putting upon the best possible basis our secular education. And, lastly, it seems to be a recognition of that great work of education which
1128
has been carried on now for nearly a century in this land, with many imperfections and hindrances, but with a growing devotion and determination.
MR. ASQUITH: This debate, Sir, has lasted so many days, and been illustrated on both sides of the House by speeches of such exceptional ability, and, perhaps I may add, such unusual length, that it would be unpardonable in me or in any one else at this stage to trespass for more than a very few moments on the attention of the House. I think we may be said to have reached a point at which it would be impossible for the wit of man to contribute a new idea to this discussion; and I shall not attempt anything more ambitious than, without in any way examining minutely the provisions of the Bill, to restate as clearly as I can two or three points which in my judgment justify our opposition to the Second Beading. The first and the main question, as I think has been recognised by the great majority of speakers upon both sides of the House, is this—Is this a good Education Bill? Is it, in other words, calculated to enlarge the area, to raise the standard, to increase the fruitfulness of our national system of teaching? All other questions beside that are subsidiary and subordinate.
There has been nothing more remarkable in this debate than the testimony which almost every speech has afforded to the deep and growing consciousness of men of all creeds and schools, of every variety of political complexion, that the most formidable danger which now menaces not only our industrial supremacy—for I agree with the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich that we must look above and beyond that—but in the largest and highest sense menaces our very national existence, is the relative ignorance of our people. And for my part I say frankly and at once that, if I could persuade myself that this Bill or any measure, proceeding from any quarter, was adapted to remove or diminish that peril, I should be prepared to close my eyes to a great many things to which I should otherwise take exception, to shut the door upon pure logic, and to throw

1129
abstract symmetry out of the window. I There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be ignored, and that is—How does the Bill affect our system of local government? Does it substitute unity for multiplicity, as has been claimed for it? Does it give us co-ordination where at present we have anarchy? Does it tend to put administrative energy where you have now administrative slackness? And in particular, as regards the local administration of our educational affairs, is it likely to secure for us the men best equipped by capacity and experience, with the least amount of friction, for the actual daily working of the system, the stimulus of local interest, and, above all—and what is more important than all—the safeguard of popular control and popular responsibility?
These are the tests which I propose very briefly to apply to the provisions of the Bill. I start with the admission which has been made, I think, from both sides of the House, by almost every speaker who has taken part in the debate, that, while our educational system is imperfect and inadequate in almost all its parts, the point where the deficiency is most patent, and where, therefore, the need for reform is most urgent, is in what is commonly called secondary education. Now, how does the Bill deal with secondary education? Let the House remember that in the first place, under the guise of secondary or higher education—I do not think the word "secondary" is used in the Bill—the Bill very considerably enlarges the area which will have to be dealt with by the new authority, because it annexes to secondary education areas which at present belong to the province of elementary education. For instance, after this Bill is passed, no child over fifteen years of age will be allowed to be educated in an elementary school at all.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is the present law.
MR. ASQUITH: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's authority is for saying that that is the present law. I am quite aware that I gave an opinion to the London
1130
School Board as to what was the safest course for them to adopt, but there can be no question what the practice has been, and that over large parts of England, in London, and in almost all our big towns, numbers of children over fifteen years of age have studied in the elementary schools. The practice, indeed, has been sanctioned by the Department. Again, all the higher grade and evening continuation schools—and I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will again tell me that this is the existing law—which at present are carried on by the School Boards are in future to become part of the work of secondary instruction. We learnt from the Vice President—not from the Bill—that the whole provision for the training of teachers, pupil teachers as well as adult teachers, is also in future to be regarded as part of secondary education, and will have to be met out of the resources that are at the disposal of the local authority for that purpose. Therefore, I am justified in saying that the new authority, out of the twopenny rate and the whisky money, will have to cover a much wider area than at present. So much will have to be subtracted from the area of elementary education; and therefore you are largely increasing the burden on the secondary authority. That being so, how does the Bill equip and empower the authority to deal with this enlarged burden of responsibility?
In the first place, we know that the provisions of the Bill are permissive, and not compulsory. Will those permissive powers be used? We have been taunted, some of us on this side of the House who have expressed scepticism upon that subject, with distrust of the local authorities and popular government. So far as I know my own mind, nothing is more alien to me than suspicion or distrust of local authorities. I think the County Councils, most of them, in the work they have done under the Technical Instruction Act, with hampered powers and limited resources, have contributed, on the whole, very sensibly to the improvement of the state of things which previously prevailed. It is all very well to talk about trusting the local authority; but you must have regard to human nature as we know it, and above all to human nature as it is presented by the human being when he

1131
has for the time to he regarded as mainly, if not entirely, a ratepaying instrument. That is the person you have got to consider on these matters. You have to consider, also, the patent fact that there are different degrees of temperature as regards educational zeal and interest in different districts of the country.
And, further, what is more important than all when you are considering whether these powers are going to be used or not, you have to bear in mind the fact which was brought out very forcibly by my hon. friend the Member for Berwick, that, at the same time and by the very same measure by which you are giving to this local authority a permissive power to deal with secondary education in an enlarged sense, you are clothing it with an absolute duty to make provision for primary education and to add to the rates to the extent to which it may be necessary to do so for the purpose of maintaining the so-called voluntary schools. It stands to reason that the compulsory duty of adding largely to the rates for the purposes of elementary education, so far as it goes, will operate, not as an incentive, but precisely in the opposite direction when the question arises whether, and how far, they shall exercise their permissive powers to use the rates for secondary education. And then, finally, upon this point, even supposing you have the County Councils, in the more enlightened parts of the country, prepared to take over this additional burden, and to spend the whole resources which Parliament has placed at its disposal for the purpose, what a miserably inadequate provision this Bill makes. ["No."] I think so. You who taunt us with our distrust of local authorities have so little confidence in them that you limit their powers to a twopenny rate for the purpose which we all admit to be the most urgent educational purpose of the country. I see that only yesterday, at a meeting of the County Councils Association which appears to have expressed a general academic approval of this Bill, a resolution was moved to omit the twopenny rate, the result of which would be that the County Councils would be left with the whisky money and nothing else to
1132
discharge their additional duties in regard to secondary education. I am answering my own question—Is this a good education Bill? Starting with the admission, as everybody starts, that secondary education is the most urgent of our educational problems, you will have, if this Bill passes into law, an extended area for the authority, an increased burden for the authority to carry, and yet you will have an authority clothed with no duty, and with diminished incentives, and inadequate resources.
Although these powers are permissive as regards secondary education, the authority is placed under a duty by the Bill to provide elementary education. I hope that is so. I must assume after what the Vice President said that it is. If it is I cannot understand why the express provision to that effect under the Act of 1870 is proposed to be repealed.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST,: The duty is to remain.
MR. ASQUITH: I am very glad to hear that. I will assume that the authority is clothed with the absolute duty which exists at present to make adequate provision for elementary education. I cannot conceive that the Government ever intended that it should be taken away. I am not going to be led astray into what I regard as purely an academic controversy as to the relative merits and demerits of what, in the barbarous jargon of the hour, is called an ad hoc authority. I do not think it is a practical question. English education, being what it is, and I having to accept existing facts, I look upon that controversy as so much wasted breath. But I do regret more than words can express that the Government, in the ostensible pursuit of what I agree to be a high educational ideal—the creation of a single authority—proposes a plan which, on the one hand, for the reasons I have already given, will impair the usefulness of the present authorities for the purposes of secondary education, and on the other hand will annihilate

1133
the existence of the present authorities which are doing the best work in the country for elementary education. To start in your pursuit of a single authority by crippling one set of authorities and destroying another is not a very hopeful way of commencing the journey. I speak in this matter not as a blind and uncompromising advocate of School Boards. I am not by any means wedded on a priori grounds or from the teaching of experience to the School Board system. I think that over many parts of the country, as those who are familiar with the facts know, the School Board system has not been a success, not from any fault on the part of the persons concerned, but because the areas are too restricted, the possible resources at the disposal of the School Board are too insignificant; and when you have to contend with districts of educational apathy and lethargy, it is not to be wondered that the output is very unsatisfactory. But in the large towns I do not think it is disputed by any one acquainted with the facts that the School Boards have done and are doing admirable educational work. The Vice-President admitted that himself the other day. The only complaint which he brought against the School Boards of the large towns was that some of their schools are too big, that there are too many children in some of the schools, that the classes are too large, and that the education is thereby rendered inefficient. That may be the case here and there, but are you going to have a duplication of these schools, with the cost of erecting fresh buildings and equipping them and so forth, when you are taking over at the expense of the rates the Voluntary Schools. It is quite true that the Government have shrunk from an immediate and general massacre of School Boards. They are to live on but under what conditions? They are to live on with a noose round their necks, which a casual majority at a Town Council election, possibly obtained on some different issue, may at any moment tighten with fatal consequences. For the first time in our municipal history you will have introduced into the County Council and Town Council elections the question of the
1134
maintenance or non-maintenance of the School Board, associated as it will be with a whole cluster of religious and sectarian controversies from which municipal politics have hitherto been happily free. I say, reviewing these facts, it would have been far better to delay the creation of your one authority, to preserve the existence of these large and efficient School Boards, and to facilitate by a sufficiently elastic provision in the Bill the establishment of what I may call a concordat between School Boards on the one side and Town and County Councils on the other, by means of which they would have jointly undertaken by a regular and co-ordinate system to work elementary and higher education. That would have been a wise and statesmanlike way of dealing with the problem.
But have you got one authority? You are destroying one set of authorities and crippling another. What are you putting in their place? Where is the single authority? In Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill there is a distinction between control on one side and management on the other. Where control ends and management begins, or where management ends and control begins, is one of the problems that will have to be worked out by those who administer the Act. But the confusion reaches a climax in the eighth clause dealing with denominational schools. Let me ask the House to realise the condition of things under that clause. You have one Committee which controls but does not manage; another Committee which manages but does not control; you have above them both the Board of Education, which, whenever they differ, is to determine which is in the right; and, lastly, you have the County Council, whose sole function in the matter is to pay the bill and levy the rate. Committee one, Committee two, Board of Education, County Council—that is your one authority! I do not think that the blessed words unity and simplicity have over been more taken in vain than by the authors of the Bill in this series of simulacra presented to us as a single authority.
I come now in the natural order to say a word about the denominational schools. I have never myself taken an extreme or fanatical attitude in relation I to this question. Some words of mine,

1135
uttered in 1896, have been quoted; but since 1896 many events have occurred. We used to hear a great deal then about the intolerable strain upon denominational schools. Parliament has been spending half its time since then in relieving that strain at the expense of the taxpayers. It was an essential feature of the arrangement under which the denominational schools became part of our national system that there should be provided from local sources an equivalent contribution to that made by the State. Since 1896 you have abolished the 17s. 6d. limit, which was a kind of safeguard for the arrangement; next you have exempted the denominational schools from local rates; further, you have subsidised them by an aid grant of £700,000 a year; and, finally, by the ingenious arrangement of the block grant, you have given to them, and to some of the worst of them, a subsidy in addition to that which they already enjoy. In all these four ways since 1896 the strain on voluntary schools has been relieved at the expense of the State. I cannot admit that their claim is so strong as it was five years ago. I am one of those who admit reluctantly, but as a practical man, that the denominational schools are an integral and indispensable part of our national system. You cannot get rid of them; you cannot by any practical means find a substitute for them. They educate at present 3,000,000 of our school population, and whether the motive be, as some people suppose, pure zeal on the part of the parents for Anglican principles, or, as I am somewhat inclined to suspect, although, perhaps I may be cynical, a desire to avoid the imposition of a compulsory rate—whatever be the true reason, there is no doubt that these schools over a large part of the country have been hitherto the chosen schools of the people.
Let us start with that, and let us see what is the right way to deal with denominational schools. No one in this matter is entitled to stand on the platform of abstract principle. There are only two logical positions in relation to this side of the question. One is the position of those who hold that it is the sole duty of the State to provide secular instruction and that the religious instruction of the children ought to be
1136
left to their parents. There is another position which is equally logical. It is the position which I understand to be the one taken by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. It is that education, unless it is accompanied by dogmatic teaching, is not education worthy the name—not a thing which the State ought to supply, or, at any rate, not a thing which the State ought to compel a parent on behalf of his children to receive, and that therefore the moment you have a compulsory law the parent has a correlative right to have his children taught at the expense of the State, not only secular instruction, but his own religion or substitute for religion, as the case may be. According to the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich the child who is born an Anglican is to remain an Anglican still; and the child who is born an Agnostic is to remain an Agnostic still; and all this is to be done at the cost of the State. That is a logical position, but it is a position which shows a surprising contempt for the actual realities of human nature and English life. For what is the ideal school of the noble Lord? It is a school in which you gather together children who come from all kinds of homes I and all sorts of parents, and who are taught during the greater part of the day side by side in various branches of secular instruction. But the hour strikes for religious teaching, and what happens then? The children are all I sorted out into separate theological flocks, and each flock is herded off into a little ecclesiastical pen of its own, there to be grounded and confirmed at the cost; of the State in the doctrines, or it may be in the negations, which are dear to its parents. The noble Lord would provide for the man who has no faith, as well as for those who have a superabundance of faith, and he asks all I the sects to join in a concordat. These bodies which now spend so much time—I will not say in anathematising one another, for anathemas are not in fashion—but in trying to convert one another's adherents, are to join in one confederacy that the religion of the children of the nation shall be stereotyped in the parental status quo. The noble Lord rightly calls this an ideal; for anything more remote from the practical good sense of the

1137
country, notwithstanding the marvellous magic and power with which the ideal was described, has never been presented to the House.
These, than, are the two logical positions. But in this country we have adopted neither. In 1870 we adopted a compromise, which has been observed ever since. On the one side you have the denominational schools which are subsidised by the State, subject to the conscience clause, and on the understanding—which has since been set aside—that they shall provide a local equivalent to the State's contribution. On the other side you have the Board Schools supported out of the rates, where it is left to the local authority to say whether the teaching shall be purely secular or secular and religious; and in the latter case, the formularies of no particular sect are to be taught. That is a compromise, and on the whole it has worked fairly well. The Anglican ratepayer has gone on paying rates, part of which was spent on religious teaching which bethought inadequate. The Nonconformist taxpayer has gone on paying taxes, though they have gone to subsidise Anglican and Roman doctrine in the voluntary schools. It is an illogical position; and yet, that it has worked on the whole fairly well makes it obvious that in a case of such delicate equilibrium, which might be so easily disturbed, it was the duty of the Government, before coming forward with fresh proposals, to consult both sides to the contract, and not, as they have done, to leave one side entirely out in the cold, and to accept almost verbatim et literatim every suggestion which has been made by the other. Why must the denominational schools be helped? As far as I make the admission that they must—though I recognise the energy and zeal and self-denial which the clergy of the Church of England have shown in the maintenance of these schools—it is not from any feeling that it is due to the subscribers of the schools. They no longer pay that which was the condition and basis of the original arrangement—namely, a local equivalent to the State contribution; and during recent years they have, as I have shown, received abundant additional contributions from the State. The schools must be helped, not
1138
because the subscribers have a grievance, but because the schools themselves are inefficient. It is purely from an educational point of view that I gladly acquiesce in whatever additional contribution is necessary. But if you give additional help on that ground only, it must be on two conditions, neither of which is observed in this Bill. In the first place, you must secure that the additional money, whether derived from rates or taxes, goes exclusively and entirely to increasing the efficiency of the schools. I find no safeguard in the Bill that this additional subvention which is to come out of the rates will not to a considerable extent go in relief of existing subscriptions. It is quite true that the subscribers are to keep the schools in repair.
MR. BOND: And to pay the new rate.
MR. ASQUITH: But they are not the only people who pay the new rate. If the new rate only came out of the pockets of the subscribers to the schools, it would be a very unproductive source of revenue. All that the subscribers, qua subscribers, have to do is to keep the fabric in repair; and if they do not, heaven knows, at any rate, I don't, and I cannot find anyone who can tell me, what will be the consequences. They have nothing beyond this academic and paper obligation to keep the fabrics in repair. I do not want to argue in a spirit hostile to the subscribers, but does the Bill provide for the increase of the efficiency of these schools? It depends entirely upon the amount which is raised by the rate, because that is the only new source of revenue which the Bill provides. Is that rate likely to be a popular rate? In the districts where the schools are most backward, where the teachers are ill-paid and the apparatus is out of date, and all the educational appliances are lacking, are you going to extract from the ratepayers a sum sufficient to bring those schools up to the School Board standard? That is the crux of the whole question. It is not the least use appearing to give on paper this additional support to the denominational schools unless you can show at the same time that you are

1139
providing that which is the only justification for any grant at all, namely, increased efficiency. I see no such security in the Bill. There is another condition of equal importance on which we are entitled to insist, and not from the point of view of education merely, but also from the point of view of the principles which underlie our system of local government. The anomaly, which has never yet been justified, of public funds being managed by private persons is one that ought to be put an end to. I admit that we have not been logical in this matter, and that the anomaly has existed to a certain extent ever since the Education Act was passed; but we have always drawn a broad line of distinction between the administration of funds which come from the public Exchequer and those which are derived from the local rates. In this case, for the first time, the Government resort to the rates; and they cannot produce a single case in which, in regard to a fund derived from the rates, the ratepayers have not the commanding and controlling voice in its administration. I admit as a corollary that, if the denominational schools are taken over, the denominational teaching must go on. But when once that is safeguarded, as it should be, I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite—and I should like to ask the two Houses of Convocation if we could come face to face with them—why should they object to representative authority and control? Except as regards the interest upon the capital expenditure incurred in building and fitting the school, and the expense of the annnal repairs, the subscribers of the schools will have no pecuniary liability of any kind. The whole cost of the school, subject to whatever subscriptions may still be received, will be defrayed out of public funds, imperial or local. In a vast number of rural parishes where there is only a single school you will have a school, financed in that way, to which the parents are compelled to send their children, and in which the teachers will, in nine cases out of ten, belong to one religious denomination That is the state of things existing now. And all this Bill does, having provided for these schools this large additional reservoir in I he rates, is to give a permissive
1140
power to the local authority to appoint a number not exceeding a third to the managing body.
My right hon. friend who has just sat down said that a small, determined, pertinacious minority might offer a great deal of opposition to the course of business, and we are, not without examples inside and outside the House that this is so; but what a charming prospect does this offer for the management of the schools! The voice of the ratepayers who will contribute nine-tenths, and in some instances ninety-nine-hundredths, of the cost is to make itself felt through the obstructive action of an articulate, noisy minority. That is all the security for popular control the Bill offers. It is idle to tell me, as I have heard it stated, that, as the management is subject to the control of the Committee, and the Committee is nominated by the County Council, and the County Council is responsible to the ratepayers, ergo—that is the argument—the management is responsible to the ratepayers. The managing body is removed by three degrees from the people who contribute the funds. The truth is, the framers of this Bill have burned a pinch of academic incense at the altar of popular control, while they leave the management in the hands of a body with no representative authority and no popular responsibility. That, from the Liberal point of view, is the fatal vice of the Bill. I ask the House to reject it, because, in my judgment, for the reasons I have given, it offers no real prospect of educational improvement, it aggravates and extends the area of sectarian animosities, and it sets at defiance the fundamental principles of democratic government.
MR. WALTER PALMER: My reason for venturing to address the House on the important subject of education is that I am one of those who, in the absence in the past of any scheme dealing with higher education, have devoted themselves, not only theoretically but practically, to what I consider to be the solution of some of the difficulties of this complex question. But, Sir, it is not alone from the point of view of higher education that I approach this question. Having

1141
been for many years a voluntary school manager, and having also seen a great deal of School Board elections, I regard it as a matter of the highest gratification that the Government have introduced what, in my estimation, is a great and comprehensive measure. Having said that, it follows that I do not agree with a great deal of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It may not be impolite on my part here to say that, although I listened attentively to his speech, there was to my mind nothing new, except in one respect, in the shape of argument. Every argument which he adduced had already been fully discussed, and every statement made has in my opinion been most completely and satisfactorily met on our side of the House; the only exception being the subtle legal point regarding the age limit, a matter with which I do not feel myself competent to deal, but which can easily be attended to during Committee stage.
I think it will generally be granted that the Government has a much more difficult task than that which existed in 1870. They have still to face the same antagonism on the part of what I may, perhaps, call the non-Church party against any system based on religious views. They have to traverse the same ground as in 1870 with regard to elementary education, and as the hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire remarked the other day, the range now extends to the border land of our Universities. More than that, they have to remember this fact that, taking the work done in the last ten years in the way of higher education, the larger part by far has been done by voluntary enterprise, and that voluntary effort has been backed up by £400,000 a year, or half the money which passes through the hands of technical committees. But the most difficult part that they will have to encounter is that which forms the main argument of cur opponents, which I gather to be this, that because School Boards only dealing with half the elementary education have done such excellent work in the past, therefore a system based upon direct election is the proper way of dealing with the whole subject. I entirely disagree with that view, and I shall endeavour to give
1142
one or two reasons why I think the system of direct election is not the best course we can pursue. Surely the proper co-ordination of education is a matter far too serious and far too difficult to be properly grasped by a popular electorate, who have not the time nor the leisure to understand the problems at stake. Elementary education under codes and rules laid down by the Board of Education is one thing, but when we come to the subject of higher education, which, as the Vice-President so ably pointed out the other day, must be worked in accordance with the necessities and needs of the different districts of the country, we are dealing with an entirely different matter. Then we have to remember that a very large proportion of the higher education of this country is the result of that voluntary effort which is so often the root of enterprise in this country. And as Chairman of the Council of a college, built up by individual effort, which has 1,100 students on its register, and on whose Council are representatives of no less than five County Councils, I claim to regard the whole subject from a broad point of view. It is because of that experience which I have had that I venture to give the Government my support.
First of all, the scheme for placing education under the existing local authorities appears to me to be the only possible way of meeting all the different social, religious, and economic difficulties which we have to meet, and which vary so much in different parts of the country. It has been sufficiently well pointed out during the debate how that, under County Councils as the rating authority, we shall have systematic control over expenditure. They are popularly elected and represent all sections, thought, and interests. The Technical Committees of the County Councils have considerable experience, and to a very large extent the machinery necessary for the purpose. Then I wish to mention this: many of the members of County Councils, in addition to the work and experience they have had as members of the Technical Committees, are managers of elementary schools—voluntary and board. These Technical Committees are now often guided by their secretaries, some of

1143
them most talented men, and have most nobly supported the many institutions throughout the country, the result of voluntary enterprise, and I therefore claim that from the point of view of such institutions as that with which I am connected, the new authority is only a fair and proper legal recognition of interests proved to be good by experience. But if we had a system of direct election to control the various secondary and technical institutions which have been built up by voluntary effort throughout the country, and had to depend on the result of popular election, I think there would be created a feeling of unrest and uncertainty little short of calamitous. From the point of view of such institutions as that to which I belong, I consider, if any support we were to receive from the public was to be subject to the fluctuations of popular sentiment, it would be absolutely impossible to conduct the course of education on settled and permanent lines. If we had to follow the whims and fancies of some newly elected popular body, it might constitute an entire change in the system successfully pursued for the last ten years. But, Sir, not the least valuable part of the Government scheme, is that which relates to the power of co-option. Neither School Boards nor County Councils, at the present moment, always find those amongst themselves who are known in each district to be best acquainted with educational subjects. Those individuals to whom I refer very largely spend their time and energies in the councils of educational institutions, where they are free from the annoyance, irritation, and sometimes farce of the so-called popular election. The presence of representatives of such institutions on these co-opted bodies—heads of colleges, together with the pick of the educationists of the district, men with calm dispassionate minds who are not attracted by electioneering cries, and the best members of existing School Boards and other bodies—will, I think, ensure continuity of work, and interest, and enthusiasm.
Another point to which I would like to refer is the fact that this co-option would react on the County Councils, for when the County Councils had selected those whom they consider superior, or
1144
who have more technical knowledge than themselves, how will they then be able to resist the suggestions they make, Technical Committees are to a large extent now guided almost entirely by secretaries to whom generally is due the amount of work which has already been achieved during the last ten years, but the principle of co-option here should act as a counterpoise to the too energetic; and in the reverse case could act as a stimulus. We hear a great deal at the present time of the question of efficiency, and I maintain that in no way can we better gain that efficiency than by a scheme of decentralisation. This is one of the main principles of this Bill. Individual initiative is the root of enterprise, and the method of decentralisation put forward in this Bill will be directly stimulating those institutions that have built up so much of the education which this country enjoys. From my own experience I say—and I believe the same applies to every county—that a latent energy exists in our counties which only requires arousing under this scheme of proposed Committees. But I venture to maintain that we should never secure the services of the most efficient advisers of those counties under the method of what is called by hon. Gentlemen opposite popular ad hoc election.
There is one question of particular importance which I should like to mention in connection with the question of decentralisation, and which renders it necessary that County Councils should act together as proposed by the Bill. Agriculture is still our largest industry, and I think we all are agreed that rural education ought to be entirely re organised to meet the requirements of the country. Well, Sir, I suggest that the way to make a workman love his work is to make him understand it, and that is the principle at the bottom of the Bill of 1899 which is associated with the name of the hon. and learnerd Member for South Shields, called the "Half-Timers Bill." The half-time theory contained a sound principle which, however, was never operative because of the practical difficulties between teachers and the employers. Again, Sir, the Code of 1900, suggesting a curriculum that should be carried out in country schools,

1145
that the education might be adapted to rural life, is only in use in a few places, but the theory is extremely good. But we want something more than that. We need a real system dealing with the question of rural education from elementary education upwards. And I hope that during the progress of the debate the Minister of Agriculture will give us some indication of what in his opinion is the best mode of dealing with that question. I do not know whet her many Members have read that series of admirable publications edited by Mr. Sadler, head of the Special Enquiries Department of the Board of Education, which have kept us alive to what other nations are doing. It may not be too much to hope that the County Councils under this Bill may be able to do something to mitigate the evil which so largely affects the question of maintaining our rural population on the laud. The present Bill opens up new hopes and new possibility. I venture to think the country is weary of the continual religious wrangle of which we have heard so much in this House and which now too often forms the motive at School Board elections. When the upholders of our School Board system have learnt to throw aside the superstition by which they regard the School Boards as the only perfect system, we shall have freed education from the everlasting religious controversy, and each county will be able to move forward on lines of permanent progress. There is only one more observation. I should like to make. Is not higher education—in a certain sense—much more important than elementary? A boy who merely learns to read and write, may remain a labourer all his life and often derives no real benefit from what he has learnt. But the system which creates a selection of the more intelligent to learn that which by its use and application increases the trade and prosperity of the country, is one which necessitates the employment within its counsels of the most calm and energetic educationists of the day. This, I maintain, is impossible, or at least improbable, under the system of ad hoc election.
A well-known educational authority, in one of the publications presented to this House, remarks—
"Education is not a thing in itself but one aspect of modern life and one of the many closely related expressions of national energy and intention."
1146
The Bill before us, which contains principles initiated in 1870—and which is founded to a great extent on the report of the Commission presided over by the right hon. Member for Aberdeen, and supported by statements from the highest authorities who have written for years past on education—I consider will enable the country to develop this national energy, and that I maintain is impossible under proposals of the Opposition. Who does not feel that the work of the last thirty years is but the dawn of this great subject? All parties alike are alive to the fact that the maintenance of our existence, as a great industrial nation, in the future must depend on the intelligence of all the units which form the whole. I think the proposals of the Government go far to form the future framework on which a solid structure can be built to meet the varied requirements of our educational progress, and I shall support the Bill with my heartiest sympathy because I consider it to be a measure of far-reaching and beneficial importance.
MR. GEORGE WHITE: I am not ashamed to confess to this House that I am one of those militant Nonconformists who have been referred to by the right hon. Member for the Oxford University, who offered the suggestion that we, or some of us, expressed sentiments outside this House that we were afraid to utter inside. It has not been from want of disposition, but from want of opportunity, that those sentiments have not been expressed in the House earlier. Yet I want it to be understood that I desire to approach this question quite as much as an educationist as a Nonconformist. I have been connected with board school work and with the work of technical education practically from the foundation of those two institutions, and upon that I claim to have some practical knowledge of the subject. Therefore, if I first address myself to the Nonconformist aspect of this question, it will not be because I desire to put in the second place the educational aspect, but because I believe there is a disposition on the part of the House to treat this religious question as of little account, as being advocated by a small minority in the country. Now,

1147
there were two speeches which certainly merit the attention of those who occupy the position I profess to occupy. One was the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich—a speech that has been universally admired in this House for its frankness and sincerity, and for the very high tone which it imparted to the debate. The noble Lord at least gave us credit for having conscientious convictions which are not to be thrust aside by a mere expression of words, but the difficulty is that he seems altogether to ignore the great gulf which lies between his view and that which we, as Nonconformists, take. He treats the whole matter on the basis of Church and State, whilst we, in the matter of religion, have to say "hands off." And so long as that gulf lies between us, it is impossible for him to get the alliance he seeks, however desirable it may be. The other speech was the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo—hard, practical, and logical. I am not going to dispute for a moment the logical position he put before the House. I am afraid, as the right hon. Gentleman below me said just now, we are not in this House governed by logic, and therefore we cannot debate this question on logical grounds. The hon. Member approached this question from the point of view of sympathy with his Church, and I frankly admit I have great sympathy with the position in which the Romanist is placed in this House, and I would gladly support anything to mitigate the sadness of that position. But I do not think the hon. Gentleman did us credit in supposing that we are asking for ourselves that which we are not prepared to give to others; neither did he give us credit for our part in trying to give the Church in which he believes those rights which we claim. With regard to the attack he made on the hon. Member for the Louth Division, it is neither my right nor my privilege to defend that hon. Gentleman; but the Church to which I belong takes nothing from the State by way of payment for education, and is prepared to accept nothing for any obligation. When we took up the position of declining to pay this rate, we were taunted with inconsistency, because we paid in taxes for the teaching of the same doctrines that we now disclaim our right to pay for in rates. There is no logical answer to that
1148
except that the compromise of 1870 was accepted not because it was absolutely approved by Nonconformists, but in order not to hinder the cause of education throughout the country generally. That compromise was agreed to, rather than hinder the cause of education. But the situation then was very different from that of today. Those who claimed support from the State for the teaching in their schools were themselves very liberal supporters of those institutions—much more so than is now the case. Their liabilities have been whittled down year by year, and we feel that the time has come to make a strong and determined protest against any further legislation on those lines. At that time, about one-third of the cost of maintenance came from voluntary subscriptions; now the whole of that cost is to come out of public funds. Therefore, though it may not be absolutely logical, we say that it is one of those positions which we are driven to take because of the extreme action of those who attempt to impose on public funds the whole of the maintenance of their schools. We believe that the State has no right to teach religion, and cannot do so without injury to liberty and freedom of conscience. That is the general position we take on this education question.
Now let me deal with the matter from an educational point of view, and show how the various parts of the Bill touch the question of conscience to which I have referred. I think I shall carry the House with me in four propositions as to the needs of the nation at the present moment—firstly, a want of a general and efficient scheme of secondary education; secondly, an organic connection between the different branches of educational work; thirdly, a more liberal outlay on the maintenance of denominational schools; and, fourthly, a larger and more generous provision for the training of teachers. There may be, of course, many additions to those four requirements; but in a general way the rest might be left as matters of detail for Committee consideration. Can any impartial Member of the House say that, with those four propositions before them, it would not have been possible for half a dozen Members, say three from either side of the House, or for half a dozen educationists from outside the House, to have produced a Bill

1149
infinitely more satisfactory and vastly I more efficient from an educational point of view, and more tolerant from a religious point of view, than the measure we are discussing?
Take the secondary provision. It is not as good or as effective, in my judgment, as the provision in the Bill of last year. No provision is made for ascertaining the needs of the nation in the matter. As an old School Board supporter, I remember that the first claim made upon us by the Government thirty years ago was to ascertain the extent of the need for elementary education in the various parts of the country. The same course ought to have been pursued in regard to secondary education. We have a variety of grammar schools, more or less efficient, many of them less rather than more; we have secondary schools of different kinds; but we do not know the need of the nation, so far as numbers are concerned, nor the provision at present existing.
It is unnecessary to repeat arguments already used; I will simply emphasise the fact that a twopenny rate is altogether inadequate for the work to be done under the Bill. The educational authority ought to be able to erect secondary schools wherever they are required: it will have to subsidise a variety of secondary schools already in existence; it will have to found scholarships if the Bill is to be of any real service to the elementary schools. There is nothing in the Bill as to the fees to be charged. If the boys and girls of our elementary schools are to profit by secondary education, it must be by scholarships, and scholarships alone. That in itself cannot represent a very small sum to come out of the twopenny rate. Technical education requires all, or even more than, the whisky money. Then it will have to provide for all the higher grade work which has been carried on under the School Boards, and, in addition, there is the evening and continuation schools. If any hon. Member will contend that a twopenny rate is adequate for all those purposes, I should like him to sit down and divide the twopence into the respective portions. And yet there is not one of those matters which ought to be neglected in a system of secondary education. This is a very important branch of work, and I almost agree that secondary education is for the moment the pressing want with which the Government ought to have
1150
dealt. A friend of mine, who for many years was a prominent Member of this House, in an address recently delivered as Lord Rector of St. Andrew's University, made use of this expression—
"It is my opinion, as one who has watched this long, that it is not too much to say that commercial and trade decay lies before us unless we can pull ourselves together in this matter. We potter over night-schools and this or that piece of technical teaching; where our competitors are spending thousands of pounds we spend half a dozen pence."
That is put in emphatic language, but I believe it is the language of truth, and I am sure it represents the feeling of a large number of experienced commercial men in the country, as well as that of the most experienced educationist. I cannot but express surprise that the Government did not feel compelled, under present circumstances, to deal with this subject first. I can only understand their neglect to do so on the hypothesis that they had behind them the pressure which has been brought to bear on Members of Parliament in Resolutions of Convocation and Diocesan Boards, in which the destruction of School Boards and the obtaining of funds for clerical schools are the first objections Members are urged to set before them. Had the Government been content to deal with this question of secondary education, I am sure it would have been found a subject large enough for one session. Past experience ought to have told them that in meddling with primary education, and in attempting to destroy the School Boards, they were stirring up feelings of strife and passion in the place of that calm consideration which ought to prevail in regard to such a matter.
Had the Government dealt first with secondary education, we could, in a year or two, have come to the question of an organic connection between the various educational bodies. This is said to be a scheme for one authority. I am not sure that one authority is the absolute ideal for educational matters. I have had some experience in my own city of cooperation between Technical and Secondary Committees, and Elementary Committees, and the School Board. That co-operation has worked admirably and for the production of the best kind of education. Therefore, I would like to have seen an attempt made to deal with

1151
secondary education first, and then, when that had been established on a satisfactory basis, to have considered what organic connection there might be between secondary and elementary education. The argument used in favour of one authority is that it is impossible to draw the dividing line between elementary and secondary education. But that is exactly what this Bill attempts to do. It is the height of absurdity to call this a one-authority Bill. It has been shown that there is a multiplication of authorities. But, even conceding that one authority for all kinds of education is the best system. I say that you have in that work a field worthy of the highest ambition and service of any man or woman in the country. For myself, I have not departed from the principle of an ad hoc authority. I do not mind whether or not it is called a School Board. I have no particular reverence for School Board institutions, as such; but I do say that if you co-ordinate all branches of education—elementary, secondary, and technical—you have there a field of work large and grand enough to occupy the time of any one body elected to deal with it, and one noble enough to call forth the best efforts of our fellow citizens. I cannot sympathise with the view that educational experts would not seek election to such a body. What is there so superior in those who devote themselves to education that they should not submit themselves to the same ordeal as members of Town and County Councils, and even of this House itself? So far from it being a disadvantage, I think it would be a great advantage; it would do the professors of universities and other educational experts all the good in the world to go through the rough-and-tumble of an election, and to come in contact more with human nature in everyday life.
But I cannot find this one authority in the Bill. If it is there, what is the authority? We have the County Council and we have the Borough Council—nominally, but really nothing of the sort. The County Council elects its education authority in the form of a Committee; then you have beyond two sets of managers, and in non-county boroughs and urban districts a different authority altogether. The great drawback to these
1152
authorities is that they are removed from the ratepayer, and thus from their work. Having had some thirty years experience on a large School Board, I have seen the influence of the work upon those who had been engaged in it.
In the course of the last thirty years many of my fellow citizens have sought places upon that body, and it has been the delight of all true educationists to see how well the needs of the children have been provided for. Many of the members of the Board have profited by the experience, and as educationists have taken totally different views of educational matters than when they first went on. Touch with the ratepayers is a great advantage. If we are to have one authority, why should it be the County Council and the Borough Council? The President and the Vice-President of the Council—these heavenly twins—seem determined at the outset of their career to practically extinguish School Boards by looking for another local authority, and the reason for this seems to be that they could not take County Councillors from the work in which they were engaged. I do not think it is necessary to take them from that work, but, if the Government are so tender in regard to! County Councils, why not have a little sympathy with School Boards? The former have been in existence for thirteen years, and the latter for thirty years. Therefore, if they were not willing, and felt it too great a burden for Technical Committees to do this work, they might at least have had a little sympathy with those large School Boards, which, it is admitted on all hands, have done extremely good work. I believe that the whole ground of this change is to be found in the fact that the clerical party have not had sufficient control of the School Board work, and, therefore, it must be taken out of the hands of the School Boards altogether.
Why do I make this statement? I suppose I have had the same experience as other hon. Members in receiving many resolutions from Convocations and other diocesan institutions, and in comparing the resolutions of the two Houses of Convocation, I find that some of the paragraphs of this Bill are almost literally word for word the paragraphs sent in from the Convocation, and, therefore, I think I am justified in styling this Bill

1153
a clerical Bill. May I say, by the way, that in making these remarks, I am in no sense antagonistic to these bodies. There is no reason why I should be, because I have served for twenty-five years on the Borough Council, and I know what the disposition and capacity of a Borough Council is. I think I also know something of County Councils, and I am far from saying that there could not be found in these bodies, if educational work is deputed to them, men who could, it they would, make themselves capable of dealing with this question. But in regard to County Councils especially, it does seem to mo that to place upon a county like the one from which I come, extending over many miles, this authority, you must of necessity cut the County Council off from any contact with it. I heard one of the most eminent members of the County Council in my constituency say that in the course of the last thirteen years he had travelled 22,000 miles to attend the meetings of his County Council, and he said that it puzzled him to tell how many more thousands of miles he would have to travel if he had to attend to the work of elementary education as well.
And now with regard to this liberal outlay upon denominational schools. I am afraid that we are very often charged with antagonism to denominational schools as such. I say that that is not a just charge, for nothing would give us greater delight than to see these schools better financed, with the result that there would be better and more complete teaching apparatus in them. I look upon this Bill, however, as a substitution of rates for subscriptions, and I fear very much that all the teachers hope for from this Bill will not turn out to be realised because we have got the difficulty of the rates to deal with, and if it simply comes to be a substitution of rates for subscriptions then the income of the schools will not be increased in the way that it ought to be.
Why do I say this? Simply for two reasons. In the first place because I know that in a very large number of places School Boards have been kept out because of the fear of the rate. I have attended many country meetings where claims have been made for School Boards, and the one cry has been made
1154
that it would involve a very large rate, and that has been sufficient to keep the School Board out. I want to point out that every step towards efficiency in this Bill necessarily means an increase in the rates, and that, in my judgment, is one of the weak places in this Bill. The education authority has done something in the past to pay for the extra efficiency of the schools. What is the position today? With a difference of a shilling in the grant between a very bad school and a very good school, what motive is there for; efficiency? I remember the time when there was a motive, and when that motive appealed to a great many people who were not educationists. It is said that it will be cheaper to start these schools well, because the difference between a bad and a good school may be that there will be no grant at all, or it may be a high grant, and the difference between the two grants was at one time quite ten shillings per head. It might be a low motive, but there was the motive. There should be no motive but that of educational interest.
SIR JOHN GORST: Hear, hear!
MR. GEORGE WHITE: The right hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear," and yet many of us know that it is not so many years ago that he said that the individuals who will have the control of this education were the individuals who had had the least interest in education of any body of inhabitants in this country. Unless he gives them some more motive than is contained in this Bill, I say that there is not sufficient motive to make these schools efficient, and even the teachers themselves may suffer in point of salary. I could go into a number of details as to the impossibility, in my judgment, of a County Council going into all the matters affecting the salaries of teachers and other things of that kind which are absolutely necessary if you are not to have great waste. These are matters which those who are practically acquainted with School Boards know perfectly well mean a very great deal of time in the course of the year, and with many hundreds of teachers' salaries to supervise, how are the County Councils going to manage this work efficiently? It seems to me that the details of this work will be far too serious for them to undertake with any degree of efficiency.

1155
But the most serious part, in my opinion, is the provision made in the rate which I claim is unjust to the Nonconformist part of the community. This payment will be part of a payment which goes for the most dogmatic teaching to which millions of my fellow countrymen have a deep and a conscientious objection. I know that conscience has become in this House a matter of very little consequence indeed. [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"] At any rate the Nonconformist conscience and the religious conscience has been treated in this debate as a matter non-existent, and therefore I claim that in this House it has become a matter of very little consequence. I want to treat this matter as fairly as I can. It is said that this is not a parents' grievance. I have an intimate acquaintance with the rural districts in the country, and whilst this may not be so much a grievance in large towns, I know it is a parents' grievance in many of the villages with which I am acquainted. I am not going to detain the House with the details of this grievance. I know that there are, in many of our country districts broad minded clergymen who would disdain to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by these schools of making little Churchmen out of the Nonconformist children in those schools. I do not think, however, that I am committing any breach of charity when I say that there is a large and increasing number of those who think it their duty to lose no opportunity of impressing their dogmatic teaching upon any children who may come into their hands, and therefore I say that it is a parents' grievance which is felt most accutely by many thousands of people in this country. If the House passes the Bill in its present form I am sure hon. Members will realise later on that it is a grievance of the most serious kind.
It is the same question which was fought over in connection with the Bill of 1870. I was then a Member of the Birmingham Education League. In that position I had as my mentor the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, to whoso speeches on education I paid the greatest attention, and I probably owe to those speeches and to the Leaders of the Birmingham Education League a good many of the impressions upon education which have stayed with me ever since. "What principle did the Colonial Secretary
1156
and his right hon. colleague subscribe to in connection with that League? They declared—
"That no Amendment can be satisfactory in reference to the religions difficulty which does not provide that no creed, catechism, or tenet peculiar to any sect should he taught in schools under the management of School Boards or receiving grants from local rates."
That position, taken up thirty years ago, is the position on which we take our stand today, and it does seem to me a sad comment upon the action of the Government that thirty years should elapse in which, certainly, men's ideas have broadened, in which some degrees of religious liberty have been obtained, that we should still have to fight this battle over again in regard to education as it had to be fought in those days. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman, to his honour, at a meeting I attended backed his opinions with a cheque for £1,000 to take care that the opinions of the. League were thoroughly promulgated throughout the country. Therefore, we may take the measure of his success as due to the liberality with which he supported those opinions. It is no use to say now that sectarian passions have been let loose. They are the calm solid convictions of conscience that are not to be moved by any passing sentences of that kind. Those of us who take up this position do not do so because we are less enthusiastic educationists than those who differ from us, but because we feel that this Bill will revive the worst features of this contest and hinder the education of this country in a way which it has not been hindered in any other country on the face of the globe. The greatest surprise of my life is to find the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary having any part in a Bill such as that which is before this House. That the right hon. Gentleman, with his antecedents and his fierce hatred of clericalism, should be a party to this Bill, the effect of which I believe will be that in ten years it will put all the rural schools of this country under the control of one denominational body—that the right hon. Gentleman should be a party to a Bill of this sort is a phenomenon which I venture to say the political horizon of a century cannot match. Why do we fear the working of

1157
a clause of this kind? For the reason I which I have already stated. This week I have been asked to subscribe in the case of a school in a village where a new clergyman came in and introduced a new catechism. Some parents withdrew their children from the school in consequence of the introduction of that catechism. The head teacher, a consistent Churchwoman, went to see the parents to know the reason for the children being kept away. The clergyman charged her with going to persuade them to keep the children away, and more than half of the parents in the village have started a school to show their resentment of the treatment the teacher has received from the clergyman. I could give case after case of actions of this kind, and that is why we fear the action of the clergy in this matter. But unfortunately it is a feeling which is not confined to clergymen. A short time ago I was sitting on the bench in the city of Norwich, and I had as my chairman a gentleman who is an opponent of the School Board system. A juvenile delinquent was brought before the bench, and my friend turned to me and said I that these godless School Board schools produced many children of that class. I said to an officer who was in attendance at the court, "Do you happen to know what school this lad has attended?" He said: "St. Giles' Church school, all his life." I mention that incident to show the unwarranted prejudices that are formed by many Churchmen in regard to these schools, and it is this feeling unchecked which we fear will operate in regard to these clauses.
The right to have this payment from the rate is claimed on the ground that there should be provision for buildings. The First Lord of the Treasury alarmed the House, I suppose, by speaking of £26,000,000 as the sum that would be necessary to replace those buildings. Well, in the first place, I deny that they have any right to be replaced as a whole. A great many of them have had substantial grants from public funds. Those grants have been made to certain Trusts, and a great many of these schools are held in trust for educational purposes, and I hold that they cannot righteously be alienated from those purposes. To say that they
1158
must all be closed, and new one substituted, I do not think is a fair statement of the case, but, even if it were, putting aside the number of schools not wanted for the dual system which is done away with, is the amount so large as to frighten the House from making any great educational reform and from making a step forward? A grant of five shillings per head to the relief of rates would be sufficient, capitalised, to provide all those school buildings and to pay for them in the time the Local Government Board would grant loans without any additional charge whatever beyond that five or six shillings which has been given as a dole to those schools. It need not frighten the Government, and why should it frighten us?
I want, in conclusion, to ask why are the feelings of the Nonconformists aroused?—for I suppose that even the right hon. Gentleman will admit that they are aroused. For my part, having had a good deal of experience in public work for many years, I have never known any feeling to be so widespread and determined—and I say this simply with a disposition to make the facts known to many Members who might not be aware of them—as the resistance to this Bill. Two evenings this week I have addressed two meetings, attended by 5,000 people. In Portsmouth the Town Hall was crowded, and we had an object lesson of the clergy against the people. There were over 2,000 people present, and when the resolution was put the Chairman asked that those in favour of it should rise. The whole mass rose. The contrary proposition was put. The vicar of Portsmouth and the curate rose—and all honour to them for having the courage to stand up in the face of the people to show their opposition to the resolution. They were the only dissentients from that resolution. This does not arise from antagonism to the Church, but from the determination to stand no further encroachments upon what we believe to be the rights of conscience and religious equality. I believe the difficulty might have been met. I cannot see that it is beyond the wit of statesmen to devise some scheme which, without destroying the denominational schools, would have preserved the liberty of all with regard to these

1159
matters. It is said that we make no suggestion. Well, we have so much to do in defending our rights, and in attempting to hold that which we have got, that it is difficult to sit down calmly and make suggestions. This Bill is put on the Table with all the disabilities it lays upon us, and we are not asked for suggestions on it. There have been conferences in the North of England more than once where something very near an agreement has been come to on those religious questions. So near has that been, that I do not think it is impossible that an agreement can be come to; and I am sure that the line which this Bill takes is not the line upon which we are ever likely to come to an agreement. We decline to take payment from the rates for the teaching of our own tenets and beliefs, and we decline to pay a rate for the same thing. I know it is said that the denominationalists pay rates for teaching of which they do not approve. I cannot understand that position. Logically, of course, when you come to the Agnostic, or those who disbelieve the Bible altogether, it may be that there is a grievance to a small extent, but the simple truths of the Bible, read without note or comment in the board schools, and read in the most reverential way possible, cannot, in my opinion, outrage the judgment of a Churchman as teaching dogma, and it cannot outrage the conscience of the Nonconformist. There comes the difference between the two positions, and I hope before this Bill passes through Committee some suggestion may be offered which will hold out some mode of arrangement whereby, recognising as we do the work the denominational schools are doing at the present day and the necessity for it, they should have more funds at their disposal in order to be educationally efficient. I assure the House that we have no desire to stand in the way of any educational improvement that can be made in the régime of which I have spoken.
With regard to the position of teachers, I think educationists will acknowledge that the great difficulty of the arrangement of 1870 was that it provided for a great extension of
1160
education without making any adequate provision for the training of the teachers who were to superintend that education; and yet we have gone on for thirty years without in any way remedying that defect. There was no part of the speech of the First Lord that I listened to with greater interest than that which referred to the provision for the training of teachers. He admitted the disabilities under which the Nonconformists rested, in the rural districts especially, and he admitted the need for a more efficient teaching staff; and yet there is nothing whatever in the Bill, except any little fund that can be squeezed out of the twopenny rate, which makes any provision for the training of teachers at all. Surely this is a defect that cannot any longer go on. I was greatly surprised, I must say, to hear the assertion of the Vice-President that the disability of the Nonconformist parents to get their children into the teaching profession was a ghost which vanished when the statement was investigated. I have seen the right hon. Gentleman's ghosts come up clothed in flesh and blood, and I can assure him that this is a real grievance. Where are the provisions for the training of Nonconformist teachers? I know scores of villages where a small shopkeeper is a Nonconformist, and he desires to get a boy or girl into the teaching profession. The only opportunity he has is by sending the boy and girl to take up a permanent residence in, say, the city of Norwich, because in his village no child can be admitted as a pupil teacher who does not belong to the Church of England. It is a grievance which exists in thousands of villages in this country. [Sir JOHN GORST indicated dissent.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I tell him what I know. I could give him a string of cases which have been brought before mo in my own constituency of parents who rest under that disability. He says that you cannot make teachers by Act of Parliament. May I say that that is a sample of the sophistries which run through the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. We can make provision for teachers' training, free from those denominational tests which now exist in our colleges,

1161
and which we consider are one of the greatest scandals on the religious liberty of the country at the present moment. I say in reference to the colleges that do exist, and which take nine-tenths of their money from public funds, that it is an anachronism that practically half the nation should be excluded from them. I think the fairness of this House, if it realised what the position is, would be prepared to sweep it away at the earliest moment.
I thank the House for having listened to me so attentively. The subject of education is one on which I have spent many years of my life. I feel strongly upon it, representing, as I claim to do, the body of Nonconformists who have shown their interest in education by spending millions of money on school buildings, some of which are practically the same as the school buildings of the Church of England. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that if the education can be made efficient without interfering with their conscientious opinions in regard to religious teaching, I would be only too proud to lend them a hand.
MR. HKNRY HOBHOUSE: Acting on a strict regard to economy of time in debate, I shall address myself for only a very few minutes to a question which I think has not received sufficient attention in this House, viz., whether the County Councils, to whom these great powers are to be entrusted, are able and willing to exercise them. Up till yesterday there had been no opportunity for the County Councils to express their opinion on the matter. I think it, therefore, necessary to read to the House one of the resolutions passed by the County Councils Association at their annual meeting in the Guildhall, Westminster, yesterday. That resolution, which was passed by a majority of four or five to one set forth—
"That, without expressing any opinion on the controversial questions raised by the Education Bill, the proposals contained in that Bill to place the control of all education in administrative counties under local education authorities meet with the general approval of this Association; and that, as regards the administrative counties, the County Councils, acting through Committees as the educational authorities, are well qualified and prepared, if so requested by Parliament, to undertake the powers and duties imposed upon those authorities by the Bill."
1162
One parenthesis was added to that resolution on the suggestion of the President, Sir J. T. Hibbert, to which I wish to call the attention of the House, viz., that a majority of the Education Committee should be Members of the Council. That is a very important point, and I feel confident that the Bill will be amended in that direction before it passes through Committee. My contention is that that resolution shows not only the confidence of the County Council in their capacity for the duty imposed upon them by this Bill, but their willingness to undertake it. But another resolution was passed by the Association of County Councils in regard to finance. In its original form that resolution read—
"That part of the Bill in respect to technical and secondary education meets with the approval of this Association, so far as it renews to the County Councils their former powers, and allows them to raise a 2d. rate."
But that resolution was amended by the omission of the words, "And allows them to raise a 2d. rate."
This is a subject on which the County Councils feel strongly, and I must protest against the misapprehension in regard to it conveyed in the words of the right hon. Member for East Fife. The carrying of that Amendment yesterday by the County Councils Association does not show their unwillingness to raise any rate, but shows that they desire perfect freedom of rating. They do not, however, think that the expenditure for higher education should be levied exclusively on the county rate, but claim that assistance should be given from the Exchequer. In my own county, which is a very large agricultural I county, we have got a very well developed system of secondary education. We have founded a large number of scholarships, which have done much to improve the condition of the teachers, and we are maintaining no less than 160 evening continuation schools—all of which is strictly analogous to the duties proposed to be conferred by the Bill on the County Councils. I believe that when the Bill passes we shall have 400 or 500 day schools controlled—not managed—by the County Council; and I do not hesitate to say that the work will be efficiently performed. If that can be done in the county of Somerset, why should it not be done

1163
in any other county? In spite of several minor defects in the Bill, which can he remedied in Committee, I am prepared to support the Second Reading, because I believe that, in the present aspect of affairs, the Bill affords the only practical basis for better education in the country districts.
SIR JOSEPH LEESE: I mean to make a very short speech indeed, and qualify myself for the applause of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford. I want to explain why I will have to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. I consider that the Bill offends against the true principles of religious liberty—the principles of a free Church in a free State. It may be said that this is nothing new; that at present money is given to the voluntary schools, and that that violates the principles which I am advocating. But this Bill goes much further in that direction. Of course, everybody knows that the Bill will pass the Second Reading in spite of all that we can do; but I hope that those who desire efficient education for the nation will take care so to amend it in Committee that for the public money which is to be given the public will get a real quid pro quo.
MR. SPEAR: I will only detain the House for a few minutes; but as a Nonconformist, I must express my belief that this Bill is an honest and earnest attempt to deal with the question of education in a just and equitable way. I am not pre-pared to give a silent vote for the Second Reading, because I desire to point out some directions in which the Bill may be made more efficient, and capable at the same time of respecting the religious liberty of the people. I am not prepared to divorce religious from secular education in the schools. We must give up the idea of a uniform system of religious education. The right hon. Member for East Fife says that we have the voluntary schools, and that we must deal with them. Considering what these schools did for the cause of education prior to 1870, they have, of course, to be considered I am not one of those who desire to suppress them. As a Nonconformist I believe that the voluntary schools have a just claim to the careful consideration
1164
of Parliament, and it is because the Bill is based on that principle that I intend to vote for its Second Reading. At the same time, I wish to see certain precautions taken. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, in language which those who heard it will not easily forget, spoke of the sordid materialism of the present age. In that I heartily support him; but if the noble Lord had shown a little less determination to resist an adequate popular control in the management of voluntary schools, he would have done something to promote a good understanding between Churchmen and Nonconformists. I do not think that the provisions of the Bill are sufficient for that purpose. I think that we should have such popular control as would protect children who attend any school with which the Church is not connected: therefore the proportion of school managers to be appointed by the local educational authority should be at least one half. With regard to higher education, I think it is high time that our code of education was co-ordinated. I also hope that it will be made plain that the majority of members of the voluntary school Education Committees shall be not only appointed by the local authority, as provided in the Bill, but shall be themselves members of the local authority. We already have one Joint Committee of the County Councils which is practically independent of those bodies, and as a member of a County Council for many years I know what friction that results in, and therefore I think that the proportion of the voluntary school managers appointed by the local educational authority should be at least one half, and should consist of members of the local authority.
I think that a larger share of the cost of maintenance of education should come from the Imperial Exchequer than is now the case, and, though the Bill does not promise an increase of help from the Exchequer, yet I hope the Government will be able to promise us that when the finances of the country are a little easier they will give us an increased grant, and relieve the ratepayers of the extra burden that will be placed upon them by this Act. I am sorry to see the supersession of the School Boards. I have been a member of a School Board for thirty years, and know the

1165
good work they have done; but if we look at the matter in an impartial way we must see that it is impossible to have two rating authorities for the same area, and if we are to have this system throughout all areas, there cannot be two rating authorities. But I hope the Government will do something to insure popular control. While the Bill makes it possible for the County Councils to utilise members of Parish Committees on the local Committees, I hope it will be made clear in the Bill that half the members of the local Committees shall be parish and local members. I know that local people like to have a voice in selecting the men and women—because I hope women will not be excluded from the operation of this Bill—who will superintend the education of their children, and it follows that if the right hon. Gentleman accepts some such suggestion as that the local education Committee shall be selected in a fair proportion from these local representative bodies, he will overcome a lot of the opposition to this measure. This is desirable also from another point of view; for, although it is desirable that we should have some educational experts on these Committees, too many are not required. Although they are extremely good servants, they are very poor masters. At the same time, there should be sufficient to promote such progressive education as is desired.
I do not know that I should be justified in detaining the House any longer, but I know that Nonconformists are largely against this Bill, and I know that many Liberal Unionist Nonconformists, who have during the crisis through which this country has been passing supported the Unionist Party bravely in maintaining the integrity of the kingdom and promoting the welfare of the Empire, are somewhat alarmed by this Bill, but I feel that that alarm will be greatly reduced and overcome if the Government make it plain that the central educational body shall be truly representative. I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill without hesitation. It is said that it is going to be fatal to Nonconformity, but I do not believe a word of it. Nonconformity is based upon the principle of religious liberty, and I have too much confidence in the sense of our people to believe that it will have that effect. At the same
1166
time, having regard to the fact that so much money will be handed over, it is only just that we should have half the nomination of the members of the Committee of Management of the voluntary schools. I know that Church people are afraid that that might interfere with the distinctive rights of the Church, but I believe that Nonconformists will respect the rights of the Church under the circumstances, and we expect Churchmen to show the same spirit towards us. In order to dispel the fears and apprehensions that are felt on this subject, I am going to point out that the majority of the members of the Committee of Management of these schools now are Churchmen, and that at the present time Nonconformist children can attend Church schools without having their consciences tempted in any way. I will just say further that I do not think this will be a settlement of the whole question; but, so far from the rights of Nonconformists being interfered with, I believe that under this Bill they will enjoy greater liberty than they do at present, and that there will be less danger of intolerance in the future than there has been in the past.
MR. BRIGG, who was almost inaudible in the Gallery, was understood to say that the Amendment which had been put down in his name,† but which it was not now possible to move, was really a suggestion that had been made by the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, to which he had the honour to belong. It was a very efficient County Council, and they had taken the whole matter of this Bill into consideration, and had come to the conclusion that it was not desirable for County Councils to take in hand the elementary part of the education mentioned in this Bill. They were willing to take secondary education, but they felt that elementary education was quite beyond their province. The County Council of the West Biding of Yorkshire was a most important one, and was the
† The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member was :—"That no Bill will be satisfactory which provides that the County Councils of comities and horoughs of over. 10,000 inhabitants, and of urban authorities of over 20,000 inhabitants, shall have the option to deal with elementary education."

1167
first to take upon itself the duty of levying a rate upon the county for the purposes of technical education; and the opinion which had been come to by them had not been come to without due consideration. They had impressed upon him that he was not to accept Part III. of the Bill, for the reason that for the last three years they had expected to receive a Secondary Education Bill, instead of which they had been presented with this Bill, in which secondary education had been stultified and in which they found the least possible reference to it—and this in spite of the fact that for years the whole cry of the country had been that the secondary education of the country was inefficient, and a whole sheaf of Bills had been brought in to deal with it, every one of which had been ignored by this Bill. In the West Biding of Yorkshire there were 1,236 schools which would be thrown upon the hands of the County Council, in addition to the present educational work which they were doing; and, considering the fact that they had already undertaken technical and secondary educational work, they thought it was undesirable to take over the elementary education. He did not wish to say anything with regard to the abolition of the School Boards, except that the County Council of the West Biding had found no difficulty in working with them. It was his candid opinion that if this Bill had been framed upon the lines originally set before the country, giving better organisation to secondary education and leaving over the question of elementary education until the County Council or some other body had found their way to deal with it, the whole thing might have been brought into one great Act. The County Council insisted on getting good men. It was difficult to find men willing to give their time and energies to this matter. It was easy enough to find faddists, but they were not the men required. The great fault of this Bill was the want of co-ordination of the elementary and secondary schools. With regard to the present religious instruction in the Sunday schools, he would like to say—though perhaps the question of the Sunday schools was not one which presented itself to the mind of everybody—that the Sunday school scholars far exceeded in numbers the
1168
day school scholars, and, while the religious instruction given in board schools amounted to about two and a half hours a week, in the Sunday schools a larger number of scholars of a more advanced age received religious instruction for double the time which was given to it in the ordinary schools. He merely mentioned that fact to show there was no desire whatever on the part of the board schools to do away with religious teaching, but, on the contrary, they desired to encourage it in every possible way. The Bill on the whole seemed to have a tendency to level down instead of levelling up, and he was afraid that it would result in the deterioration of the education of the country.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Like the hon. Member for Accrington, I do not desire to detain the House for more than a few moments. I fancy that during the three days that this debate has occupied, practically all that could be said for and against the Bill has been said, and many of the speeches to which we have listened have been simply the reiteration of facts amply well stated by previous speakers. There is no doubt that the criticisms that have been made on this Bill inside this House have been much more moderate and temperate than these which have been made outside. It may be that the atmosphere of this House is calmer than that of the platform, but it is also possible that hon. Members now having had time to consider the Bill have come to the conclusion that this is a Bill which does not limit education as they thought. The main feature of the Bill is the single authority—one rating authority, and one educational authority. I believe it is the most valuable feature of the Bill, and it has been but little criticised in this House, which has practically accepted it. The second valuable feature of the Bill is the creation of the local administrative authority in the County Council. I believe the County Councils, who have already done such good work with technical education, are not only capable but even anxious to undertake the duties which will be thrust upon them by this Bill. Another feature of the Bill, not quite so apparent, but one which appeals to an agricultural Member, is the increase in the rates. I confess we shall

1169
have to face the disagreeable prospect of an increase in the rates, but surely a nation is not going to live on low rates alone. We must think of what other advantages will be brought about by this Bill, and, even though the rates be temporarily increased by it, if it brings about, as I believe it will, better education, I, as an agricultural Member who does not like high rates, will consider that we shall have done well for the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth said that the people in the country thought more of rates than education. That is a difficulty which I, as the chairman of a very rural School Board, have had to face. That is one of the difficulties which I believe will be removed by this Bill. I believe the County Council, by the office they undertake, will infuse a different spirit into the people as regards elementary education. I hope and believe that the secondary education in this country is sound, but I believe one of the drawbacks to its application is that the elementary education has been deficient, and that I hope will be remedied under this Bill. It has been claimed for this Bill a little prematurely, I think—that it can be looked upon as a final settlement of this question. I should be extremely sorry if it was a final settlement, and I believe, as time goes on, that additions to this Bill will be not only desirable but necessary. But I believe it is a stop in the right direction—a great and bold step, a step that educationists and others in the country have been asking for for some time. I am glad the Government has brought it forward, and I believe it will be supported not only by hon. Members on this side of the House, but also by hon. Members on the other, who would be sorry to see it rejected.
MR. YOXALL: I shall not, Sir, be able to compress my remarks in the short time left before the break, but I will be as brief as possible in the statement of the facts. The purport of this Bill is to unify and to improve education, both in the secondary and elementary branches; and I can well believe that the original framers of it kept that object very fully in view, and produced a Bill which, if the Government had dared to introduce it, would have served the purpose. But it does not need much knowledge of the subject to see that the original drafting
1170
of the Bill has been very largely departed from. Here and there a new line has been added, and here and there an old line has been erased, and the result is that we have a Bill that will not provide the education desired, and will not fulfil the purpose which it had in view. I will refer, in the first place, to the options. The Bill is very full of options—in fact, on every page and almost in every clause of the Bill there is an option, to be taken or left according to the will of somebody.
The option for the purpose of raising money for the purposes of higher education is a grave blot to begin with, and the option also of taking over elementary work. It ought not to be left to the option of local authorities as to whether secondary education should be taken up.
It being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate was suspended until the evening sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Adjourned debate on Amendment to Second Reading [5th day] continued.
  MR. YOXALL (resuming): It is possible to have too much of the permissive element, even in a Bill of this sort. I am for freedom and for variety in legislation, but not for licence. I am in favour neither of giving too much freedom in what is a national duty, nor stretching elasticity to the point of recoil. I am willing to confess that, from the point of view of the statesman and the politician, perhaps it might be the wiser course to leave this Bill to the option of the local authorities, under it, to take upon themselves—or not to take upon themselves—the duty of supervising, controlling, and financing the elementary schools within its area. There is much to be said for gradual growth and development, locality by locality, so long as the development takes place with justice to schools newly brought in, and with no injustice to those already there. There is some danger, if this option were removed, and compulsion placed instead, that localities might be unwilling to rate

  1171
  themselves for elementary education, might avoid it as far as possible, and might be even carried to the extent of diminishing the grants to the board schools now in existence. From the statesmanlike and political point of view, there is much to be said for this option clause, but from the educational point of view, there is little indeed to be said for it. I am afraid that, unless it is made compulsory upon local authorities, we shall have for many years to come in county areas and some borough areas, such as Preston, Bury, and Stockport, which have hitherto shirked the duty of providing by a board school rate for board school education, a standing still in regard to elementary education. I would urge upon the Government that option with regard to the taking over by local authorities of the powers and duties with respect to elementary education should be removed from the Bill, and a general system of compulsion adopted. I am aware that from another point of view there is something to be said for leaving option in the Bill. I have looked at it from the side of the local authority. But there is no option left for the managers of voluntary schools to refuse to come under the local authority, and the terms and conditions upon which local authorities take over the financial management and direction of the voluntary schools are consequently very wide, very vague, and very unsatisfactory. If the option had been mutual, the local authority and the managers of the voluntary schools might have come to terms, an arrangement might well have been arrived at. But when you compel the schools in the area to come under the control of the local authority, then you must lay down general terms, which in this case are too tender, towards what are supposed to be the interests and rights of voluntary school managers, but far less just to the interests and rights of the representatives. If this compulsion took place, I feel it should be accompanied by another condition, which in my opinion is vital to the success of the Bill.
  There are three conditions with respect to this Bill with regard to which I may say that unless an assurance can be given by the First Lord of the Treasury that they will be granted, the Bill ought not to be permitted to pass. The first condition
  1172
  is the removal of option with regard to primary education. The second is its concomitant, and is that there should be given to the local authorities for the purposes of easing the new expenditure which they will have to incur some considerable Exchequer grant in relief of local taxation. I am not in favour, generally speaking, of grant in aid of local taxation, but I do submit that on the present occasion there is a better case to be made out for a grant in aid than there has been in some other cases where it has been granted by this House and by this present Government. If the local authority takes over the duty of financing and maintaining the denominational schools within its area, it can only do so at considerable cost. Take the case of a county borough in which there are as many voluntary school places occupied as there are School Board places. At present it costs an 8d. rate to maintain the board school places, and if you knock off 3d. in the £ to represent the annual sinking fund, payment for loans obtained for building purposes, you leave the maintenance cost at a rate of 5d. If there are as many voluntary school places to be taken over as there are board school places maintained, another rate of 5d. in the £ will be required, supposing you are to bring the voluntary schools up to the same level as the board schools. That will make the rate 13d. in the £, and it is not credible, in my opinion, that in a borough which already pays an education rate of 8d. a further rate of 5d. will be struck solely for the benefit of the voluntary schools. There is nothing in the Bill to compel a local authority to rate itself for educational purposes up to a certain amount. Very probably the local authorities will not rate themselves above 2d. or 3d. in the £, and that 2d. or 3d. will not be sufficient to bring the voluntary schools up to the former School Board level. I may liken the voluntary schools to a gap, and the board schools to a hillock. What is more simple and obvious than to pare off the top of the hillock in order to fill up the gap? The voluntary schools are the gap, and the board schools the hillock, and the temptation, to which the local authorities will yield, will be to pare the board

  1173
  school hillock in order to fill up the voluntary school gap. The result will be that the board schools will be levelled down, unless an additional Exchequer grant is promised by the First Lord of the Treasury to ease the large amount of taxation which will be necessary under the Bill.
  All who wish well for education, whether in board or denominational schools, will see clearly the danger of a diminution of the expenditure upon board schools, and the lowering of the level of the board schools education, and they will feel that this is not a Bill that they can support. It is most important and most essential to improve the condition of the voluntary schools, but unless the option clause is removed, and the Exchequer grant given, I do not believe the condition of these schools will be improved. Not only will you fail to mend them, but you will damage, diminish, and disimprove the existing board schools, if that is true in the boroughs which I have taken as an example, where voluntary and board schools have in the past boon almost equal, so far as the number of schools is concerned, how much more true must it be in those boroughs where they have rated themselves for board school purposes hardly at all, and still how much more true in those large county areas, like Dorset, Hants, and the like, where practically none but voluntary schools are in existence? This is a vital question in the Bill. One wants to improve and assist the condition of the denominational schools, but that must not be done at the expense of the board schools. It has been the improvement of the board schools during the past thirty years which has set the pace and lifted the standard of elementary education. It has been by the best schools in a given locality that the inspector sent by the Board of Education has tested all the schools, and if anything is done in the Bill before the House which will lower that standard, education as a whole will be damaged. You will have a lower standard in the best schools, and you will lower the efficiency of the board schools. To my mind, it should be compulsory to take over the elementary schools in an area, and there should be an Exchequer grant for the purpose of meeting the additional expense of administering the area. This Exchequer grant is an essential feature of any proper scheme of educational
  1174
  reform. I regard it as so essential that without a promise of it I maintain that this Bill ought not to receive a Second Reading.
  But I go further. My third condition is that when the Bill gets into Committee, the House should have a free hand to deal with it. It would be to the interest of the Government to give the House and the Committee a free hand, and to my mind the House never appears to greater advantage than when in Committee on an important Bill, when suggestions are made from all quarters as to the way out of a difficulty, which, after consideration and communications, may be adopted by the Minister in charge. That is what I wish to see in the Committee stage of this Bill. Having regard to the length of the debates on the Bill of 1896, and that after eleven days debate the Bill hardly advanced a word, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will conclude that the most tactful way will be for him to announce tonight that when the Bill goes into Committee Members of the House, in view of their desire to make the best of the Bill, will have a free hand to deal with it in a businesslike way. In the past there have been Bills in regard to which the doctrine of verbal inspiration has been insisted on by the Front Bench, and Bills which have been forced through without alteration so as to avoid the Committee stage. I venture to predict that unless this Bill goes into Committee on the understanding that it is to be altered according to the wish of the House, it will not pass at all. Time is against it. It has been said in the course of the debate that speeches have been made which are not, properly speaking, Second Beading speeches, but which ought to have been delivered at the Committee stage. It is not so much a question of what this Bill is to do, as how it is going to do it. I think that practically everybody is agreed that an educational reform Bill is requisite, and that that Bill must depend upon the central principle of one and the same local authority for education. You cannot enact the principle of one and the same authority without also enacting that all schools in the locality, board and voluntary, high and elementary schools, shall be brought under the control and administration of the local authority. But there are several other points to consider. There is the question of the constitution of the local authority. That

  1175
  is vital. It is not vital to education in the future whether the local authority is the School Board or the County Council, but the thing that is vital about the local authority is that it shall be a local authority directly responsible to the people. The majority on it must consist of elected persons who derive their inspiration from the ratepayers and who owe an account of their stewardship to the ratepayers. It must be secured that the majority of the Members of the Education Committee shall be persons who are members of the local authority under the Bill. That is a most essential point that will have to be dealt with in Committee, and on it we ought to have a free hand. There is also the question of proportion on the Management Committees of voluntary schools. I have heard with satisfaction more than one speaker say that the proposal to give the rate paying interest only one third of the representation on the Voluntary Schools Committee is not sufficient: some suggest that the proportion should be as seven to one, but no one would be so unwise and unpractical as to insist on that. Suggestions have come from the other side that the representation should be equally divided; while, further, it has been urged that the elected representatives should form two thirds of the Committee. All this goes to show the desirability of giving the Committee a free hand in this matter if the Bill, when passed, is to work smoothly.
  With regard to the secondary schools under the Bill, the safeguards set up under the Technical Instruction Acts are left out. A much wider latitude is given to the local authorities. Under the Bill there is no conscience clause to be applied in these schools, If such a clause were an essential part of the compromise of 1870, then I think it is important that similar protection should be extended to those who attend these schools. There are still further points to be dealt with, like the treatment of teachers by the Committees of the schools and by the local authority. These and other things must be dealt with in Committee. Nobody wishes more than I do that this measure should succeed, and that we should establish a unified and
  1176
  effectual system of public education. I do not wish to exasperate theological opinion on the other side or to minimise such opinion as has been expressed on this side as well as outside the House, but there is a strong feeling outside that the Bill is going to be most unjust to all but the Members of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church; that it is to be a bad, unjust, tyrannical, and bigoted Bill. I hope on that point we shall receive some assurance that in the Committee stage the Government will make their real meaning clear. I do not believe that they are actuated by bigoted motives in bringing in this Bill, and there ore I hope that by their action in Committee they will mitigate this feeling. A question has been raised in the course of the debate with regard to the training colleges, the, great majority of which belong to the Church of England. It was asked why the Nonconformists do not establish more such colleges of their own. I will give the House the reason. These training colleges are few, but by their trust deeds, in purpose and in essence, they are undenominational. There is at Isleworth an undenominational training college for men. One-third of the students there are members of the Church of England. In no Church of England training college will there be found one-third, or even one-hundredth, of the students other than members of the Church of England. There is an undenominational training college for ladies at Stockwell, and at least one-fourth of the students are member's of the Church of England That is the principle of all these training colleges: no theological test is imposed. They stand high among the crack training colleges, and the best students among; the Queen's scholars seek to enter them. To multiply undenominational training colleges would not be to multiply places for Nonconformist students, therefore. This debate has occupied four days of Parliamentary time, and I will not longer, detain the House. I will simply express the hope that the three conditions I have laid down may be accepted. If they are, I believe the Bill will emerge a measure worthy to be adopted by the country, and efficacious for its purpose.
  MR. WARR: The hon. Member opposite has told us there is a danger, if this Bill is adopted, of the high level of education, which we all acknowledge is due largely to the efforts of the School Boards, being materially reduced in order to accommodate education to the standard which would then be necessitated by the great rise in the rates. I cannot express an opinion in regard to the rural districts, but in regard, at all events, to one of the large county boroughs, I can assure him that his fears are entirely without foundation. Liverpool—I believe in common with all the other great cities of the kingdom—is thoroughly aroused in this opinion, and is quite determined that there should be no lack of financial support to any really great educational measure such as this. If proof were wanted of this, I should rely on one circumstance, which I think the House will agree is sufficiently remarkable. Liverpool is now asking for a university of its own. The Corporation are promoting a Bill one of the objects of which is to enable them to support that university out of the rates. On three separate occasions that principle has been affirmed by a unanimous vote of the City Council. Does the hon. Member think that that spirit will lead to the starvation by the local educational authority of the secondary and elementary schools in the city?
  We are told that any benefit that might arise from a single authority will be more than outweighed by the disadvantages of the scheme. It is said we shall lose the benefits of the School Boards, and that the work will be entrusted to an already over-loaded authority. I think that under this Bill we shall have an authority which has all the advantages of the School Board and none of its disadvantages. I have never allowed myself to underrate the value of School Boards or the debt which we owe to them. I can hardly conceive what the state of things would have been in the great towns had we not had the School Boards. Nobody can doubt that the level of elementary education would have been much lower than it is today. I greatly appreciate, too, the services rendered on such School Boards by women, and I earnestly hope that under this Bill those benefits will be continued to the local educational authority.
  1178
  But we shall have none of the disadvantages attaching to School Boards. We shall no longer see such things as School Board elections in which claims are put forward on the part of candidates without any justification on the ground of educational qualifications whatever. We shall have a complete abolition of the system of a precept address to the City Council. I have been much alarmed as to the effect of the precept if it were longer continued. It has become so distasteful to the ratepayers that the next thing would be a recoil against the rate altogether, and, in consequence, a tendency to lower the standard of education. That is what I fear would happen if the School Board were continued without alteration.
  It is suggested that the City Council is not capable of undertaking this work of elementary education. By what they have done for secondary and technical education they have shown that they are thoroughly capable of undertaking it. I entertain no manner of doubt that if this Bill be passed, the standard of the City Council will be improved and heightened. If this great duty with regard to elementary education is entrusted to the City Councils, there will be attracted to those bodies men who hitherto have held aloof, because they were not prepared to stand the racket of a popular election. I hope we shall see the day when City Councils will think they are doing right in relieving some men from the necessity of going through such an election by choosing them straight off as aldermen, adding them to the Council on the understanding that they are representatives of education, that that is the work assigned to them, and that they are reasonably relieved from the duty of watching sanitary and other matters which come before the Council. Then it is said that the control will be inefficient. If so the Bill must be strengthened, and there must be more control. Personally, however, I fail to see that it is insufficient. The Bill gives the local authority absolute power to direct the secular instruction; it gives the fullest power of inspection; it requires the consent to the appointment of teachers; and it involves the nomination of one-third of the managers. I should be glad to see the teachers

  1179
  distinctly recognised as servants of the local authority, both appointed and dismissed by them. I should like to see the added members of the Committee under an obligation to report annually to the education authority. The voluntary schools have nothing to lose by control. They have nothing to fear from inspection unless their work is bad. The denominational character of the schools is settled by the trust deed. I remember very well that when the grant was first given to university colleges, the Chancellor of the Exchequer very properly required as a condition of the grant that there should be inspection by Government Inspectors. I know that at all events, in one University College there was a feeling that they were being treated as elementary schools, and it was somewhat resented. Nevertheless, the inspection went on; the work was found to be extremely good, and the inspection has ever since been welcomed. Inspection of good work will always be welcome. I notice there is an assumption on the part of critics of the principle of nominated members that these nominated members will be more or less the enemies of the rest of the managers. There is no reason whatever for managers fearing in the least that they will be associated with enemies who are appointed to watch over them.
  I assume that the optional character of the Bill will be altered. If the measure is to be worth anything in regard to secondary education the duty must be imposed upon an authority to make adequate provision for secondary education, and it would be a primary part of their duty in that respect to make provision for the training of teachers. I do not doubt that under the Bill the rates will go up. I regard that, not with disapproval, but with entire approval. I do not believe there will be any outcry against the rates if as a result of this Bill there is established a co-ordinated system which will put an end to all that now hinders education, and make it possible for everyone, however poor, to advance, step by step, to the university. If that is the result, as I believe it will be, of this Bill, it will prove to be a great and worthy measure, and one which may be heartily supported by everyone who truly values education.
  MR. CHARLES MORLEY: Our difficulty on this side of the House is that we have so many objections to the Bill that in stating our case we hardly know where to begin, and, having begun, we hardly know where to leave off. I want, however, to make one point clear—that we approach the consideration of this question not as members of an Opposition, pledged to oppose, not as members of this or that section of a political party, not even as Churchmen or Nonconformists, but as educationists and citizens who are profoundly impressed with the fact that our commercial supremacy, the material prosperity of the country, and, what is more important, the moral well-being of the people, are at stake, My main objection to the Bill is that while it professes to make provision for the education of the people, as a matter of fact it does nothing of the kind. Instead of promoting education, it will hinder and delay that efficiency which is so essential to our well-being as a nation.
  I have no desire to occupy the time of the House, and therefore will confine my remarks to one point. I object to the Bill because it is a direct and absolute negation of the principle of popular control by which I mean local representative control. The Bill proposes to destroy School Boards. I need say nothing as to the admirable work done by those bodies during the last thirty years; the House knows it well. In the picturesque language of my friend Mr. Birrell, the Bill places a knife in the hands of the Councils and invites them, by a bare majority of votes, to draw that knife across the throats of the School Boards, and, while doing that, practically leaves the managers of voluntary schools as they are. I know this is not the view held by the Colonial Secretary. In the letter in The Times on April 24th, the right hon. Gentleman claimed that this Bill gave complete control over the secular education in these schools to the local educational authority acting through an Education Committee, and he instanced several powers which the local educational authority could exert in regard to the voluntary schools Amongst those powers he mentioned the dismissal of teachers. This point has already been made, and it has not been

  1181
  contradicted; we therefore wish the country to understand that to say that this Bill gives the local educational authority power to secure the dismissal of teachers is not a true statement of the case.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is.
  MR. CHARLES MORLEY: It is not in the Bill. There is a clause dealing with the appointment of teachers, by which the local authority has a very limited right of veto. Their consent is not to be withheld except on educational grounds. But there is nothing in the Bill which reserves to them the power to dismiss a teacher. The Colonial Secretary does not stop there; he goes much farther. He states with regard to the managers of the voluntary schools that the local educational authority will secure on these Boards of Managers representatives of the ratepayers and of the parents of the children. I am anxious to avoid anything like misrepresentation, so I will read the words. The right hon. Gentleman is referring to a meeting of his constituents which he addressed in 1891; he is dealing with the question of the managers of voluntary schools, and in his letter he says that at the meeting I referred to he suggested that—
  "The utmost you could do now was to ask that they should be content to receive on their Committees of management some representatives of the ratepayers and the parents of the children. That object has been secured in the Bill."
  I suggest that that is neither the intention nor the desire of the Government. If it is I hope they will say so, because it is not contained in the Bill. There is not a single word compelling the local educational authority to place on the Committee of management of voluntary schools any representative of either the ratepayers or the parents of the children. So far as I remember, the parents of the children do not come into the Bill at all. As to the ratepayers, all that is reserved for them is the privilege of paying a heavy additional educational rate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen referred to a Royal Commission upon this subject which was appointed more than thirty years ago, and he reminded the House that that Commission declared that our only hope
  1182
  lay in the co-operation of the people. What has happened in our experience during the last thirty years has confirmed us in that belief. Hon. Members are aware that the voluntary school system was established about the year 1810, and that for sixty years it received a fair trial and proved to be a failure. There is no doubt about the fact that from 1810 to 1870 the control of education was almost entirely in the hands of the clergy. Since 1870 the control of education has been largely in the hands of the people, and it is within the recollection of the House that since the control of education was taken out of the hands of the clergy, and was taken by the people into their own hands, only since then has education made anything like satisfactory progress in this country. As to the origin of this Bill, no one has ventured to accuse the Government of being wild enthusiasts upon the subject of education. We have heard from the First Lord of the Treasury, and the Vice-President of the Council, a good deal about the co-ordination of education, that in this country we have no national system of education worthy of the name; that our system, as far as we have one, is chaos, and that it is our duty to reduce chaos to order. Recently pressure has been brought to bear upon the Government by their clerical supporters who control and mould their educational policy, and I believe that the whole aim of the educational policy of the Government for the last seven years has been to bolster up a deeming system, and to destroy the great principle of public control.
  What is the great need of the present day? I think it is agreed on all sides that the great need is a good and thorough system of secondary education. But this Bill docs nothing, or next to nothing, for secondary education. It is practically an elementary educational Bill, and though secondary education is the most pressing need, I assert that elementary education is the most important branch of the subject. In this country the whole question of elementary education has long ago resolved itself into a conflict of systems. For more than thirty years we have had a dual system of education, and

  1183
  what have we found it to be? We have found it to be both costly and inefficient, and the fact is that the Government recognise that this dual system cannot continue. I am not surprised that the Government desire to settle this question rather than to leave the settlement to those who will succeed them in office. This Bill is a determined effort to perpetuate the schools which are privately managed by killing the great principle of public control. I have no doubt that this Bill will pass the Second Reading, but I venture to remind hon. Members opposite that sometimes victory proves more costly than defeat, and believe the country will not be slow to condemn a Government which has betrayed the educational interests of the nation.
  MR. BOND: I should like to re-echo the wish which has been expressed that a more certain provision should be made in this Bill for securing the presence of a greater number of women on the Education Committees. No one who has served on a School Board and who has seen the excellent educational work which women have done can have any other feeling than that it is highly desirable that a certain number of women should form part of the body which will have to look after the interests of the girls and young women in our schools, for the new authority will have to employ female as well as male teachers. Having said that, I should like to say that I am one of those who agree to a great extent with the opinion which has fallen from some hon. Members on the other side of the House as well as upon this side, that the chief matter which requires our attention at the moment is the condition of our secondary schools, and I for one should have been very well content if the Government Bill had dealt with this subject only, had it not been for two considerations. Those two considerations seem to me to make it imperative that the Government should introduce some such Bill as that which we are now considering. The first of these considerations is that the Cockerton decision introduced a great deal of difficulty into the working of our School Board system, concurrently with the
  1184
  working of Technical Education and Technical Instruction Committees of the Borough Councils. I will not trouble the House with the history of this matter, but the practical effect was that a considerable and important part, at all events, of the instruction which was being given by the School Boards was pronounced to be illegal, and it became almost essential that it should be discontinued. And yet that illegal part of the work was recognised as being so important that there was a great reluctance to abandon it altogether because it would have caused a great deal of economic waste. Under these circumstances, seeing that there were two bodies, both of them drawing upon the rates and one of them empowered, though not in quite so adequate a fashion as under this Bill, to deal with secondary education, it seemed obvious that the only remedy was to place both the elementary and secondary education of the boroughs under the same authority.
  But there was another reason which, made it imperative to deal with the matter, and that was the poverty of the denominational schools throughout the country. A good deal has been said in this debate about the compromise arrived at when the Act of 1870 was passed. I think hon. Members have a little neglected to state the real condition of things which existed at the time that contract was entered into. Hon. Members do not seem to have laid sufficient stress upon the fact that the amount of money required at that time for the children in the elementary schools was very much less than that which is now required. The late Mr. Forster estimated that the School Board rate would be about 3d. in the pound. We know now how that limit has been exceeded, and this has been caused owing to the pressure of the Education Department and the growing desire on the part of the population as a whole for a more extended system of education and for greater efficiency in teachers. The cost of elementary education has gone up so much that the conditions of 1870 can hardly be regarded as binding in the year 1902. The plain reason for this is that the sacrifice which those who supported voluntary schools were then

  1185
  required to make are very much greater now, and they are far greater than it was ever anticipated they would be.
  The consequence is that the time has arrived when those who are paying School Board rates as well as finding money for the voluntary school can very well say that they cannot bear those burdens any longer, and I think we are entitled to demand that a larger share of the expense of schools which are necessary and desirable in the interests of the education of the country should be borne by those who have hitherto escaped any responsibility in the matter. That is the reason why we are asking that the rates should be called in aid of the revenue of voluntary schools, and the fact that that necessity exists, and that the voluntary schools throughout the country are clearly in a parlous condition is the reason why it is considered necessary, in any educational reform Bill, for the Government to do something in regard to elementary education as well as in regard to secondary education. I was glad to recognise in that powerful and lucid speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife favoured us with, that with his usual good sense and capacity for hitting the right nail on the; head, he recognised fully that elementary schools must be kept up and supported, and the only way in which they can be supported is by going upon the rates. But with the greater part of the right hon. Gentleman's criticism I find myself unable to agree. He suggested that this scheme would have the effect of inducing subscribers to voluntary schools to discontinue their subscriptions and to leave the support of those schools entirely to the rates. I have no doubt, that some such result as that will follow, but it docs not at all follow that the motive which has induced people to make this demand is an unworthy desire to escape from the subscriptions which they are now paying. Who are these people? In the rural districts these people who subscribe to voluntary schools are the large ratepayers of the district, and consequently what they save by discontinuing there subscriptions, they will lose in increased rates. I do not suppose that there is a single squire or parson or any large farmer who at present subscribes to
  1186
  voluntary schools who will not have to pay considerably more under the scheme before the House.
  With regard to the secondary education part of this scheme, for my part, I wish it contained more of the element of compulsion. I wish that in this Bill what is popularly known as the whiskey money had been definitely and permanently allocated to educational work instead of it being left to the discretion of the local authority to apply it cither to education or to the relief of the rates as it thought fit. It seems to me that a good many of the County Councils may be a little alarmed at the extra burden, in the shape of raising rates, which this Bill will undoubtedly throw upon them. The County Councils finding themselves compelled to raise money for elementary educational purposes, to an extent which would increase the county rate might be tempted to infringe a little upon the whiskey money, and apply it to the reduction of their rates, instead of keeping it for educational purposes. That temptation will certainly prevail in the case of those comparatively few public bodies which have not hitherto devoted any large part of the whiskey money to educational purposes. The London County Council in the first two years of the allocation of this money did not apply it to educational purposes, because they were then making inquiries and maturing schemes as to how the money would be best employed. They do not oven now spend the whole of that money for educational purposes. I have had figures placed before me this morning which show that if the London County Council had been compelled to set aside all the money they derived from this local taxation grant for educational purposes, and had not spent this money in the ten years that have elapsed since the money became available, they would have had in their hands at the present time no less a sum than, £1,100,000. The sum which they have actually spent out of the local taxation grant is therefore less by £1,100,000 than the sum they have received on account of the whisky money. What a tremendous advantage it would have been if in the present condition of education a sum of that kind had been available for educational purposes in London. What has happened in London has happened

  1187
  in other places, and in my judgment it is highly desirable that the Government should see their way to lay down, at all events, that the money derived from the source I have mentioned should be permanently allocated to educational purposes, leaving no discretion at all to apply it to the relief of the rates.
  I would go a step farther. There has always been a risk of a certain amount of friction between Technical Instruction Committees, which are composed of a large number of co-opted Members, and the Committee of the County Councils, and this has had a bad effect upon the progress of secondary education. The words "Technical Instruction" are calculated to mislead a great many people, and although by this time the definition of technical instruction has been so extended that the money can be spent upon almost any kind of education, that was not supposed to be the intention when the money was first granted; it was supposed to be the intention of Parliament that it should be devoted to improving the skill of the people in handicrafts. Under that system in many villages they found people going about endeavouring to find an audience for a lecturer. The efforts which have been made by many hon. Members on this side of the House have now brought about a much more satisfactory state of things, and I believe the money which is now at the disposal of the various counties for this purpose has been wisely spent upon improving education, and I should like to see this money placed at the disposal of the Education Committees straight away, instead of being placed in the first instance at the disposal of the Borough or County Councils. In my opinion this Bill does not directly do a very great deal towards altering the existing state of things. It is, however, a Bill which is full of promise, and contains the seeds of great things. If the feeling which I think now' prevails in this country with regard to the necessity of taking up secondary education in a serious spirit should grow and increase, and if the new Education Committees rise further and further to a higher sense of their great responsibilities, then I say that we have in
  1188
  this Bill the potentiality of an improvement in the educational system of this country far beyond the dreams of the most sanguine educational reformers.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: I cannot quite make I out what are the provisions of this Bill with regard to Wales. Apparently Wales has the option of retaining the present system of secondary education, but it does not appear in the Bill what is to become of the Welsh Central Board, or the local governing bodies. I do not think our county governing bodies, however good they have been in the past, would be able to carry out the extra work they would have to do under the new system of local government. I have no doubt we shall have an opportunity of discussing this matter more effectively in Committee, and I will not take up the time of the House now in dealing with them, but I am desirous of accentuating, if I may use the term, what fell from my hon. friend the Member for Oldham with regard to secondary education. I think the provisions with regard to secondary education are, without doubt, the weakest part of the Bill. The local Committees and the educational authority may do this, that or the other, or again they may do just nothing at all. I was very much impressed with, the words of a Churchman, who said, some years ago in Wales—
  He wondered how it was yon English did not envy the stream of higher educational influence flowing like running brooks by every cottage and farm through all the hills and valleys of Scotland and Wales, and try and emulate it.
  On the contrary, you do not appear to think at all of secondary education as a living influence and a power which ought to form a beneficent part of the actual life of the people. Your great English universities have been, and still are, to a large extent, the privilege of the upper and the professional classes. They are little known and hardly thought of in the homes of the people. Oxford and Cambridge are to the mass of country folks names without a shadow of influence on their social and domestic life. I cannot understand why it is that you do not embody in this Bill a good strong scheme of secondary education

  1189
  for the people. If you consider what I wonderful benefits the people of Scotland have derived, and are deriving, from the influences of higher education you cannot help feeling how much your ordinary English life is impoverished by the lack of those influences. It would be a very great advantage to the poorer classes of England if they could have the advantage of a good system of secondary education.
  MR. PURVIS: There has been a general desire on the other side of the House today to praise the School Board system, and I think I cannot do better than recall to the recollection of the House the fact that while School Boards are to be abolished by the Bill the board schools are not to be abolished. I say that the voluntary schools will still be at a disadvantage as compared with the board schools. It is true that so far as concerns secular education all are to be on a level, but as regards religious instruction undenominalism is still to be more favoured by the State, and denominalism is still to pay its footing or be left out in the cold. Hon. Gentlemen laugh at the use of the word "denominalism," but I think it a better word than "denominationalism" which I should class with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife described as "barbarous jargon," when referring to the words ad hoc. The board schools have now the rates and the taxes (in the shape of grants in aid) to meet all the expenses of religious as well as secular education from start to finish, while the voluntary schools have only grants in aid to help them in that behalf. The mainspring of the opposition to the Bill is not regard for national education. It came out strongly this afternoon that it was owing to ill-will towards the clergy. I am sorry to remind them of it, but it is impossible to understand the opposidtion unless you take this motive into consideration. By this Bill the voluntary schools are no longer to be penalised by being refused part of their expenditure for secular education as an atonement for the teaching of a religious creed. It is proposed that as regards both denominational and undenominational schools the cost of secular instruction is to be paid for out of the rates
  1190
  and taxes, and thus so far as that kind of instruction is concerned the balance between them is to be redressed and they are to be placed on equal terms. But when you come to the question of religious instruction a like equality is not to rule, and the balance will still incline in favour of the undenominational school. Religion without any form of creed is still to be paid for out of the rates, while religion with creed is still to be ransomed as before and paid for by those who wish it taught. How so? The buildings of two generations and the future expense of maintaining them are to be the price of manumission. Moreover, where a new school is required, and if a creed is to be taught the expenses must be paid for by those who wish the creed taught, for they must provide the new buildings and maintain them. On the other hand if undenominationalism is to hold sway in a new school the rates and taxes will have to bear the whole expenses of religious as well as secular education. How then comes all the stir as if some conspiracy were being hatched by the Bill, in favour of creed. The attitude of the opponents of the Bill reminds me of the story which is told of Sydney Smith. When Moore was having his portrait painted by Newton, the wit remarked to the artist—
  "Could you contrive to throw into the face a somewhat stronger expression of hostility to church establishment? "
  This Bill seems to have done what the painter might not do. It has brought into strong relief the unreasonable and preposterous nature of the agitation about religions difficulties which do not really exist. It is a fictitious agitation got up by disappointed politicians in search of a cry, and the truth when revealed by experience under the working of the Bill will be rightly appreciated by the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen said the only bodies who have blessed the Bill are the ecclesiastical organisations. I have in my pocket a letter from the Borough Council of my constituency which blesses the Bill save its adoptive clauses. The truth is just the converse of what the right hon. Gentleman says. The only bodies which have banned the Bill are the professional

  1191
  ecclesiastical organisations of the Nonconformists. It calls to mind what one reads of the Great Civil War :—
  "When pulpit, drum ecclesiastic
  Was beat with list, instead of stick."
  But that the people do not sympathise with this professional stirring-up of the mud of fanaticism may be judged of out of the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman himself. "I agree," he says, "with what was said the other day by the President of the National Union of Elementary Teachers when he said that he did not believe that English parents cared one atom about dogma." That is just it. Had he said they disliked dogma, it would be different. English parents do not make a song about it like the right hon. Gentleman and the platform agitators, for, as we say, this is a hocus pocus agitation against the Bill.
  Then it is said that the local Education Committee will be an anomaly as infringing the rule that representation should go hand in hand with taxation, and that Education ought to be committed to a body elected ad hoc, to use the current jargon. But the great spending spending departments of State are not elected by the people, but are amenable to Parliament, which is elected by the people. And vet Parliament is not elected ad hoc. The public departments have not a Parliament apiece to keep them to their duty. Nor is this all. If the children's good is to be considered the Committee will need to be selected with calmness and deliberation; but calmness and deliberation are not characteristics of a popular election. And as to an election ad hoc, the truth is that an assembly elected for a special purpose is apt to degenerate into a body of fanatics. Let the House consider how wearisome and unpractical is the grammarian, the phrenologist, the political or religious enthusiast, or indeed any possessed mortal, whose balance is lost by the exaggeration of a single topic. And it an ad hoc elected assembly are not all sufferers from this disease, many of them are also slaves to their constituents.
  A few months ago the London School Board gravely considered a proposal to teach the ancient Irish language at the public expense because a hundred Irishmen at Greenwich had asked for this. I suppose that even hon. Members
  1192
  from Ireland will at least admit that ancient Irish has no greater claims than Greek and Latin, or French and German, which are certainly not elementary education. And yet this monstrous proposal was rejected by only a majority of four. This showed that some of them were either harebrained enthusiasts or were frightened out of their senses by the thought of a section of their constituents, and as Parliament is not an assembly with one idea, so the County Council will not be an assembly dominated in that way. I am indebted to the House for allowing me to explain these two points in favour of this Bill, first that it is no conspiracy against undenominational religion, and secondly that it is not a violation of the principle that representation goes with taxation. I only add that I regret the optional part of the Bill, for I believe that it will not effectively help Elementary Education unless Part III. be made compulsory. I shall, however, vote for the Second Reading.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I congratulate the Government on having at least one thorough-going and unswerving admirer-, and I have no doubt, when we come to the Committee stage, that the hon. Gentleman will give every clause of the Bill what I suppose he will call more than a "denominal" support. At this period of the debate it is unnecessary to expatiate on what we are all agreed upon—the grave necessity that exists in this country for a review and reform of our system of education, in order that we may be sure that our countrymen of the future will be equipped fully to play that part we should wish them to play, not only in advancing the material prosperity of the nation, but in tie greater and nobler work of the moral and intellectual development of mankind. For my part, so strongly am I in favour of a great extension and improvement of education that I would say of the three most urgent public questions in this country this question of education is the paramount and most urgent of all. In this Bill we have the result of the deliberations of His Majesty's Government during many years. They have made several

  1193
  efforts before and tried several experiments—some of them not very successful, and in other cases they have passed measures covering a small part of the work—but now here is their final and complete conception of the wants of the country. But we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the Bill is something more. It is not only the Bill of the Government. It has another character, which gives its provisions a distinct tinge and flavour. It is a Bill which commends itself to and proceeds upon the lines indicated as essential and desirable by the Convocation of the Church of England. It is the Hill of the Church party and openly defended by them as such.
  The first outstanding feature of the case, on the surface of the matter, is this, that the proposals of the Bill are an abandonment of the compromise of 1870. That com promise has been since that time the foundation of the system of education in this country, It was a compromise to which the Churches themselves were parties. Let the House consider the gradual growth of the claims that have been put forward perhaps by the extreme clerical and ecclesiastical interest, but certainly by the ecclesiastical interest in this matter. It is they who have departed from the arrangement of 1870. It is they who have never loyally accented the arrangement of 1870, and who have always done their best to prevent its being successful. On that ground we are invited to throw it over and to submit to their pretensions. I do not think that in that I am at all overstating the case we have before us. Will the House allow me to go back for a few moments to 1870 and consider what were the circumstances of that time? The State, in this country, had lamentably failed in its duty with regard to education. It had failed to interest the people in education: it had failed to bring the children into the schools. When he introduced the Education Act of 1870, Mr. Forster said—
  "Only two-fifths of the children of the working classes between the ages of six and ten yens are on the register of the Government schools, and only one-third of those between the ages of ten and twelve. And, in consequence of this, between six and ten we have helped about 700,000, more or less, but we have left unhelped 1,000,000, while of those between ten and twelve we have helped 2,10,000, and we have left unhelped at least 500,000.'
  1194
  That was the condition of things at that time. Now, up to that moment it was the Churches and not the State that had done the duty in regard to education, and to her everlasting honour be it said, the Church of England especially had devoted the best energies of her sons and a largo part of her resources to this cause. When there was none to help, the Churches stepped in to fill the void. When the state of things described by Mr. Forster became apparent, and men's minds and consciences awoke to the lamentable condition of affairs, the necessity became evident that schools had to be provided, and the first steps were taken towards compelling the attendance of children at these schools. In fact a national system was demanded; and I venture to say, as was said then, that no system can be truly national which does not rest upon the interest, the co-operation, and the control of the people themselves. But then these independent Church schools were in existence and could not be ignored. Therefore it was agreed that so long as the voluntary schools were maintained in a state of efficiency by the contributions of their subscribers the State should assist them, and they should be allowed to continue alongside the new national, rate-supported schools. The friends of the voluntary schools accepted this arrangement. But what was the proposition at that time of the different sources of the revenue of these schools? The sources of revenue of those schools at that time were the fees, the Government grants, and the subscriptions of the supporters of the schools. Each of these supplied about one-third, roughly speaking. But what is the state of things now? Great changes have been introduced. There have been large building grants. When free education was established, compensation was given for the loss of the school pence to a far greater extent than the loss itself. Again, there was the aid grant to the I voluntary schools of 5s., and now from these and other causes the state of things is this, according to the most recent Returns that I have been able to find access to, the Government grants which then were one-third are now 77 per cent. in round figures; the subscriptions are 14 per cent., and other sources of revenue are 9 per cent. In that state of things we are still told that those schools are starved for

  1195
  funds, and that the teachers are underpaid; and there are loud complaints of the intorable strain upon the supporters of the schools. By this Bill the whole of the charge is taken over by the public. Therefore I say the bargain is over. The obligation that we were under to these schools has ceased. We become free to do as we like; and what are we to do? I say we should proceed to build upon the only basis upon which a truly national system can stand—namely, the basis of popular control
  The right hon. Gentleman has put before us who take a strong view of this subject a dilemma which he seems to think unavoidable—that either the denominational schools must eat up the School Board or the School Board must eat up the denominational schools. I do not admit his dilemma, because something far short of the full-grown School Board organisation might be adequate for the purpose of public control in the denominational schools. I must go further. It is not a mere question of voluntary schools. Those schools are not only voluntary schools, but they are sectarian schools. They are intended to be ancillary to the Church. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, in a speech which not only was elevated in tone but elevating in tone, and to whose excellence I bear a willing, because an admiring testimony, avowed that the schools were meant to be ancillary to the Church. The noble Lord dealt with the question of conscience, including the attitude of Nonconformists, in a manner which must have attracted the sympathy and respect of all who heard him. He dealt with the question of the scruples of conscience and the attitude of Nonconformists in a sympathetic manner. For, after all, do not let us fall into the error that our people are to be divided between Churchmen and Nonconformists. There are many people who are neither the one nor the other. The noble Lord dealt with that question in a reverent manner; and I could not but contrast the spirit shown by him with the spirit in which the Vice-President of the Council dealt with the same difficulty. The Vice-President of the Council considers conscience to be nothing but a nuisance.
  SIR JOHN GORST: No.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Some one has said that vulgarity means the manners of other people. According to the Vice-President the conscientious scruples of other people mean religious animosity.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I never said anything of the sort.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman thought that he had disposed of this question of the religious conscientious scruples of many of his fellow-countrymen by saying that religious animosity cannot be disposed of by legislation. He reads conscience as meaning religious animosity.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I never said anything of the sort.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Whatever may have been the right hon. Gentleman's meaning, that was what his words conveyed.
  SIR JOHN GORST: Quote my words.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The words to which I refer are those in which the right hon. Gentleman said that religious animosity cannot be removed by legislation. That was the way in which he disposed of the whole of this religious difficulty.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I said nothing of the sort. It is a gross misrepresentation.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Did the right hon. Gentleman not use the words that I have quoted, that religious animosity cannot be disposed of——
  SIR JOHN GORST: That was not all that I said.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did not say that it was all that the

  1197
  right hon. Gentleman said. That was the right hon. Gentleman's way of dealing with the matter.
  SIR JOHN GORST: No, it was not.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: It was part of his way of dealing with it. It was a large part of the right hon. Gentleman's way of dealing with it. This is too serious a matter to be dealt with by a gibe or a sneer. The religious difficulty is not to be put away in that manner. There is, in the first place, the great question—which has been admitted as a grievance by several hon. Members on the other side of the House—of shutting from the whole career of teaching a large part of those who are eligible and anxious to take part in it. There is no provision in this Bill that I have discovered to mitigate in any way that state of things. Let us look the matter in the face. There can be no doubt that, on the part of a large portion of the people of this country there is a fear of these schools being used, not consciously, for proselytising purposes. I do not know what other interpretation we can put, although he does not realise it, upon the words used by the noble Lord when he spoke of the two doors. The noble Lord said that there ought to be one door for the admission of the child and another door leading into the Church. [An Hon. MEMBER—"Or chapel."] Oh yes, I am quite willing to add that. I do not know that there is much distinction between the two. What is to be condemned in the proceedings with regard to one is equally to be condemned with regard to the other. But what we say is that if a child goes into a school he should go in through the open door, and he should come out into the open street and then enter any church that his conscience or his inclination or his conviction may lead him to go in. He ought not to be beguiled, induced, or coaxed to enter another, even if it can be shown that no unfair thing is done to any child in these schools. Yet it is quite enough to condemn the system if there is a danger of its being done.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: What is the danger?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The danger is of proselytising, against the beliefs of the parents.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman excuse me? I think it a great scandal that in any school supported by public money anyone should be proselytised against the belief of their parents; but I think it is of the highest possible importance that everyone should be made to believe as far as possible the belief of their parents.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That would not be proselytising. My hon. friend the Member for East Mayo suggested that there should be a kind of concordat of the Protestant Churches. He did not see why the different Protestant denominations should not combine to erect some sort of a standard of instruction which would be approved by all. I rather agree with my hon. friend, although I do not think that such a solution would be entirely satisfactory. I would be prepared to take a stronger line myself, but let me quote a few words which show, I think, better than anything I could say what might be the ideal, because they explain what is the ideal in certain classes of schools. The words are these :
  "Above all things education ought not to be made subservient to the propagation of the peculiar tenets of any sect beyond its own number. It then becomes undue influence, like the strong attacking the weak. And yet reverence for the sacred name of God, detestation of vice and love of veracity, due attention to the duties towards parents and the relations of society, carefulness to avoid bad company, civility without flattery, and a peaceable demeanour may be calculated in any seminary for youth without violating the sanctuary of private religious opinion in any mind."
  That is the general principle which I think ought to be applied to a national system of education, and I entirely differ therefore from the views expressed by the noble lord, though I fully appreciate the generous and considerate tone which he adopted. Well, Sir, these schools are to be riveted on our system, and side by side with them are the board schools, growing, ambitious, and successful. And why are they successful? Because the breath of popular feeling is

  1199
  playing upon them. And if you wish to make your denominational schools equally successful the way to do that is to introduce the same breath of popular feeling. But these may be destroyed under the Bill, because they are too successful. The Vice-President—I am afraid to quote him, because he is so very evasive and illusive; he is so difficult to catch, I mean—the Vice-President gave one or two reasons why School Boards might with advantage be put an end to. One was that their schools sometimes are too large. If that is the case, where has the right hon. Gentleman been? For the last seven or eight years he has been a fixture in the Board of Education, with the assistance during all that time of his noble friend, whom he finds such a convenient dux exmachina, whenever he has an unpopular proposal to make. Why have they not stopped the Schools Boards from forming too large schools? But then, again, they have been overlapping. Overlapping is a very bad thing, no doubt, and it may load to some administrative confusion, but I confess I would rather have overlapping than shortcoming. I would rather have excrescences than gaps in the educational system. But the Vice-President has himself been one of the most prominent encouragers of the School Boards in this very process of overlapping. I have a perfect sheaf of quotations that I could give from the right hon. Gentleman and his noble friend, in laudation of School Boards for this very action of theirs. I have only brought one or two. This is not the Vice-President of the Council—it is Sir George Kekewich, who is the alter ego and bosom friend of the Vice-President. Sir George Kekewich, in opening a new higher grade school, erected by the School Board of Bolton in 1897, congratulated the School Board, and said—
  "That these advanced schools had now become not a mere luxury, but an absolute necessity. "
  On another occasion, at Sheffield, after the inevitable reference to the ladder of education, he said—
  "It was wonderful how Sheffield and other Boards threw themselves into the breach, and established schools of that character. That action had been of incalculable benefit to the
  1200
  people of the country, and be did not know that a single soul was a penny the worse. In his opinion, it was an excellent action."
  But here is the right hon. Gentleman himself, who, in the Queen's Hall, remarked that—
  "The School Boards of England had sixty science schools, besides eighty science classes, and it would be madness to destroy or damage, them, or to take them out of the handset those who established them."
  The right hon. Gentleman has been going about the country laying foundation stones, and binding laurels about the brows of Chairmen of School Boards.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I did not lay the stones. Sir George Kekewich does that.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: And now he turns upon them, and says they have been guilty of the grievous offence of overlapping. I wish now to ask the right hon. Gentleman a very-plain question, to relieve my mind, because I should be slow to believe that the information I have received is quite correct. I am told that when the original objection was taken before the auditor in April, 1899, the terrible Mr. Cockerton said that he had proceeded upon a statement of Sir John Gorst's that these things were illegal. This cannot be true.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I never made the statement.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand, then, that it is not true that Mr. Cockerton acted in the way that he did upon either the suggestion or the opinion of the Vice-President. I am very glad to hear it, it was so entirely inconsistent with the rest of his conduct. Well, this is to be the fate of the School Boards, which, by the confession of every one, have been doing such admirable work—they are to be left at the mercy and to die at the will of the County Councils and the Borough Councils. What is to be the fate of the voluntary schools? They are to be maintained by the ratepayers, who will take the place

  1201
  of the subscribers. I do not know what answer there can be to the argument of my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth, and if the expenses of the parish schools are to be defrayed out of the county rates what reason is there why any one should subscribe. Even if the matter were kept separate, parish by parish, there might be an inducement to subscribe in order to keep down the rates, but if it is a county matter, what inducement is there. Therefore, the result will be that the new rate will be charged on the small farmer and the village shopkeeper, who will regard it—and they will not be very far wrong—in the light of a payment which they are to make in relief of their wealthier neighbours who hitherto have subscribed to these voluntary schools. I do not know what answer there is to that argument. And then, not more than one-third is to be added to the acting board of management as representing the general interest. And by whom are they to be added? By the local authority appointed by the County Council of which they will not necessarily be members. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich—he will forgive me for referring so much to him, but being unable to be present during a great part of the debate from causes which are obvious to the House, I had the advantage of hearing his speech, and, therefore, it has dwelt in my mind—regards this as true democracy. Direct election, he holds, is retrograde and reactionary. He prefers secondary election to primary. He would fall into a perfect rapture, I suppose, if he could discover a mode of tertiary representation. Now that I think of it, this is tertiary election, because the first is the county vote of the members of the County Council. Then the members of the County Council elect or appoint, not one of their colleagues, but somebody else, to the Education Committee; and then that Education Committee, in the third place, elect or appoint somebody who is to serve on the management. So that we get into the third degree removed from the ratepayers. I do not know whether the noble Lord would prefer a fifth or a sixth degree, but we get a long way from the ballot box when we arrive at this
  1202
  exclusion of the ratepayer from all proper voice in the management of the money to which he contributes. The thing is condemned by the mere statement of it.
  But there is a further point to which I would venture to call the attention of the House, if I am not trespassing too long on its time. It has been referred to by my hon. friend the Member for Berwick, and I think it is deserving of attention. It is this. Besides this question of financial control our object is to interest the ratepayers and the inhabitants, to give them some say in some of our popular institutions, and what popular institution is more likely for the purpose than the School Boards? The Church is an exclusive affair managed over their heads. The school hitherto has been the same. Let the villager have some say, all the more as he is the parent perhaps of children—give him something to interest him beyond the dull daily round of his monotonous life. Unless you popularise education—that is what I wish to impress on the House—and interest the people in it, the best of schemes and the best of machinery will fail. I am tempted here to quote a little incident which happened about thirty years ago, and is recorded in a Blue-book relating to education. At that time there was a great inquiry into education in England, and commissioners and sub-commissoners were sent down to Scotland to inquire into the state of things there. There is a popular belief, I think even in this country that my countrymen in Scotland, the ordinary peasantry, have a more highly - instructed and developed intelligence than most of the inhabitants of England. Being a modest Scotchman, I will not say so on my own account, but I believe it is the general opinion, and if it be so, I could give many good reasons which conduce to it, one being this very question of education. This is the incident I wish to relate to the House. One of the sub-commissioners who went down to Scotland recounts in the most pleasant way a conversation he had with a woman in a mining village, the wife of a working man. He asked her about her life, her family, and the wages of her husband, and he said. "Is it not very dull here?"—"Oh, rather dull." "What

  1203
  do you do in the long winter evenings?"—"Oh, indeed, Sir "—I will not quote the Doric lest it should not he apprehended of all—"we have no time to ourselves, because when our work is done we listen to the children's lessons." There was a case of a hard-working man and woman who actually were in the habit of devoting the little leisure they had at the end of the evening to preparing the children for school next day. It is your business to induce your peasants to take that view of education and the battle is won. I refrain from entering upon the administrative machinery of this Bill, for that has been dissected and examined and exposed by my right hon. friend who moved the Amendment and by others. It seems to us, at any rate, to give neither unity, nor co-ordination, nor decentralisation, although these are the very objects it professes to attain. I have dwelt rather on the technical aspects of the question and I have stated objections to the proposals in this Bill, which are strong enough to make me vote heartily for its rejection.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by informing us that of the three most pressing questions which call for legislative effort on the part of this House, the question of education was the most pressing. I confess I never should have guessed it from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with the utmost attention, and I have not at this moment the smallest conception of the direction in which he looks for the solution of this the most pressing of all questions, upon which this House should be called to legislate. I understand he objects to voluntary schools and I understand that he has a great desire for the preservation of School Boards. Well, Sir, there may be objections to voluntary schools and there may be merits in School Boards, but does any human being suppose that by a criticism of that kind you are going to found constructive legislation, or that anything is to be gained in the discussion of a great measure—it may be a good or a bad measure, but, at all events, it is a great measure—by anecdotes of our Scottish peasantry, and, if I may use the word without offence, by commonplaces
  1204
  about the popular interest in education, from which no man in this House differs and from which no man in this House can be expected to derive the smallest enlightenment? The exigencies of time will oblige me—and I dare say the House will receive the announcement with relief—to compress such observations as I have to make into a period a good deal less than half as long as the longer speeches that have been delivered in the course of this debate; and though it is formally and technically my duty to survey and summarise the four days' debate, everybody will admit that in thirty-five minutes that task is not to be accomplished, even by a speaker who is most anxious to compress his remarks. If therefore I hurry quickly over such points as I deal with, the House will understand that it is not out of want of respect for them.
  Before I come to the strictly educational portion of my remarks, let me say something about the topic dealt with by my hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Chelmsford Division two nights ago—the question of rates. My hon. and gallant friend objects to this Bill because, he says, it will increase the rates; and he finds-allies apparently in the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, who devoted a large part of his speech to that topic, and in other Gentlemen on that side, of the House, who have endeavoured to discredit the Bill by explaining that whatever other effect it may produce an increase in the burdens of the local ratepayers. I would warn my hon. and gallant friend not to put too much trust in the allies who have come on this occasion to his assistance; because, if I may divide the criticism of those allies into two halves, I would say that the first half consists in saying that the Bill by its limitations embarrasses the County Councils in dealing with secondary education, and in the second place they express, I do not think explicitly, but quite unmistakably, their desire to see the extinction of voluntary schools. These are two great themes on which hon. Gentlemen opposite are as much agreed as they may be expected to be upon anything, and I would point out that my hon. and gallant friend

  1205
  has little to hope for from allies who think that we have greatly underrated the cost of secondary education, and that we ought to have put unlimited resources into the hands of the secondary education authority, and that we ought to have made the duty of providing that education in unstinted measure a statutory obligation. And if my hon. and gallant friend has not much to hope for from those allies on that ground, still less has he to hope from them when we remember that their policy is to destroy voluntary schools, which, whatever else may be said about them, will, at all events, have this certain and indubitable result, that it must end in a greatly increased charge to the local ratepayers. I would point out to my hon. and gallant friend that whatever he may think of the Government in this respect, they are, at all events, much better than the Opposition.
  I have only one further remark to make on the subject of local taxation. I will not say a demand, but a suggestion has been made from many quarters that if there be a new charge thrown on the rates—if education is to cost more under this Bill—an additional charge should be thrown on the Exchequer. Our view is that the local charge for education should be a municipal charge. We also think that municipal charges—the burden of local taxation—urgently require revision. In that revision, of course, the charge for education will be included. But we see no justification for separating it from the other charges; and while the ratepayers will benefit from any reform in the rating laws in respect to the rate for education we see no ground for making that benefit touch the cost of education rather than any of the other great charges we throw upon our county and borough municipalities.
  I leave the question of rating, and I will briefly touch on the more strictly educational aspect of the scheme. I think it will be admitted that any suggestions which have been made of a constructive character on the other side of the House have been of a most crude and imperfect description. One school of thought on the other side says that we ought to have an ad hoc authority, a special education authority dealing with the whole area of education from top to
  1206
  bottom, including technical education secondary schools, primary schools, and the borderland between primary and secondary education. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell opposite and my hon. friend the Member for Newcastle on this side—who has not had the opportunity of speaking in this debate—hold that view. I do not know that any other Members have advocated it. Hut it really is an impracticable suggestion.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I said that the School Board was the proper authority for elementary education, and the County Council and the School Board should form a joint committee for higher education. It was the Vice-President of the Council that I quoted as having said at Bradford that the School Board should be made the one authority for all education.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought the hon. Gentleman was a single authority on it, but by his own account he wants a triple authority.
  DR. MACNAMARA: A Joint Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: School Boards dealing with elementary education, and a joint committee dealing with secondary education.
  DR. MACNAMARA: In county boroughs.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is too late now to develop the argument, but the whole scheme is wholly impracticable. I believe that if we were to introduce it we should be laughed out of Court on the First Reading. It is one of those plans which is thought good enough to be thrown at a Government which has a scheme, but which no responsible Government would think of introducing themselves. Even those on the other side—if there be such—who after reflection consider that this particular framework

  1207
  of education is applicable to big towns, do not admit that it is applicable to small boroughs; and not one of them will admit that it is applicable to the counties. As to the county problem, I have not heard one adumbration of a practical scheme for setting it thrown out by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have abused the voluntary schools. They have abused the County School Boards. They have abused the particular plan of the Government for putting the voluntary schools and the School Board districts under the County Council. But as for a plan of their own they have not ventured to give us a sketch of one; and, if the county problem is the most difficult and the most pressing for a solution, I should have thought there would be some genius on the other side to formulate some alternative plan for the Government which would have some semblance at least of practicability and plausibility. I believe no such scheme is possible unless yon mean to abolish the voluntary schools and to make School Boards universal in the county districts, which nobody desires, which nobody has the courage to say he desires; and I am utterly at a Joss to understand what is the alternative plan which hon. Gentlemen opposite would propose were they in a position of having to suggest constructive legislation on this subject. On the question of primary education two or three questions have been asked. We have been told that there is no popular control of these schools. At all events let it be distinctly understood that there is absolute control by the County Council. If you choose to say there is no popular control I will not quarrel about words. In my opinion it is popular control At all events, it does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members opposite to say it is an improper kind of control, for it is the exact form of control for secondary education suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen and the Commission over which he presided.
  MR. BRYCE: That Commission dealt with secondary education only.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, secondary education. Is secondary education to be
  1208
  under aristocratic control and primary education under democratic control? Is that the theory?
  MR. BRYCE: No; but the problems are entirely different.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not in the least deny that the problems are different; but I think they are closely and intimately connected and cannot be divorced without infinite loss both to primary and secondary education. But are we to understand that the people are to be divorced from the management of both primary and secondary education? [Mr. BRYCE: No.] Then the people are not divorced from secondary education under the plan of the right hon. Gentleman, and the kind of control we are devising for elementary schools, therefore, is popular control
  MR. BRYCE: The scheme of the Bill is different.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The scheme of the Bill may be different. The difference I principally remember is that the County Council in the right hon. Gentleman's scheme were only allowed to appoint one-third.
  MR. BRYCE: That is not so.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In what I say I am correct.
  MR. BRYCE: I do not wish to take up the time which the right hon. Gentleman has for addressing the House. There are only twenty minutes left; but I wish to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he has not stated the recommendation correctly.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Will you tell me what it is?
  MR. BRYCE: It would take a long time to state it fully; but the right hon. Gentleman is confounding the proposals which the Commission made for secondary education in boroughs with what they made for the secondary authorities in counties.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, I will not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman, for it is wholly immaterial to my argument. He admits that in boroughs I am not inaccurately representing him.
  MR. BRYCE: No, I do not admit that. The right hon. Gentleman obliges me to say what was the plan of the Commission in boroughs. In boroughs two-thirds were to consist of, or be appointed by, bodies directly elected by the people—viz., the School Board and the Borough Council. The School Board was to nominate one-third and the Borough Council another third of the local Secondary Education Authority.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That makes four-thirds altogether. From my point of view it is a matter of detail. The right hon. Gentleman, in his most contradictious humour, will not deny that secondary education on his plan was to be managed by a Committee?
  MR. BRYCE: Certainly.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And he says that that is consistent with popular control. That is all I ask. So long as it is admitted that management by a Committee is popular control, then I say that the primary schools of the whole country under our Bill are put under popular control, and that by the admission of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Secular education is to be settled by them, and the appointment of the teacher is to have their approval, and let me say the teacher can be dismissed by them if he fails in carrying out his secular work. A great deal has been said on that subject, and it has been denied that the
  1210
  Bill will have that effect. [An HON. MEMBER: It is not in the Bill.] We think it is in the Bill. But if it is not in the Bill, it can easily be put in the Bill. It is the publicly avowed policy of the Government, and any dispute about it is not a dispute about the Second Reading. It is dispute about drafting. The only remark I shall make upon the constitution of the Committee concerns the great deal that has been said as to there being no provision making the Committee contain a majority of Councillors. In my opinion, there is a great deal to be said for that plan. Let nobody suppose that is an essential part of the scheme. It was not part of the scheme that we brought forward last year on secondary education. The thing is arguable, and, while I am inclined to think the plan in the Bill is the most convenient from an educational point of view, it is a matter which the House will decide. It is not in any sense a fundamental part of our scheme, and if the general view be that the interests of the local authority and of education would be better served by having the majority of the Committee formed out of the Council, the Government will not oppose that view with any obstinate resistance if it be clearly shown to be the view of the House.
  On secondary education I have only two things to say. We have been accused with having brought forward a Bill which throws no duty on the local authority, and which does not ensure any great scheme of secondary education being carried out. It is true that we have been most careful not to bind this authority instantly to produce a great scheme of secondary education for their area, which they are not yet in a position to do with benefit either to the ratepayer or to those who are to enjoy the education. We feel that we may trust confidently to the public spirit of those bodies to whom we have given ample powers. We see what they have done under the Technical Instruction Act. We know that the spirit which has animated them since 1889 animates them still, and we agree with the very wise words introduced by the right hon. Gentleman in his report on secondary education, in which he said that a great deal more was to be got out of our great local authorities by leading them instead of by driving them. That sentiment the right hon. Gentleman still

  1211
  adheres to, and it has animated us in framing the Bill, and I am convinced in so framing it we have been following a wise and statesmanlike policy. Now, I would ask anyone who has listened to this debate whether, if the educational objections to this Bill had been the only objections present, there would have been a division on the Second Reading? I am perfectly certain that there would not. I have admired the ingenuity of those on the other side who claim with justice to be interested in education in finding reasons for voting against the Second Reading. These reasons have been ingenious, but they have not been very powerful; and I am pretty certain that if educational interests alone were at stake, it would not be opposed in the Second Reading. Why is it opposed? The Bill is opposed principally on account of the religious difficulty. It is a political force wielded by Nonconformist bodies who are opposed to the Bill, who are driving hon. Members into the lobby against it, not their convictions as to its inefficacy as an educational measure.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That is not a proper thing to say.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: It is a perfectly proper thing to say. I think the House will do me the justice to acknowledge that I am the last man to make light of anything which is regarded as in conscience objectionable by any human being, but, after all, in the name of conscience very many unwise things have been done in the course of human history; and when I am told by correspondence which has reached me in large proportions within the past few days that this Bill is an insult to Nonconformists, that it is cruel to them, that it interferes with religious liberty, I really wonder whether my correspondents or I have lost all sense of the use and proportion of language. In what way can it interfere with conscience? I am told it is because rates are applied to denominational education. Everyone knows that taxes are so applied. Rates are so applied North of the Tweed, and I can hardly believe that a Presbyterian from Scotland feels no twinges of conscience in applying his
  1212
  rates to education in his own country, and suddenly has prickings of conscience when he crosses into Northumberland. Every one knows that rates are applied to denominational industrial schools. School Boards themselves apply them in the case of Jews to denominational purposes, and everyone knows that under the Technical Instruction Act denominational schools have been assisted out of the rates. It really is impossible to say that a system of that kind, which has been acquiesced in by Nonconformists, can be a matter of conscience when it is extended, especially when we remember that under this Bill every grievance under which Nonconformists suffer will be largely diminished. Complaint was made of the grievance as to the employment of teachers, but I would remind the House that under this Bill it will be in the power of every County Council to provide educational machinery for the teachers, irrespective of the will or wishes of the managers of the voluntary schools.
  Again, we are told—I think this is one of the pet phrases of the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Burghs—that this rivets the clerical chain round the necks of the people I am the last man to deny that in the Church of England, as in the Church of Rome and every other denominational body, there may be, and probably will be, found men of narrow and bigoted views who do little honour to the cause in which they are engaged. It is possible that there are schools in this country, under the management of the clergyman of the parish, in which things have gone on which would be as repulsive, I venture to say, to Members on this side of the House as to Members on the other. I have tried to run some of those stories to ground, but I confess I have failed. I am not, however, concerned to deny that such cases may exist, although I have not come across them. But so far as the evil exists, it is one which must be immensely mitigated by this Bill. What you profess to be afraid of is clerical tyranny. Let me point out that the age of one-man management comes to an end when this Bill is passed. There must always be

  1213
  other members associated with the clergyman. In many cases, I am told, the other two members of the Managing Committee, besides the clergyman and the nominated member, will often be non-attendant. But if they take no part in affairs, evidently the management of the school will be equally divided between the clergyman and the nominated member. But if, on the other hand, these otiose managers do take part in the affairs of the school, is it not evident that this strictly clerical influence will be only one quarter, at the most, of the whole management of the school? This has been made a clerical question. The attack is on the clergy. If the laity are in a majority, I do not believe that any of those errors which have been feared will be committed. If you have this large lay element, and all the publicity which is ensured by the system we propose, I am perfectly certain that all fear may be removed; and if that is not enough, remember what a weapon this power of building a new school puts into your hands. Under the Bill, for the first time, if any managers of a voluntary school so abuse their power as to make themselves intolerable to the parish in which there is only a solitary school, it is possible, nay, easy, for another school to be built in which their control shall be nonexistent. What do the Nonconformists
  want? What they want, though they do not say so, is slowly to starve the voluntary schools. That does not, and cannot, conduce either to Christian charity or to the education of the children. We take a different view. We build upon the foundations to be found, knowing that they are the only foundations available. The voluntary schools are here, and they must remain. The Cowper-Temple clause—for which I have no especial admiration—is also intended to remain in our system. The common sense of our people, on these two disparate and illogical buttresses, will found a system of religious and secular education, acceptable to the mass of the people. The difficulties from which we suffer are difficulties in this House; there will be no difficulty in the parishes or in the schools. They are not difficulties in the parish or the school; and if only the professional politician will allow these things to rest, I am perfectly confident that, not merely as regards secondary education, but also as to primary education, this Bill will work for peace, sound education, and religious, harmony.
  (11.57.) Question put.
  The House divided :—Ayes, 402; Noes, 165. (Division List No. 166.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Aird, Sir John

  Arrol, Sir William

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Maneh'r

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds ;

  Dewar, T. R (T'r H'mlets, S. Geo.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Balfour, Kenneth K. (Christen.)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hatch, Earnest Frederick Geo.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Dillon, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Doogan, P. C.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Holder, Augustus

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Doughty, George

  Henderson, Alexander

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Bignold, Arthur

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Bigwood, James

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Bill, Charles

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hill, Arthur

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Boland, John

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Bond, Edward

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Brassey, Albert

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Howard, Jno.(Kent, Faversham

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Ffrench, Peter

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.)

  Field, William

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Bull, William James

  Finch, George H.

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Butcher, John George

  Fison, Frederick William

  Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Joyce, Michael

  Carew, James Laurence

  Fitzroy, Hon. Ed ward Algernon

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Flower, Ernest

  Keswick, William

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

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kimber, Henry

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Forster, Henry William

  Knowles, Lees

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Garlit, William

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

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

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gilhooly, James

  Lawson, John Grant

  Chapman, Edward

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Leamy, Edmund

  Charrington, Spencer

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

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'ml'ts

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

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

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

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

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Coddington, Sir William

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol S.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S Edm'nds

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gretton, John

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Lundon, W.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Crean, Eugene

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rd G (Midd' x

  Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

  Dairymple, Sir Charles

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Win.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Delany, William

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Denny, Colonel

  M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B (Cambs.

  1216

  1217

  M'Fadden, Edward

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  M'Govern, T.

  Spear, John Ward

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur Ormskirk)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Stanley, Ed ward Jas. (Somerset

  M'Kean, John

  Parker, Gilbert

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Ste wart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Stock, James Henry

  Malcolm, Ian

  Penn, John

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Percy, Earl

  Stroyan, John

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sullivan, Donal

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dunrfriessh.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton

  Purvis, Robert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Pym, C. Guy

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Milvain, Thomas

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Mitchell, William

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Randles, John S.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Rankin, Sir James

  Mooney, John J.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Reddy, M.

  Vincent, Cl. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Renwick, George

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Mount, William Arthur

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Murphy, John

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Myers, William Henry

  Roche, John

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne

  Rolleston, Sir John F L.

  Whitmor, Charles Algernon

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Williams, Rt Hn J Pow ll-(Birm.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Round, James

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Rutherford, John

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

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

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  O'Brien, Kend'l (Tipperary, Mid

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wylie, Alexander

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  O'Dowd, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Young, Samuel

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  O'Malley, William

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  O'Mara, James

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Smith, H C (North'mb, Tyneside

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Asher, Alexander

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  1218

  1219

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hain, Edward

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Price, Robert John

  Banes, Major George Edward

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Priestley, Arthur

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Harwood, George

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bell, Richard

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rea, Russell

  Black, Alexander William

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Holland, William Henry

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Brigg, John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Rigg, Richard

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Burns, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Joicey, Sir James

  Runciman, Walter

  Jones, David Brynm'r (Swansea

  Russell, T. W.

  Caine, William Sproston

  Caldwell, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Cameron, Robert

  Kinloch, Sir Jno. George Smyth

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Labouchere, Henry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Lambert, George

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Langley, Batty

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Crombie, John William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Leng, Sir John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Levy, Maurice

  Tennant, Harold John

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, David Alfred) Merthyr

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Logan, John William

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Tomkinson, James

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Crae, George

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Wallace, Robert

  Ellis, John Edward

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Mather, William

  Warner, Thomas Conrtenay T.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Mellor, lit. Hon. John William

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Morley, Rt. Hn. Jno. (Montrose)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morton, Edw. J. C.(Devonport)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Newnes, Sir George

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Norman, Henry

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersfd

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Partington, Oswald

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Grant, Corrie

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M' Arthur.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Perks, Robert William

  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  House Adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.