EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.

HC Deb 30 October 1902 vol 113 cc1263-304

Considered in Committee:—

(In the Committee.)

[MR. J. W. Lowther (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

Clause 8:—

(9.0.) SIR EDWARD GREY

said the object of the Amendment he rose to move was to provide, in the event of conflict between the education authority and the managers, such a remedy as would not interfere with the education of the school, but would enable it to be carried on continuously and efficiently. He had no wish to enter into the controversies which had already occupied the attention of the Committee as to the probabilities of conflict, but his point was that the remedies already available under the Bill were not satisfactory. The power of the local authority to step in and carry out their own directions where they were neglected was not practicable without a power to appoint other managers. That power it was not proposed to give them. Neither would it be practicable to bring managers to reason by exercising their control over expenditure on salaries of teachers, as that remedy would defeat its own objects. It would be an unfair and cruel remedy. A third remedy—to treat the school as one which they were no longer bound to maintain—was also unsatisfactory, involving as it did a check to education during the conflict and the provision of a new school. The proposal of his Amendment was preferable because it would, in the event of a conflict, enable education to go on with out any check to its efficiency. It was really the natural remedy. The local education authority and the managers were under the Bill to be partners; if they pulled together no doubt education would prosper; if they did not it would suffer administratively. When two persons did not pull together the business suffered and the remedy was for one partner to buy the other out—the one bought out being naturally the smaller partner. In this case the education authority was the largest partner. The question of compensation would need considerable adjustment. Of course it would not be fair to confiscate the building without any compensation. Where the school was absolutely owned by an individual the building would have to be taken over and full compensation paid to the owner. Where there was no absolute owner and the school building was under some trust there would have to be an adjustment of the compensation in harmony with the terms of the trust. The trust would in many cases not provide solely for religious education, but for general education, with alimiting provision that it should be in accordance with the principles of a particular denomination. In that case, he suggested that the principle followed would be that which he understood the Prime Minister to have adopted in regard to endowments, which were to be apportioned between the education authority as the authority responsible for secular education and the managers as responsible for religious instruction. It would be found that in a good many cases the schools had not been built entirely with trust money, but with the aid of voluntary subscriptions paid for the purpose of avoiding a school rate. Where subscriptions had been given to avoid a rate there need be no compensation, because the avoidance of a rate would be secured by handing over the school to the education authority. On the question of the fairness of applying the principle of compulsory purchase, or acquisition of the schools for rent, he had no doubt whatever. He had included rent because rents lent themselves readily to adjustment in cases where the use of the building was to be left to the trust for use on Sundays. Private rights were increasingly held subject to the rights of the public, and were often subordinated to the public right on fair compensation. Schools, in the nature of the case, could not be used for private purposes and were, in fact, constructed for public purposes. If ever there was a case where purchase was beyond question fair, it was a case of this kind. No scruple was made about giving to municipal authorities powers of compulsory purchase for the purpose of supplying a public need, and now one authority was being set up for the purposes of education Parliament ought to be at least as free in giving that authority such powers. It might be urged that the danger of conflict was so remote that it was inadvisable to put such a provision in the Bill, but the Bill itself alluded to the possibility of questions arising, and in debate the "parties in dispute" had been spoken of. That was a very ominous expression. If there was a chance of the education authority and the managers becoming parties to a dispute the will of the education authority must be made to prevail, and in such a way that the education of the district was not interfered with. He thought his Amendment afforded the best means of providing a remedy in the event of conflict.

Amedment proposed— In page 3, line 29, after the word 'grant' to insert the words 'and, in event of failure on the part of the managers to comply with any of the conditions of this section the local education authority shall have power, subject to fair compensation to the owners, to acquire or rent the building and treat it as a school provided by them.'"—(Sir Edward Grey

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the right hon. Baronet had enumerated what he regarded as three possible ways of dealing with a body of managers who were either unable or unwilling to carry out the legitimate demands of the education authority. One of them he submitted was entirely illegitimate, and he agreed that the idea of punishing denominational or voluntary managers by mulcting the schoolmaster or starving the education of the children was out of the question. It was not desirable either in theory or in practice. But he did not take the same gloomy view of the remedies the Bill provided. It provided, in the first place, that where the managers did not carry out the orders of the education authority, that body might step in and carry out those orders themselves. The right hon. Baronet said that was quite impossible unless they had a new set of managers. That matter had been argued out at length, and he did not think it was desirable to reopen it; but in his judgment it provided a perfectly effective remedy. The education authority, without appointing new managers, would step in and give their orders to the schoolmaster and see that they were obeyed. The other remedy provided by the Bill was that if the managers declined to carry out the orders of the education authority, the school should cease to be a public elementary school or eligible to receive money out of the rates, and another school should be provided for the district, which should not be a voluntary school, but a provided school. At the first blush he would have thought that remedy would have been highly agreeable to hon. Gentlemen opposite. They had told the House over and over again that, even if they were forced to accept voluntary schools as a necessity, they looked to their extinction as an ideal, and he was greatly surprised that they should regard this remedy as not only impracticable and disagreeable, but also difficult to carry into effect. The right hon. Baronet had spoken of it as an impracticable remedy.

SIR EDWARD GREY

I did not use the word impracticable. I said mine was preferable.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he would not pursue that line of argument, but would deal with what the right hon. Baronet regarded as the preferable method of turning a voluntary school into a provided school. He quite agreed that the right hon. Baronet's method would have at least one advantage if it prevented any gap in the educational accommodation of the district during the period of transition. But the right hon. Baronet proposed to transfer this property compulsorily from one set of persons to another, with all the safeguards and precautions, he presumed, with which Parliament had so sedulously surrounded the compulsory transfer of property; and he had never heard that that process had the advantage of being very rapid, expeditious, or cheap. Under the present system it was in the power of the managers to withdraw the school from the work of public elementary education, and the Amendment sought to render the consequent cost and inconvenience impossible. The right hon. Baronet had uttered a certain number of perfectly sound observations on the intrinsic justice of compulsory purchase for a great public object. He agreed with him entirely. That House had long ago laid it down that in the case of a public necessity, compulsory expropriation on fair terms was perfectly legitimate; but the right hon. Baronet recommended this plan because he thought it was a cheap method, and that these schools could be handed over at a relatively trifling price to the public for the purposes of education, because the existing voluntary schools were not in purely private ownership. He could not agree with him in that for he thought it was most unjust. No doubt the right hon. Baronet tried to make a point by saying that some of the trusts were intended to relieve the ratepayers of some of the money they would otherwise have had to pay to the rating authority; but what bearing had that? The proper course was to give full compensation to the trustees, and to see that the money was expended on a purpose either equivalent to the trust, or in some new scheme as nearly equivalent as modern arrangements would allow. In any case, they should start with the obviously fair and simple principle, and that when they took property compulsorily—whether it be property of individuals or of trustees—full compensation should be paid according to the well-established rules laid down in the House The right hon. Baronet appeared to think that it was a sufficient reason for not paying full compensation for the compulsory taking of these schools that some of the persons who had originally subscribed in order to provide them had been actuated by the desire to evade the rating involved by the introduction of a Board school. He did not think they could look into the private motives of the original donors of the trusts. Unless history greatly deceived us, some of the most liberal donors of great benefactions in the past had been influenced by the consideration of what would happen to their souls after death. Was that motive also to be taken into account when considering the question of the amount of compensation to be given to the present owners of the trust? He did not think the right hon. Baronet would carry his principle quite so far as that. On the whole he was disposed to think that the plan of the right hon. Baronet, which threatened the equitable compulsory transfer of property from trustees to the community—even if carried out on the sound lines of compensation laid down by Parliament—would still be neither economical nor fair to the community.

MR. CRIPPS (Lancashire, Stretford)

I rise to order. This Amendment proposes to take property by compulsion. Is it in order to bring on an Amendment of that kind without due notice having been given to the owners?

MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)

I rise to another point of order. Is it in order to object to an Amendment after it has been put from the Chair?

* THE CHAIRMAN

If this Amendment were accepted, the Bill would probably have to be referred to the Examiners of private Bills to see whether the notices had been complied with. But until the Amendment is inserted in the Bill I think we might go on.

(9.35.) MR. LAWSON WALTON (Leeds, S.)

said that the First Lord of the Treasury had very properly stated that the Amendment of his right hon. friend the Member for Berwick, raised a question of very great gravity, because it invited the Committee to consider what was the best, the most expeditious, just, and economical method of dealing with the situation which was certain to arise from the operation of the Bill when it became law. He would endeavour to satisfy the Committee that, on occasions, some more effective remedy than was supplied by the Bill, might be afforded for the difficulties which must certainly arise. What was the situation which was clearly contemplated by the terms of the Clause the Committee were now considering? The managers of a denominational school were called upon to comply with the requirements of the local education authority, which admittedly might be of an onerous character, having regard to the fact that the voluntary contributions were falling off. Therefore the situation had to be faced of a school, the managers of which were unable to put it into a state of repair so as to satisfy the local education authority, and declined to carry out the reasonable requirements of the latter in regard to extension, and to meet the wants of an increasing population. How were they going to meet that situation? As the First Lord had told the Committee, the ordinary machinery of mandamus was inapplicable in regard to the managers of the denominational schools; it only applied to the education authority. Therefore, they would have a Board of Managers who said, "We neither will nor can extend the school; you must take it as it stands, for we will do nothing." Now, the school as it stood was the only provision for the education of the child fen of the parish or district in which it was situated, and the education authority would have to accept the situation. Here was an admittedly inefficient school which could not comply with modern requirements, and the Bill of the First Lord only increased the difficulties by cutting off financial supplies; and the school as an educational organisation would become derelict. Now, what were they going to do in such circumstances? His right hon. friend the Member for Berwick said: "Take over the building, and pay fair compensation for it; if you do that, you introduce the minimum of disturbance in the conduct of education in the parish." But the First Lord's proposal introduced the maximum of disturbance and expense. The children had still to be educated, because the compulsory Clauses of the former Education Acts had not been abrogated. His right hon. friend's Amendment provided for the local education authority paying a fair compensation for the school building which would then be turned in to a provided school. What was the alternative that the First Lord asked the Committee to adopt? It was that the old school, having become derelict, the local education authority must provide a new one. They must buy land, build a new school, and furnish it fit to do its educational work. That would lead to friction, controversy, and educational confusion. He believed that the local education authority would rather allow the gravest inefficiency to exist in the denominational school than face the situation of calling upon the ratepayers to provide the money for the building of a new school side by side with the old building which, owing to the action of the trustees, had failed to fulfil the purposes of the elementary education for which it was originally intended. He could not understand how an injustice would be inflicted on a public body, such as the trustees of these schools, by relieving them of their public obligations on the terms of paying them a fair compensation for their property. The First Lord said the other night that that would be a form of confiscation; but he replied that they would not be dealing with private property. These schools were educational institutions, and nobody proposed to disturb them except as educational institutions. No one had a beneficial interest in them except when they were being applied for the purposes of elementary education. In all the schools of the National Society the trust deeds set forth that they had been founded for the purpose of providing elementary education, and they could not be used for any other purpose. Therefore, if that purpose were frustrated by the erection of another school, they would have a building which would become useless to anybody else. What injustice would be done in taking possession of a building which, after paying fair compensation for it, was useless for any other purpose?

* SIR FRANCIS POWELL

said that he held in his hand a trust deed which stated that the school building was to be used for the purpose of a Sunday school.

MR. LAWSON WALTON

said that it was not suggested that the premises should not be used for every other purpose which had been put into the trust deed. But the main object for which these schools had been erected was the provision of elementary education for the district, and, consistent with that, they were to be available for ecclesiastical purposes. The whole question between them was this—if the main object for which these schools had been erected became incapable of enforcement because the duties had been undertaken by the State, and the trustees had been relieved of their obligations, what injustice was done to the trustees? The Member for Berwick, in his anxiety to deal fairly with the owners, had said that in such cases they should have fair compensation, and if the transfer interfered with the use of the school for Church purposes, the Church would get compensation for any disturbance, but the trustees could get no compensation because the school had been taken over and applied to the purposes of elementary education. Surely the proper course in the case contemplated was for the local education authority to come in and carry on the education.

MR. CRIPPS

said he would not follow the hon. and learned Member into a dissertation on principles of compensation. He objected to the whole principle. If he had his way he would fine the owners of schools who handed them over from the denominational to the undenominational system. His interest was to preserve the denominational system, and, in his opinion, it would be a monstrous thing in a Bill, which had nothing to do with the transfer of property, to introduce, by a side wind, a proposal which would enable denominational schools to be handed over to the new local education authority. That was absolutely alien to the whole principle of the Bill, and if such a proposal were included in it in the first instance, he should have opposed it, quite irrespective of any question of compensation at all. There would be absolutely sufficient sanction under the Bill, because not only the Education Department but the local authority could refuse grants. He protested toto cœlo against the notion of denominational owners being tempted under any scheme of compensation to get rid of their duties and obligations, and giving up the great principle of denominational education. He did not believe they would be so tempted, but he objected to the whole principle from beginning to end.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said the discussion illustrated the difficulty which arose when they were called upon to discuss questions such as that before the Committee without having the trust deeds before them. He was glad, however to know that the Return of trust deeds would be in the hands of hon. Members no Saturday morning. Six millions of money had been expended on these school buildings, and of that amount£1,500,000 had been contributed by the State. To that extent, therefore, the buildings were public property already. It was a fundamental condition in all cases where a building grant was given that there should be a trust deed, declaring that the premises were to be granted in trust for the education of the children of the poor, and for no other purpose whatever. Through the courtesy of the First Lord of the Treasury he had received an advance proof of the Return which was to be presented, and he saw that the trust deed in that Return contained, in most specific terms, the condition to which he referred. There could, therefore, be no compensation at all to private persons. He wished to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether there was anything in the regulations of the Department requiring, as a condition of a grant, that the building, when not used by the trustees for elementary school purposes, might be acquired by other persons without any rent being paid at all.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that the hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division had arguedagainst the Amendment as if it were a proposal to transfer all the denominational schools to the undenominational system. That was not the proposal at all. The proposal was that where denominational trustees failed to carry out their trust, there should be a transfer subject to fair compensation. His right hon. friend the Member for the Berwick Division simply asked that there should be sanction for the purpose of carrying out the objects set before the country by the Government in their Bill. The Prime Minister said that a sanction was provided in the local authority, who could order the schoolmaster to carry out certain objects of the Bill. Surely one of the most important objects was to put the building into good order and repair. How was the schoolmaster to carry that object out? Suppose the school building was in an insanitary condition, was the schoolmaster to lay fresh drains; and if he did, who was to pay for them—the local authority or the managers; and if the managers, what means would there be of enforcing the debt? There was really no sanction at all at the present moment, except one which the Prime Minister deprecated, namely, the withdrawal of the grants from the school, and starving education in that particular district. It was said that the local authority might build a school of their own, but that would take eighteen months or two years, especially as every petty question was to be submitted to the Board of Education. That was the condition of things, and nothing would be done unless some such suggestion as that of his right hon. friend were put into operation. What fair compensation was, was a fair subject for discussion, and was an important part of the Amendment. It was clear that the controversy was not going to end with the Bill. They were only at the beginning of it, and, therefore, it was just as important that they should lay before the House of Commons and the country their views as to the right and proper settlement to be adopted as it was for the Government to place their views before the country. He did not understand his hon. and learned friend the Member for South Leeds to suggest that no compensation of any sort or kind should be given to the trustees. He should have been very sorry if his hon. and learned friend had taken that line. The schools were not merely for the education of the children of the poor; they were schools for the education of the children of the poor in the principles of the Church of England, but were not purely Church of England trusts. There were two objects attached to them. There was, first of all, the education of the children of the poor in the principles of the Church of England, and the second object was purely parochial. He thought, therefore, the Committee was entitled to take both objects into account in settling the principle of compensation. He had no doubt that many contributions had been given for purely Anglican and Church motives, but probably the majority of the contributions had been given in order to provide a local school. The Charity Commissioners investigated some of these cases in Wales recently, and in one case it was found that Nonconformists contributed in order to set up a parochial school, and they had no notion whatever that it would be converted into a Church school. A trust was not created by its subscribers, but by the man who gave the land; and as the land was generally given by an Anglican landowner the result was that he more or less dominated the trust. Therefore, a large number of schools which would otherwise have been parochial became, by this means, purely denominational. He thought that was a fair account of what had happened. The Prime Minister said that they were not entitled to inquire into the motives of those who created the trust. He did not agree. He thought the learned Attorney General would admit that the motives of the testator played a very important part in the interpretation of any trust. The Prime Minister instanced the case of a man who gave property to create a trust to have prayers said for his soul. There were many cases of that kind. For instance, one Thomas Smith provided a fund for masses for his soul. Surely they were entitled to take that into account if the property were confiscated. It was the very party who confiscated property for their own purposes, and who destroyed trusts, who denounced them as confiscators when they proposed to use property of that kind for public purposes. He did not think the Prime Minister had dealt with the matter as it ought to have been dealt with. The Amendment was the only possible way out of the difficulty. They would have to settle all these difficulties eventually by taking over the schools. Merely sending disputes to be settled by the Board of Education without having any authority to carry its decisions out would not be sufficient. The Church could not possibly keep the schools in a state of efficiency. They were in a very bad state of repair; they were exceedingly inefficient; and it would cost an enormous sum to put them into proper repair. It was therefore in the interests of education that an Amendment of the kind proposed by his right hon. friend should be introduced into the Bill. Further, he thought that such an Amendment would be very useful from the point of view of the inspectors of the Board of Education. He thought that, to a certain extent, the inspectors were not doing their duty rigidly with regard to these schools, as the only result of that would be to transfer them to the undenominational system. Rather than face that prospect the inspectors preferred not to report bad and inefficient schools; but if they knew that the result would be that fair compensation would be given, he believed that hundreds of these schools would be condemned, and the system of; education considerably improved and strengthened throughout the country. He would therefore support the Amendment of his right hon. friend.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER

said that the local authority would have to buy land to build the new school which would replace the old one. In many places, all the land belonged to one person, who might be a very strong sectarian, and the existing school might belong to his sect. Suppose he refused to sell the land——

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Priestley, Arthur
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)	Horniman, Frederick John-	Rea, Russell
Allen, Charles P., Glouc. (Stroud	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Reckitt, Harold James
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Jacoby, James Alfred	Rickett, J. Compton
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Joicey, Sir James	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Brigg, John	Kearley, Hudson E.	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)
Broadhurst, Henry	Kitson, Sir James	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Lambert, George	Runciman, Walter
Burns, John	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Shackleton, David James
Burt, Thomas	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Leng, Sir John	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Caldwell, James	Levy, Maurice	Soares, Ernest J.
Cameron, Robert	Lewis, John Herbert	Spencer Rt. Hon. CR (North'nts
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Lloyd-George, David	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E
Causton, Richard Knight	Lough, Thomas	Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R,
Cawley, Frederick	M'Crae, George	Tomkinson, James
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Mather, Sir William	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen	Walton, Jn. Lawson (Leeds, S
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Duncan, J. Hastings	Moulton, John Fletcher	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Edwards, Frank	Newnes, Sir George	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Emmott, Alfred	Norman, Henry	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Partington, Oswald	Yoxall, James Henry
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick	Pearson, Sir Weetman D.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Perks, Robert William	Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Philipps, John Wynford
Helme, Norval Watson	Price, Robert John

NOES.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Carlile, William Walter	Digby, John K. D. (Wingfield)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn A. (Worc.	Doughty, George
Arrol, Sir William	Chapman, Edward	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Charrington, Spencer	Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Clare, Octavius Leigh	Duke, Henry Edward
Balcarres, Lord	Clive, Captain Percy A.	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Dyke, Rt. Hn Sir William Hart
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas
Banbury, Frederick George	Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready	Fardell, Sir T. George
Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin	Colston, Chas. Edwd. H. Athole	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Beresford, Lord Charles Wm.	Compton, Lord Alwyne	Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J (Manc'r
Bignold, Arthur	Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Bigwood, James	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Finch, George H.
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Cranborne, Viscount	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Bond, Edward	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Fisher, William Hayes
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon
Bull, William James	Crossley, Sir Savile	Flower, Ernest
Butcher, John George	Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Forster, Henry William
Carew, James Laurence	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Galloway, William Johnson

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

was understood to say that he could be compelled to sell.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER

said that answered his question.

(10.10.) Question proposed—

Committee divided:—Ayes, 85; Noes. 176. (Division List, No. 450.)

Gardner, Ernest	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Gibbs, Hon. Vickery (St. Albans	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.	Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds	Macdona, John Camming	Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Smith, H C (N'rth'mb. Tyneside
Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs	MacIver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Grenfell, William Henry	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire	Spear, John Ward
Greville, Hon. Ronald	Majendie, James A. H.	Stanley, Edwd. Jas. (Somerset)
Groves, James Grimble	Manners, Lord Cecil	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Gunter, Sir Robert	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rd G (Midd'x	Morgan, David J. (Walth'mst'w	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd	Morrell, George Herbert	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Hare, Thomas Leigh	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Harris, Frederick Leverton	Mount, William Arthur	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox. Univ.)
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute)	Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n, N
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Thornton, Percy M.
Helder, Augustus	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)	Tollemache, Henry James
Henderson, Sir Alexander	Myers, William Henry	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Hoare, Sir Samuel	Nicholson, William Graham	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hobhouse, Henry, Somerset, E.	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Valentia, Viscount
Hogg, Lindsay	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.
Hope, J. E. (Sheffield, Brightside	Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Peel, Hon. Wm. Rbt. Wellesley	Williams, Rt. Hn J. Powell-(Birm
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.	Pemberton, John S. G.	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Percy, Earl	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Kemp, George	Pierpoint, Robert	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Wortley, Rt. Hon.C. B. Stuart-
Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh	Plummer, Walter R.	Wylie, Alexander
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George
King, Sir Henry Seymour	Pretyman, Ernest George	Younger, William
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow	Purvis, Robert
Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham	Rankin, Sir James	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Sir Alexander Acland- Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie	Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said the Amendment which he wished to move had for its main object the carrying out of the view which was indicated in the Amendment accepted by the Committee a few days ago that the teaching profession should be thrown open in its early stages more widely to persons of all denominations. Where there were more candidates for the post of pupil teacher than there were places to be tilled, the appointment should be made by the local education authority, and they should determine the respective qualifications of the candidates by examination or otherwise. He thought the Amendment would commend itself to the Committee, and he hoped it would be accepted.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 29, at the end, to insert the words, '(3) In any case in which there are more candidates for the post of pupil teacher than there are places to be filled, the appointment shall be made by the local education authority, and they shall determine the respective qualifications of the candidates by examination or otherwise.' "—(Sir William Anson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

* MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

said that this Amendment was a most disappointing one. During the autumn, announcements were made, which he supposed would now be regarded as entirely unofficial; to the effect that the Government intended dealing very liberally indeed with the general public with reference, at any rate, to the lower grades of the teaching profession. They were led to believe that while the Government would insist on the appointment of the head teacher being reserved to the denomination, the appointment of assistant teachers and pupil teachers would be thrown open.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

asked who said that.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS

said he was referring to statements constantly made all over the country.

MR A. J. BALFOUR

By whom?

* MR. HERBERT LEWIS

said they were made by newspapers and different gentlemen, amongst whom the Member for Oxford University, now Secretary of the Board of Education, had advocated throwing open the lower grades of the teaching profession, but he supposed that they would now be regarded as unofficial in every way. They were given to understand that the appointment of assistant teacher, as well as that of pupil teacher, would be thrown open. How had that general expectation been met? The appointment of Pupil teacher was not to be placed entirely in the hands of the local education authority. What would happen? He would take the case of a populous parish with which he was well acquainted, and which contained a very large number of Nonconformists. In that parish not one single pupil teacher had been appointed from the ranks of Nonconformity for twenty-five years, although the schools were attended by hundreds of Nonconformist children. In that parish the majority of the local; managers would in the future, as in the past, be clerical. The First Lord of the Treasury said some time ago that that would be practically impossible; but it would be more than possible in the parish to which he was referring, and when vacancies in the post of pupil teachers were to be filled it would be quite possible for the local managers to arrange that they should be quietly filled without any competition at all. What provision was there in the Bill for advertising such vacancies. If the vacancies were not advertised, what could be easier than for the managers, who would naturally desire to keep the appointments in their own hands, to fill them up themselves The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment said that what the Government wished was to throw open the teaching profession in its earliest stages as widely as possible, and it was in order to enable the Government to carry out that intention that he would move the Amendment standing in his name, which was to omit all the words from the beginning to the word "the" in line 2. There would be no difficulty at all in the local authority, if they thought fit, delegating the appointment to the managers, but his Amendment would confer upon them the very necessary power of seeing that every possible opportunity was given to those who might become candidates to hear of the vacancies and to be fairly dealt with. He ventured to commend the Amendment to the Government as a reasonable and necessary one, if the objects of the Secretary of the Board of Education were to be carried out.

(10.35.) Amendment proposed to the Amendment— In line 1, to leave out from the beginning, to the word 'the' in line 2."—(MR. Herbert Lewis.)

THE CHAIRMAN

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

MR. WHITLEY

on a point of order said that if the question were put in that form it would exclude the Amendment which he had on the Paper, which proposed to leave out the word "pupil" in line 1, in order to insert "assistant". He asked if the question could not be put down to the word "of" in line 1.

* THE CHAIRMAN

I am afraid I cannot do that. The Amendment of the hon. Member would re-open the question of the appointment of teachers, and that is concluded.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that, unless his memory deceived him, he thought the question that all teachers, except head teachers, should be appointed irrespective of denomination, had been already discussed.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that the only point decided in regard to assistant teachers was that they could be appointed without any reference to creed at all, notwithstanding the trust deeds; but nothing was decided as to who should appoint the assistant teachers. The point his hon. friend wished to submit was that the whole of the lower grade of the teaching profession, not merely the pupil teachers, should be included.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said he would submit that the matter had been already decided. Sub-Section (c) provided that— The consent of the local education authority shall be required to the appointment of teachers, but that consent shall not be withheld except on educational grounds. They had, therefore, decided that head and assistant teachers were to be appointed in that way, and he submitted that it would be out of order to attempt now to overrule that provision.

MR. WHITLEY

said he submitted that in that case the Amendment of the Government was also out of order. If they had decided the question of assistant teachers they had also decided the question of pupil teachers.

* THE CHAIRMAN

I think a distinction has already been drawn between teachers, assistant teachers, and pupil teachers. The appointment of teachers has been decided, but the appointment of assistant teachers has, I think, not been decided. Therefore, the hon. Member for Halifax is in order. The trouble has really arisen because of the hon. Member not having given proper notice of his Amendment. I will put the question down to the word "of" in line 1.

LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)

asked if he understood the ruling of the Chair to be that the word "teachers" in sub-Section (c) only applied to head teachers?

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said he would submit, on a point of order, that the expression "teachers" in sub-Section (c) included assistant teachers, as well as head teachers. It was certainly discussed on that basis. Pupil teachers were really not teachers at all; they were only learners.

* THE CHAIRMAN

I must say it does not seem to me to be very clear.

SIR JOHN GORST

said he would submit, on a point of order, that the word "teachers" in sub-Section (c) must include, not only head teachers, but also assistant teachers and pupil teachers, because in a subsequent part of the sub-Section, it was provided that assistant teachers and pupil teachers might be appointed in a particular way. Therefore, it had been practically decided by the Committee already that teachers of all kinds should be appointed by the managers.

* THE CHAIRMAN

In that case what is the object of the Amendment?

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said that on the Chairman's ruling, his Amendment appeared to be out of order. He was sorry.

MR. BRYCE

submitted that the Amendment was in order, as it applied to a case where there were more candidates than there were places to fill. It was a proviso which would be added to the general statement.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said the definition Clause provided that any expression to which a special meaning was attached should have the same meaning in this Act as in the Act of 1870. In the definition Clause of the Act of 1870 the term "teachers" included assistant teachers, pupil teachers, and so on.

MR. WHITLEY

said that there was nothing in Clause 8 which gave the appointment of the teachers to any one. It dealt with the consent of the appointment, but there was not a single word to show by whom the appointment was to be made. His Amendment dealt with the giving of the appointment of a certain class of teachers to the local authority.

* THE CHAIRMAN

As I have already pointed out, there is nothing in the Bill which directly gives the appointment of teachers. It is clear, I think, on looking at the definition Clause of the Act of 1870, that the word "teachers" includes assistant teachers and pupil teachers. Therefore we have reached this point, that the consent of the local authority must now be required to the appointment of pupil teachers. Then what is to happen if there were more candidates than one? This Amendment suggests means of ascertaining which of those candidates are to be appointed and the decision is to be taken, not by the managers, but by the local education authority. Therefore I think the Amendment is in order. I will only put the words down to "pupil."

MR. DISRAELI (Cheshire, Altrincham)

asked, if sub-Section (c) governed the appointment of teachers, did not that also carry with it the question as to who should appoint them?

* THE CHAIRMAN

Not necessarily. This Amendment says that if there are two or more candidates then certain things are to happen. It may be that if there is only one candidate the appointment may be made by the managers under sub-Section (c), subject to the confirmation of the local education authority; but if there are two or more candidates then another state of things will arise.

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE

said if the opening words were omitted, as proposed by the hon. Member, they would have the provision as to the appointment of pupil teachers, pure and simple, which had already been dealt with.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS

said that the question his right hon. friend had raised was perfectly clear. It was that sub-Section (c) drew a distinction between head teachers on the one hand, and assistant and pupil teachers on the other, and that it did not deal in any way with the actual appointment of either assistant teachers or pupil teachers.

* THE CHAIRMAN

I think the real solution of the difficulty is that the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs is out of order, because he proposes something that is already in the Bill, namely, that the appointment of the pupil teachers must be subject to the consent of the local authority. I think the hon. Member for Halifax will be in order if he proposes to insert the words "assistant and" before the word "pupil."

MR. BOND (Nottingham, E.)

reminded the Committee that sub-Section (c) dealt with the appointment of teachers, and provided that the consent of the local authority should be required. The Amendment of his hon. friend now suggested that in certain instances the appointment should be made by the local authority. Surely that was inconsistent with sub-Section (c), because in such a case the local authority would be consenting to an appointment made by itself.

MR. WHITLEY

then moved to insert "assistant and" before "pupil." He said pupil teachers were apprentices. These young people became pupil teachers before they entered the training colleges, and it would be a cruel hardship if the Government said to this large class of civil servants, "We will accept you as apprentices, we will take you after examination on your merits, but after your apprenticeship you shall have no employment." That was practically what the Government would do unless they accepted his Amendment. They would admit a large class to a great profession under an entire illusion, and deny them employment after they had served their apprenticeship, practically for no wages at all, through years of drudgery. Moreover, while the Government proposed to throw open the apprenticeship, they were at the same time keeping closed the doors of two thirds of the training colleges which afforded the only means by which pupil teachers could obtain the training required for their profession. Pupil teachers were simply apprentices, and he hoped soon to see the system abolished in favour of a much better way of training teachers. What possible reason could the Government have for refusing this Amendment? The protection of the headmasterships was in the hands of the managers, and if there was any sincerity in the words used in this contest——

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Which words?

MR. WHITLEY

said the First Lord of the Treasury had over and over again stated that he desired to do every possible justice to Nonconformists consistent with the maintenance of the denominational character of the teaching. If those words had any real meaning, the right hon. Gentleman was bound, seeing that the managers retained the appointment of the headmasters, and thus secured the denominational character of the teaching, to concede that Amendment. Even then the provision would fall a long way short of what he considered to be justice. It was a terrible mockery of justice to hold out to half the people of the country an entrance merely to the apprenticeship, and then by tests to close the doors of the training colleges, and half the situations afterwards available, against them.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— After the first word 'of,' to insert the words 'assistant and.'"—(Mr Whitley.)

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I cannot congratulate the hon. Member and his friends on the manner in which they have received an Amendment which undoubtedly, in full and express terms, does absolutely remove once and for ever a grievance with the reiteration of which they have stunned the Committee. I remember past debates on this subject long before the Bill was born or thought of, and a reply which the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs made to me when I was explaining that the existing system of voluntary and board schools was not one as to which any section of the population had ground for complaint, and that if there were any injustice or inequality in it that defect existed on both sides. The hon. Member got up and said that that was all very well; Churchmen, Roman Catholics, and Wesleyans might suffer under the board school system, but, on the other hand, the Nonconformists suffered under the single school Church system, and there was one grievance that no one could deny, viz., the pupil-teacher grievance, which we now absolutely remove.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I said the teacher grievance.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No, the pupil-teacher grievance. One has only to look at the literature on the subject to see the pupil teachers over and over again used as the great stalking horse of Nonconformist grievance. [Several voices from the Opposition: "And the teachers."] That is another grievance.

MR. TREVELYAN

This is the first time you have recognised it.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I did not say I agreed it was a grievance. Are we not to be allowed to deal with one thing at a time? This is a specific grievance, different from the other grievance and wholly separate from it. It has always been treated as separate from it, and has figured in the controversy as separate from it. [Cries of "No."] We bring forward an Amendment dealing with it completely and absolutely, and then, after some observations by a Welsh Member—to whose speech I will not further allude as his Amendment has been ruled out of order—an hon. Member representing a Yorkshire constituency gets up and says that not only does he not admit that this grievance, which has been constantly alleged, has been dealt with, but that the Amendment makes the situation worse than it ever was, and it is a mere mockery.

MR. WHITLEY

I did not say that it made the situation worse than it was, but I did say that it was a mockery.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS

I did not use any words such as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

If I misrepresented the hon. Gentleman I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Halifax said that unless the provision is extended to those learning and those practising the profession we are guilty of nothing short of mockery. Just consider what this Bill does for the teaching profession and for the Nonconformist portion of it. For the first time it enables the local authority to provide secondary education for Nonconformists; for the first time it enables the education authority to provide training colleges for Nonconformist teachers; for the first time it thrusts aside the trust deeds of voluntary schools so that Nonconformists can be elected to all posts except the headmastership; it demolishes the Nonconformist grievance; and yet, with all that, hon. Gentlemen object that it is a mockery, knowing all the time that if they came into power tomorrow they could do nothing to reform the existing system. After all, I have done my best with this Bill, largely with a view to remedying Nonconformist grievances. I quite grant that I never anticipated gratitude from Nonconformist politicians. I admit I have not got it; but, however that may be, I hope the House will pursue the policy which the Government have indicated, and that they will remove those grievances completely without confusing them with an entirely different question.

(11.5.) MR. BRYCE

did not desire to imitate the somewhat unnecessary heat which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced into a debate which had been singularly pacific and conducted with good humour on both sides. He wished to point out why the right hon. Gentlemen and the Ministry must not expect what the right hon. Gentleman called gratitude.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not expect it.

MR. BRYCE

The right hon. Gentleman admitted that he did expect it, because he spoke in a tone of disappointment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

There is a medium between gratitude and being told that what you are doing is a mockery.

MR. BRYCE

, continuing, said that if his hon. friend had used any word which had ruffled the right hon. Gentleman's susceptibilities he was doubtless sorry for it. After all, the Ministry were not there in the position of a despotic monarch who out of the plenitude of his grace threw down favours to his helpless subjects. The Opposition were there as British citizens. They considered that the system of education which had gone on in this country from 1870 was one which ought never to have been admitted or tolerated by the Nonconformists. It had been a standing injustice to them, and they considered that this injustice was aggravated by the Bill, and that all the concessions, so called, made did not in their totality amount to anything like the additional injury which was inflicted upon those who objected to sectarian schools by being required to support them out of the rates. That being so, there was no question whatever of any spirit of submissive gratitude and obligation.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that in moving the Amendment he made no suggestion of either concession or gratitude. What he said was that it would serve two purposes—first, to open the teaching profession more widely than before; secondly, to put into the hands of the local authority the means of beginning a system in the general organisation of the training of teachers.

MR. BRYCE

said he was not referring to the words of the hon. Gentleman, who no doubt introduced the Amendment in the best possible spirit. He rose simply because the Prime Minister's language betrayed a misconception of the feeling with which the Bill was regarded by the Opposition, and as to the way in which they ought to conduct the discussion. They were there as Members of the House of Commons, all having equal rights, representing constituencies with equal rights, and they would debate the Bill with a view to what they believed to be the best interests of the country.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

said he did not know what had ruffled the Prime Minister. Apparently ho did not mind being opposed by Wales alone or by Yorkshire alone, but what he objected to very much was a combination of Wales and Yorkshire. He agreed with his right hon. friend that they had no cause to be grateful for this Bill, but if the right hon. Gentleman would indicate to him what was a happy medium between an allegation of mockery on the one hand and an expression of gratitude on the other he would be glad to take that line. What was the Amendment? It seized upon an admission of the Government that hereafter they had a right to expect that the pupil teachers should be elected by the local authority in certain events, and the Opposition wanted to know what was the difference in this matter between pupil teachers and assistant teachers. Nonconformists could no longer hope in the future to secure the position of head teacher in denominational schools. With regard to the position of every other teacher, he contended that Nonconformists ought to be as eligible as any other section of the community. It was a very extraordinary thing, but his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General had stated that a pupil teacher was not a teacher at all. It had been said that the pupil teacher system now in vogue was destined to be destroyed very soon. He was rather inclined to think that the late Vice-President of the Council was a greater influence outside the Government than in it, and the right hon. Gentleman had never concealed his opinion that the pupil teacher system in this country was an evil and ought to be destroyed as soon as possible. If the present pupil teacher system was about to come to an end, what was the value of the Amendment of the Government as a concession to Nonconformists? This Amendment was only allowing Nonconformists to have the appointment of something which was going to vanish very shortly. What was the use of an Amendment of that description? If they were establishing a scheme for pupil teachers as a permanent part of their educational system, then, of course, this Amendment would be some extension of the rights which Nonconformists could properly demand. But when they said that the present system was an evil one, what in the name of goodness was the meaning of an Amendment when the system would soon come to an end? The Amendment was to the effect that assistant teachers should be appointed in the same way as the pupil teachers. The hon. Member for Somerset stated that in order to preserve the denominational character of the schools, they ought to keep in the hands of the denomination the appointment of the head teacher. Would hon. Gentlemen opposite like to be told that in all the other schools in the country Churchmen would be disqualified from being assistant teachers? The general system might be divided in two parts, namely, the Anglican schools and the board schools. This Bill sought to exclude from every position in the denominational schools anybody who was not a member of the Church of England. How would hon. Gentlemen opposite like that kind of justice meted out to them, and be told that no member of the Church of England was entitled to come in as teacher in a board school? Every argument that could be adduced in favour of the Amendment of the Secretary to the Board of Education could be used with equal force in favour of the Amendment of his hon. friend. Under these circumstances he thought they had an absolute right to demand that in denominational schools they should throw open the teaching profession, with the exception of the head teacher, without reference to any denomination.

MR. TREVELYAN

said the Prime Minister had stated that he could not congratulate the Opposition upon the way in which they had received this supposed concession. He thought they had a right to retort that they could not con- gratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the way he had received the Amendment of his hon. friend. He thought the Amendment deserved more attention than the First Lord of the Treasury had; given to it, because it had an episcopal origin—it was the proposal of the Bishop of Hereford. Although this was an Amendment which they did not regard as entirely satisfactory, yet it had the support of a large number of people outside the House. Although a great many people agreed that the head teacher ought to be appointed by the denomination, yet they held the opinion that the assistant teachers ought to be appointed by the local authority. Not only had the Amendment of his hon. friend an episcopal origin, but it also had the Birmingham imprimatur upon it. At the Liberal Unionist Conference in Birmingham amongst the questions put by the Colonial Secretary was "With a view of safeguarding religious instruction are you ready to leave the election of the head teacher in the hands of the managers?" That obviously meant that the appointment of the assistant teachers should be in the hands of somebody else. The supporters of the Colonial Secretary voted by an immense majority in favour of that proposal. Therefore this Amendment should not be treated with such scant courtesy as not to have a word said about it by the Premier, and he might at least have treated an Amendment which had the sanction of the Colonial Secretary, and which, he believed, had the sanction of more than one bishop, with Some respect.

*(11.20) MR. LUGAS (Portsmouth)

said there was an old saying that "What Lancashire thinks today, England will think tomorrow." It seemed to him to be the opposite in regard to this debate, for it appeared that what Wales and Yorkshire thought today, England thought yesterday. He had listened to the debate with great interest, and his opinion, from what had taken place, was that hon. Members opposite were endeavouring inch by inch, and bit by bit, to rob the voluntary schools of that authority which it was intended in the original draft of the Bill to give them. The right hon. Baronet the member for the Berwick Division this afternoon made a speech which was intended to make a very serious inroad into the rights which still remained under the Bill to the voluntary schools. He thought it was only proper that some hon. Member on this side should stand up and assert that voluntary schools should not be robbed, as it seemed to him they were being robbed, of their rights. From the drift of the speeches which had been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite their one effort appeared to be to take away from the voluntary schools such privileges as the Bill would give them. The tendency of the Bill as originally introduced was to leave considerable powers with the managers, but as the debate went on the growing tendency seemed; to be to take away powers from the managers and hand them over to the local authority. A large number of people in the country were watching this Bill very carefully. He did not presume to dictate to the House, or to speak as an expert upon educational matters, but he thought it was well that from time, to time ordinary Members of the House should stand up and express the views of their constituents just to show that they were there, and let the Committee know that they were pledged to represent the interests of voluntary schools and they ought not by their silence to allow those interests to suffer without an occasional protest. In making these persistent attempts to rob voluntary schools of their rights and their privileges hon. Gentlemen oppiteos were bringing forward grievances which had never been heard of before. Many hon. Members sitting on the Ministerial side of the House did not wish to waste time by intervening too frequently in the debate, but he thought it was their duty to let the Government know that they objected to voluntary schools being, handed over lock, stock, and barrel to the local authority.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said the hon. Member for Portsmouth had just informed the Committee that they were hearing now for the first time of some Nonconformist grievances. Even the Prime Minister had admitted this evening that there was a grievance in reference to pupil teachers years ago. He wished to ask the Prime Minister if he had just been out to look the matter up.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No, I have not.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he had some hope that before the Prime Minister left office he would have an opportunity of dealing with the larger Nonconformist grievances. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to deal with those grievances now because he did not think he would have much of an opportunity later on. The Prime Minister said that Nonconformists had no grievances at all after those concessions had been made, and he stated that this Bill had been introduced in order to remedy Nonconformist grievances. It was a very extraordinary thing that this Bill should be exactly on the lines of the demands made not by the Free Church Council but by Convocation. Consequently, they were in this extraordinary position—that the real exponents of Nonconformist views were not the Free Church Council but the Archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops and clergy in Convocation assembled. He could quite understand why the Prime Minister mistook the Nonconformist view, for it was because he went to the wrong quarter. He assured the Prime Minister that the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich was not the exponent or the advocate of Free Church principles. With regard to the combination referred to between Wales and Yorkshire he might be allowed to point out that a similar union existed in the eleventh and twelfth centuries when they were supposed to be the best singers, and they had kept up their reputation in this respect up to the present day. [An Hon. Member: "Yes, you have."] Just as they were in harmony then with Yorkshire then they were in harmony on this Bill. His hon. friend had said that the Amendment put forward by the Government was a pure mockery, and he had no hesitation in supporting that statement. Suppose they had at Sandhurst the whole system of cadets thrown open to every creed? [An Hon. Member: "That is so at present."] Suppose they laid it down that two-thirds of the commissions in the Army should be confined to members of a particular creed, would it not be a mockery after that to throw open the places for cadets to all denominations? One had almost to apologise in the House of Commons for mentioning Wales, but Welshmen had to pay rates like anybody else. [An Hon. Member: "But you say you will not pay the education rate."] Yes, but the Government had got to collect that rate. How would this proposal operate in Wales? In the country which he represented there were ninety schools in which Nonconformist children could serve their apprenticeships. According to this proposal Nonconformist children could serve in the whole of those ninety schools, but when their time was finished eighty of those schools would say to them, "Oh, you cannot come here," and there would only be ten schools out of the ninety in which they could utilise their services. [An Hon. Member: They are not obliged to stick to one county."] Practically the hon. Member opposite said, "Let them go elsewhere; drive them out of their own county." [An Hon. Member: "What about Halifax?"] At Halifax they had a very liberal system, under which even the hon. Member who interrupted would be treated fairly. The present proposal was a perfectly unfair system, and from the point of view of the State it was a mockery to say that these pupil teachers were to be trained at the expense of the State and then to say that in two-thirds of the schools in the land "No Nonconformists need apply.' They might even be better teachers, but nevertheless they were going to say to them, "We have no need of your services because of your creed." That was the way the Government proposed to deal with this question, and then the Prime Minister complained that Nonconformists were not grateful for such concessions. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the Opposition came into power they could not have done this wonderful thing, but let the Government give them the chance. If the right hon. Gentleman had any doubt on this question let him submit this Bill for the redress of Nonconformist grievances to the judgment of the country. In this case he could not offer the electors an extra shilling a day, as was done at Devonport. The Secretary to the Board of Education, upon the second reading of this Bill, said he was in favour of throwing open the lower grades of the teaching profession to everybody without distinction of creed. Did the hon. Gentleman adhere to that view now? If he did, then he ought to support the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Halifax. Did the Secretary to the Board of Education agree that it was a right and just thing to extend this privilege to the lower grades of the teaching profession? If so, what did he say about the charge brought by the Prime Minister against the Nonconformists because they had moved an Amendment which was the very proposal suggested by the Secretary to the Board of Education.

MR. BOND

The charge was that his proposal was a mockery.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

So it was, and there was nothing which proved it more conclusively than the statement made by the hon. Member himself. This was not the first time in the course of these discussions that the Nonconformist grievances had been admitted, but although they were admitted the Government said they would not remedy them. That was because there were hon. Members to remind them of the forces behind who desired to take another course.

(11.36.) Lord HUGH CECIL

said the hon. Member in his interesting speech made use of an ingenious analogy between pupil teachers in schools and army cadets. It did not occur to him that a much more appropriate analogy was to be drawn between army chaplains and the teachers who gave religious instruction in schools. At any rate they had this in common, that both were teachers of religion. No one supposed that it was a grievance to any of the denominations concerned that they could not hold the chaplaincies attached to the other denomination, although the whole fabric and pay was borne by the State. No Nonconformist said "What a shame that I can't be a Church of England chaplain." [An Hon. Member: "They are not trained by the State."] What difference did that make? They were paid by the State. Hon. Members were all agreed about pupil teachers. Every teacher of religion must be to some extent under restriction. He must be a person deemed suitable to teach religion. They could not escape from it in an undenominational school, except by admitting a very much worse evil, if they escaped at all. In a denominational school religion avowedly Christian was taught. How could they admit to a school to teach Christianity a person who rejected Christianity? If they did it would be an intolerable grievance to those who sent their children to the school and who believed that they were being brought up in Christianity by persons who believed in that religion. The only real logical result of the hon. Member's speech was to have simply a secular system and have no religious teaching at all. Would the hon. Member go to the country on that issue? He must shrink from that alternative.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I have always said that in this House.

LORD HUGH CECIL

said his complaint was that knowing a secular system was impossible, and that they must have a religious system, hon. Members opposite tried to make cheap capital about religious tests. Everybody knew that if they had a religious system they must have tests. If hon. Members opposite wished to abolish tests they must go in for a secular system, and if so, they ought to spare the Committee the rhetoric which they had inflicted. That was his answer to the hon. Gentleman. The object of the Government was not to exalt one denomination at the expense of another. They were asked on this side how they should themselves like to submit to such a test. They should receive it with absolute enthusiasm. If the hon. Member for Carnarvon would get up and propose a denominational system he should be one of his warmest supporters. The fact was that the teachers existed for the children, and not the children for the teachers. Therefore every consideration must stand on one side where the welfare of the children was concerned, and it was for that reason that they had all along supported not merely the denominational character of their schools but the denominational character of the teachers in these schools. It was on that ground that they had brought forward the Bill and on which they would go to the country.

MR. ALFRED DAVIES (Carmarthen Boroughs)

hoped the Prime Minister after his warm speech would reconsider the matter and try to accept the Amendment. Many hon. Members sent their sons to our public schools where there were Nonconformists as under masters. As they did that, why should they not consent to have Nonconformists as well as Conformists as assistant teachers in all schools maintained from rates and taxes throughout the country. He would give one out of several instances of Nonconformists being under masters at our great public schools. Now, at Rugby for some years, Mr. Paton, a Nonconformist, was one of their under masters; he is now head master of University College School. Further, he was informed that in our public schools, under masters were elected without any reference to religion. Is this opposition to the Amendment, therefore, real on the part of some Members? It was an unjust Bill, and it was impossible to make it acceptable to Nonconformists unless it could be completely changed from beginning to end. Did the Tory Party remember the time when a Bill, unacceptable to them, was before the House, they said, "Ulster

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.	Lewis, John Herbert
Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lough, Thomas
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)	M'Crae, George
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin
Brigg, John	Harmsworth, R. (Leicester)	Markham, Arthur Basil
Broadhurst Henry	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Mather, Sir William
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Helme, Norval Watson	Morgan J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Burns, John	Holland, Sir William Henry	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Horniman, Frederick John	Newnes, Sir George
Caldwell, James	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Norman, Henry
Cameron, Robert	Jacoby, James Alfred	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Joicey, Sir James	Partington, Oswald
Causton, Richard Knight	Kearley, Hudson E.	Pearson, Sir Weetman D.
Cremer, William Randal	Kitson, Sir James	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Labouchere, Henry	Perks, Robert; William
Dalziel, James Henry	Lambert, George	Philipps, John Wynford
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Price, Robert John
Duncan, J. (Hastings)	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Priestley, Arthur
Edwards, Frank	Leng, Sir John	Rea, Russell
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Levy, Maurice	Reckitt, Harold James

will fight, Ulster will be right." Nonconformists were too patriotic to fight with the sword, but they would protest against the Bill in every way possible. The Prime Minister was so amiable at the Welsh dinner the other day, that he confidently ventured to appeal to him to mete out justice to the majority of the people outside the State Church in the matter of education. If the Prime Minister's amiability could be assured on all occasions, he ventured to believe that they would cheerfully entertain him once a week instead of once in six years. Nonconformists only wanted their just rights. He hoped the House would consider whether it would not be an act of justice to the people of this land to allow the best assistant teachers to be appointed without any reference to State Church religion.

(11.43.) Question put.

Committee divided:—Ayes, 85; Noes, 197. (Division List No. 451.)

Rickett, J. Compton	Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Runciman, Walter	Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Shackleton, David James	Tomkinson, James
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Shipman, Dr. John G.	Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.	Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Soames, Arthur Wellesley	White, Luke (York, E. R.)	Mr. William M'Arthur.
Soares, Ernest J.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Fardell, Sir T. George	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Fielden, Edward Broeklehurst	Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)
Arrol, Sir William	Finch, George H.	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Fisher, William Hayes	Lowe, Francis William
Bain, Colonel James Robert	FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Balcarres, Lord	Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)	Forster, Henry William	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds	Foster, Philips. (Warwick, S.W	Macdona, John Cumming
Banbury, Frederick George	Galloway, William Johnson	MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.
Beresford, Ld. Charles William	Gore, Hn G. R. COrmsby-(Salop	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Bignold, Arthur	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Majendie, James A. H.
Bigwood, James	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim	Manners, Lord Cecil
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Bond, Edward	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Greene, Sir EW (B'ryS Edm'nds	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)	Morgan, David J. (W'lthamst'w
Bull, William James	Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)	Morrell, George Herbert
Butcher, John George	Grenfell, William Henry	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Carew, James Laurence	Gretton, John	Mount, William Arthur
Carlile, William Walter	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute
Cavendish. V. C.W. (Derbyshire	Groves, James Grimble	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Guthrie, Walter Murray	Myers William Henry
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.	Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.	Nicholson, William Graham
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J A (Worc.	Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G(Midd'x	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Chapman. Edward	Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway. N)
Charrington, Spencer	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Clare, Octavius Leigh	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Pemberton, John S. G.
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Helder, Augustus	Percy, Earl
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Henderson, Sir Alexander	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Hoare, Sir Samuel	Plummer, Walter R.
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Hogg, Lindsay	Pretyman, Ernest George
Cook, Sir Fredrick Lucas	Hope, J.F.(Sheffield Brightside	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Hoult, Joseph	Purvis, Robert
Cranborne, Viscount	Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm	Rankin, Sir James
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Ratcliff. R. F.
Crossley, Sir Savile	Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.	Remnant, James Farquharson
Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Johnstone, Heywood	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Davenport, William Bromley-	Kemp, George	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Dixon-Hartland Sir Fred Dixon	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Doughty, George	Keswick, William	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Law, Andrew Bonar, (Glasgow	Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isleof Wight
Duke, Henry Edward	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Seton-Karr, Henry
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham	Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside	Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n, N	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.	Thornton, Percy M.	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Tollemache, Henry James	Wylie, Alexander
Spear, John Ward	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset	Valentia, Viscount	Younger, William
Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)	Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir. William H.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.	Wanklyn, James Leslie	Sir Alexander Acland- Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Willox, Sir John Archibald

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

said he wished to move the Amendment standing in his name as follows— In page 3, line 29, at end, to insert—'Religious instruction shall be given in a school not provided by the local education authority, in accordance with the tenour of the provisions (if any) of the trust deed relating thereto, and shall be under the control of the managers.' The hon. and gallant Gentleman said there was not time at that hour to enter into a detailed explanation of the objects of the Amendment. [Cries of "Progress."] He was perhaps entitled to ask that Progress be reported.

After a brief consultation with the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench,

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

, who spoke amid cries of "Progress," said the Amendment had certain objects which he thought would appeal to the Committee.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEKMAN (Stirling Burghs)

, intervening: Really, Sir, the House of Commons is being played with. My hon. and gallant friend must do one thing or the other. He must move his Amendment or move to report Progress. But, as a matter of fact, he is doing both.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

Well Sir, I have an exceedingly good precedent for taking more courses than one.

It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress.

To sit again Tomorrow.