HC Deb 15 July 1904 vol 138 cc165-227


Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. LLOYD MORGAN (Carmarthen, W.)

said he wished to move as an Amendment to the Second Reading of this Bill, "That this House declines to pass any measure to extend the powers of the Board of Education under the Education Act of 1902 and 1903 until the Government is prepared to introduce a Bill to amend the said Acts by abolishing all religious tests on teachers, and placing all elementary schools supported by public funds under complete popular control." It had been said in some quarters that the Act of 1902 had been a success. It had certainly created a condition of turmoil and strife in nearly every parish and district throughout the length and breadth of the land. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] That was, he submitted, a correct view, and he would endeavour before he concluded to support that observation. Whatever doubts there might be as to the success of the Education Act of 1902 in some parts of the country, he did not think any Member on that side of the House would dissent from the statement that in Wales—and this Bill was entirely directed against the Welsh county councils—that measure had been a complete failure. If further proof of that were required it was supplied by the introduction of this Bill, while the mere introduction of the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill in another place went to show that even amongst the Bishops and the clergy there was a feeling that the Education Act of 1902 was not either a fair or a final settlement of the education question.

The introduction of this Bill seemed to him to be a very striking fact. The Government passed their Education Act only two years ago, and less than two years after it came into operation they were obliged to come to the House of Commons for more legislation in order to make their Act operative. The reason for that wag that the Government had entirely miscalculated the forces which were against the Act in this country. If they were to form a correct judgment on the action of the local authorities they were bound to consider the circumstances under which the Education Act was, passed. He did not want to make too much of the "no mandate" argument. He did not say that a Government which was mainly elected on one issue should not introduce legislation on other points; but he did maintain that if a Government was largely elected on one issue, that disentitled them to introduce legislation of a highly controversial character. The Prime Minister at North East Manchester and scores of Gentlemen opposite throughout the length and breadth of the land made speeches stating that this Parliament was to be elected for one purpose only, to bring the war to an end, and that those electors who voted for Liberal candidates were voting for the Boers.


Order, order! That is not the question before the House.


said he only wanted to show that the conditions under which the Education Act was passed were such that it was unfair to introduce the Bill now before the House. The Education Act was opposed to the recognised principles on which legislation in this country was passed, with two of which his Amendment dealt. The Act did not give the people control over the money they provided, and it imposed religious tests on men who were now to all intents and purposes Civil servants. It was quite true that in other respects the Act was opposed to recognised principles. The Act was passed in the interests of one religious sect of the community. The Archbishop of Canterbury said he had never, seen the Bill—


Order, order! It is rot competent to the hon. Member on this Bill to review the whole of the Education Act of 1902. As I understand, certain county councils are objecting to certain conditions on which rate aid is given, and it is alleged that they decline to carry out the Act, and this is a Bill to take measures to compel that to be done. The two matters referred to in the hon. Member's Amendment are relevant, but the hon. Member will not be in order in treating this as an opportunity for discussing the merits of the Act of 1902 as a whole.


said he was giving the reasons why the county councils were fighting the Act, and he only wished to call attention to the fact that the Education Act was passed in circumstances which justified the local authorities offering the very strongest opposition to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Oxford University. He thought he was entitled to say that the passing of the Education Act in 1902 had caused a keen sense of injustice throughout the country. It was impossible to exaggerate that feeling, not only amongst Nonconformists, but amongst men who were not connected with any Nonconformist com- munion, and amongst Churchmen who were entirely out of sympathy with the political opinions of the Opposition. The injustice was sinking into the minds of the people, and the feeling that the Act was founded on principles which could not be supported, was gaining force day by day.

SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)

on the point of order, submitted that up to this point the hon. Member's speech had been entirely denunciation of the Act of 1902.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

said he would like to have Mr. Speaker's ruling on this point, which was very important. The opposition to the Act was on certain grounds which had produced certain difficulties. Their contention was that the real remedy for certain difficulties caused by the opposition in Wales to the Act of 1902, was not to bring in a coercive Bill like the present—[MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"]—but to bring in a remedial measure. Would it not, therefore, be in order to dwell on the objections raised by the Welsh people to the principle of the Act of 1902, and to contend that the Government ought to meet those objections rather than bring in this Bill?


On the point of order, Sir, is it not the fact that, if the Welsh county councils are carrying out the Act, this Bill will have no effect in Wales at all.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

said he ventured to submit that it would be allowable and proper that they should be permitted to contend that this was not the method of dealing with the state of things which had arisen in Wales, but that it should be dealt with in a different method altogether which would bring peace where there was no peace at present.


That opens a very much wider question. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to debate this question as if he were arguing an alternative system of education for Wales, and that would not be in order. It is permissible to deal with specific difficulties arising out of the action of certain county councils. The Amendment deals with certain difficulties which the county councils in Wales have felt in the administration of the Act and the debate must be confined to the question whether these are difficulties for which the proposed remedy is required. I cannot admit here a debate upon an alternative system of education.


asked whether they were to understand that they would be allowed to maintain that this was not the way to deal with the question.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

asked whether it would be in order to investigate the causes which had led to the Bill being brought in.


If the argument of the right hon. Gentleman were correct it would mean that if there were a penalty of £5 upon some action of a county council, and it was proposed to increase that penalty to £100 on the ground that the £5 penalty was inadequate, it would be open to the House to discuss that that was not the proper method of dealing with the difficulty, and that a wholly different Education Bill ought to be brought in. I have twice given my decision on that point.

SIR EDWARD GREY (Northumberland, Berwick)

asked whether it would be within Mr. Speaker's ruling to express their opinion and argue as to whether the action of certain county councils in Wales had been justified or not.


Certainly. Hon. Members can give and support the reasons that make them unwilling to give further powers to the Board of Education for enforcing the Act.

MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)

said that this was a Bill which affected the whole country. Might it not be open to hon. Members, when a new tribunal was proposed to be set up to administer the Education Act and vest in that tribunal certain functions now possessed by the county councils, to contend that the Education Board was neither a competent nor a satisfying tribunal in which to vest the statutory powers now vested in county councils.


In so far as this Bill proposes to vest certain powers in the Board of Education it will be competent for hon. Members to object to such powers being given.


resuming, said he was pointing out that the condition of affairs in Wales with which this Bill dealt arose from the sense of injustice which the people there considered that the Education Act inflicted upon them, and which no doubt accounted for the drastic action of the Carmarthenshire County Council. He was not himself a passive resister, but it would be unfair to shut one's eyes to the fact that the men who were passive resisters had a conscientious objection to the Education Act. The Carmarthenshire County Council were entitled to oppose that Act provided they took the right methods of doing so. He did not say that their action was in every respect right, but this particular county council were practically obliged to take the course they did because of the powerful feeling prevailing in the county. The fact that those members of the county council who opposed the action of the council were rejected, showed how strong was the feeling against the Act existing among the people. The Government were not dealing with a violent or lawless people. The Carmarthenshire people and the Welsh people generally were very religious and a law-abiding people, and their opposition to the Act was prompted by the feeling that it wronged their consciences. If the Welsh county councils were wrong in the line they took the Government could not acquit themselves of all blame owing to the manner in which the Act was passed through the House of Commons. If they pushed measures through that House contrary to the will of the people, they could not expect the people to pay the same respect to them as if they were passed with their consent. There was no moral force of public opinion behind the Act nor did he believe this Bill was going to end the struggle.

In his opinion this Bill so far as the Education Act was concerned made no difference at all. The county councils had a duty to perform on behalf of the ratepayers and were entitled to say, "This Act has been passed against our will. It is objectionable. We give you everything the law says we must but we will give you nothing else." If the Act were administered on those lines the Bill would practically make no difference. The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs suggested that the inquiry should be a public one, not into whether or not there had been some breach of the law made by the county council, but an inquiry into the working of the Education Act in Wales generally. As the Lord Lieutenant of the county had also suggested, the Government should have held a complete inquiry into the cause of the discontent in Wales and should have gone to the root of the matter. It was intolerable when all the money for the support of the schools was provided from public sources, that the parish schools should be regulated and controlled by one denomination, and that denomination the minority of the people. This was not a new question, for it was raised, as the result of a Government inquiry, in 1855. The Welsh people spent more money on education than the people of any other part of the country did. Why the Government had brought in this peddling, tinkering, meddlesome little Bill he could not make out. If the controversy was to be opened, why was it not opened in a fair way, and why was not there some endeavour to redress the grave religious inequalities in a fair and just way which would satisfy the people who were at present crying out against the Bill because it, affected their consciences. The adoption by the Government of his Motion was the only way, in his judgment, that this question could be settled; and it would be well if the Government gave some attention, at the end of their ill-spent life, to redressing the errors of the past.

SIR ALFRED THOMAS (Glamorganshire, E.)

said he rose to support the Amendment of his hon. friend. Were it necessary to have all object lesson to show the abject failure of the Education Act of 1902 they had one in the Bill now before the House of Commons. By the Bill the Government stood confessed that their previous measure had utterly failed to fulfil its object as far as regarded the Welsh counties, and they were given to understand that certain English counties, notably Lincoln, liked it little, if any, better than the people of the Principality. Now the Government could not say they did not receive ample warning of what would happen if they persisted in including Wales within the scope of that measure. They were told that the Welsh county councils would not put in force so much of the Act as related to denominational schools. Their representations were treated with scorn. But the Government now found to their cost that every prediction made by his hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon and other Welsh Members had been fulfilled to the very letter. Perhaps they might say of the Government that, as far as regarded the Act of 1902, they had only themselves to blame for want of a more intimate knowledge of the feelings of the Welsh people. It was possible that their advisers might have told them that the proposed legislation, not with standing anything said to the contrary by Welsh Liberal Members, would be administered by the Welsh county councils. There might be some excuse for their mistake with regard to the Act of 1902; but there could not be any excuse or extenuation advanced for the present Bill. Since the passing of the last Act many things had happened that should have warned the Government of the danger that confronted them. The conduct of the Government had been analogous to that of Pharaoh to the Children of Israel. Every additional indication they had had of the determination of the Welsh councils not to put the Act in force had only tended to further harden their hearts, until at last the House had been presented with the present Bill, which had been justly described as a Welsh Coercion Bill. If it were not too late they ought to warn the Government of the fate of Pharaoh. It was true they did not expect them to be overwhelmed in the Red Sea, but for this and many other sins they confidently expected them to be overwhelmed at the next general election.

It was asserted by advocates of the Education Act that the reason why the county councils were so unwilling to put the Bill in force was that they were not elected for that purpose, but that it would be quite different after the next county council elections. So it was, but not in the direction they indicated; and here he might be permitted to read a short extract from the Liverpool Mercury of figures supplied by that good Welsh patriot, Beriah Evans. Before the passing of the Act the Liberals in Welsh county councils numbered 543 and the Conservatives 252. After the passing of the Act the Liberals numbered 639 to 157 Conservatives. So that whereas previous to the passing of the Act the Conservatives were nearly half of the whole, after the last elections the Conservatives did not number one out of every five of the membership of Welsh councils. That was the answer of the people of Wales to the Education Act. It was plain that warnings had no effect upon the Government from whomsoever given—not even when given by the late Archbishop of Canterbury, who said— Do not put the schools upon the slippery slope of the rates. Neither had the many lessons given them by Welsh county councils in any way made them more amenable to reason. And if it were their determination to ride rough-shod over the feelings of the Welsh it would not occur without the strongest protest of their representatives in the House of Commons. This was the reward they received after all the sacrifices they had made for education in the Principality. After all this Bill might have one good effect, it might make the change that would follow in the next Administration more thorough, for certainly nothing less than was contained in the Amendment now under discussion would satisfy the Welsh people. And by that time they had reason to hope the predominating partner would himself have come up to concert pitch.

Amendment proposed— To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'this House declines to pass any measure to extend the powers of the Board of Education under the Education Acts of 1902 and 1903 until the Government is prepared to introduce a Bill to amend the said Acts by abolishing all religious tests on teachers, and placing all elementary schools supported by public funds under complete popular control.'"—(Mr. Lloyd Morgan.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."


I need hardly tell the House that after the Speaker's ruling, the debate appears to me to be restricted to a compass so narrow that it would be quite inappropriate that I should take up more of the time of the House than a few minutes. But in those few minutes I can explain to the House why it is we think this Bill is necessary, and why we remain quite unmoved by the two speeches which have just been delivered. I will not deal, I need hardly say, either by way of explanation, excuse, or justification, with the Act of 1902; that would be outside the ruling Mr. Speaker has given; and I think it would be quite unnecessary for the purposes of my argument. I must remind the House that when that Bill was introduced the Government were perfectly aware that it was impossible to bring in any Education Act without dealing with the very thorny religious questions which any possible treatment of the education question must produce. We felt that the Bill might raise difficulties in administration, and in the Bill as we originally proposed it to the House we had provisions which would have allowed local authorities to leave it on one side and to refuse both its advantages and its disadvantages. But the whole House was against us. We altered the clause, we re-drew it, and finally by common consent of the House we withdrew it. I will not argue whether we were right or wrong in withdrawing it. I only mention the fact because I think it is due to us to show that we were perfectly conscious of the kind of difficulty that would be raised, and that we did our best by the original construction of the Bill to obviate that difficulty. Well, the Bill was passed without the clause, and those evils have arisen. Whether the county councils in Wales and those who are responsible for their action were justified in the course they have taken is another matter. But I think it is perfectly clear to every man who will abstract his mind from the special controversy which the Bill has aroused and will concentrate his attention upon the general principles which ought to animate every individual citizen and all the subordinate local institutions into which the country is divided, that the Government cannot, and ought not, to allow the intentions of Parliament, be they good or bad, to be defeated because those who have been entrusted with the carrying out of the will of the nation, as organised in Parliament, have attempted to throw off the burden of responsibility which Parliament has placed upon them. Does anybody deny that proposition? The hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion seems to think that the whole question is settled when he introduces the word "conscience." I do not think that the question is settled by the introduction of that order of ideas. I know that all the views I hold are conscientious views and that all the objections I feel are conscientious objections. I daresay I may be wrong in my beliefs; I daresay my objections are misplaced; but at all events they are conscientious. And it is absurd to contend that the holding of a conscientious objection is a reason for breaking the law. The laws of this country ought to be obeyed. They may be good or bad; they may be passed by an iniquitous Government, they may be passed without a mandate from the people, they may be passed by closure by compartments; they may have all these defects—


They have.


And in the opinion of hon. Gentleman opposite they have these defects. In my opinion they have not; in my conscientious opinion they have not. But, whether they have or whether they have not, the principle remains that the way to deal with a situation of that kind is not to break the law, but to alter the law. [OPPOSITION cheers.] As that is really the only proposition I ask the House to assent to. I am extremely glad to have the enthusiastic assent of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If you once introduce this principle of conscientious objection, by which is meant, I believe, a sincere objection—




An insincere objection them.


A great deal more than sincere. What, do you mean by calling them sincere?


Well, what are they? I use "conscientious" in its ordinary sense. What, then, is there to complain of in my statement? But, without attempting to bandy words with the right hon. Gentleman, I will put it that the solution of the thorny question of education proposed by the Government is one that has undoubtedly aroused conscientious objections in a large portion of the community. But precisely the same objections may be aroused by any other solution. I give the right hon. Gentleman opposite every credit for ingenuity. But has he got in his mind even the faintest outline of a Bill to amend the Education Act which will not hurt the conscience of somebody? If, then, you are going to lay down the principle that a conscientious objection to an Act by an individual or a county council is a sufficient reason for breaking the law, the result Will be that, until some statesman arises who will find his way through this labyrinth of mutually destructive conscientious opinions and passes a measure which pleases every one you will have a series of attempts to deal with this religious difficulty, each of which will be met by disobedience of the law, by the refusal to pay rates, on the part of those to whom the particular solution that may for the time commend itself to the House of Commons is offensive. I do not think any one can contemplate this series of illegalities, exercised first from one side and then from the other without feeling that it brings utter destruction upon the whole principle of Parliamentary government. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who believe they are coming into power immediately with an enormous majority, and are going to alter the Act and carry out a great series of changes as regards education, would have been the very first to say to their own friends and followers, "Bear with the evil while it lasts; it will not last long; do not break the law; we will bring in a new law or an amended law; and you will only discredit the law if you lay down as part of your policy that lawbreaking is the true method, and not legislation, by which the errors of the Legislature should be corrected." That seems to me common sense, wisdom, and sound constitutional doctrine; and I should have thought that it would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite as an excellent policy from their own point of view.

The hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion talked in a glib fashion of the way in which they were going to put this question right after the general election. I wish them all success. I know they look forward to a solution which will avoid all the evils incidental to the existing system, which will raise no other evils in their place, and which will leave untroubled every sensitive conscience from one end of England to the other, and I can assure them that if they should be much more fortunate than their predecessors in finding this solution they will not have any heartier supporter than myself. But I have my doubts. I see trouble for the future even in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion. He told us that the true system of education was to give in our elementary schools the religious instruction that was desired by the parents. That is exactly the thing I should like to see done.


Why do you not do it now?


Because I have never been able to formulate a plan—which I am sure the hon. Gentleman can—by which that happy result could be attained. We built upon the old foundations; and in every single respect the building we erected upon these old foundations was far more in conformity with the views of those who opposed the Bill through thick and thin in this House than the system which existed before that Bill was passed. Of course I do not pretend that the Bill attained that full and complete ideal which was sketched for us by the hon. Gentleman. But it was the best we were able to do. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the dregs of the mis-spent life of the Government. Surely the task of framing a scheme which shall satisfy the views of every parent in the country should not be undertaken by a Government in the last dregs of a misspent life. We look forward to the new and rejuvenated Party, in which I have no doubt the hon. Member for Carnarvon will be an important personage, to give to every child that denominational education which the parents of the child desire. Happy man! He has my best wishes in the accomplishment of that great and distinguished task. We, a Government in the last dregs of an ill-spent life, do not feel equal to undertaking this work, which we leave to younger and abler hands. But in the meanwhile we do suggest that there is an interest common to both sides, and that is that when the Legislature passes a law, and when it entrusts the execution of that law to the county councils of the country, and when those county councils fail in their duty, we should at all events see that there is some substitute found for the machinery which in this particular case has failed in its full effect. In asking the House to pass this Bill we do not ask them to alter either the substance or the essential spirit of the educational provisions of last year. What we do ask them to do is to see that this Legislature shall not be flouted, and that, in the interest of the children as well as in the interest of the law, the provisions of the Act of 1902 shall be carried into effect.


The issue raised in this Bill is one of great gravity but also of extreme simplicity. It is simply this—shall means be provided beyond those that are contained in the statute itself for coercing a local authority into doing something, taking some course, to which the conscientious feelings of those whom it represents are opposed? That is the simple question. The right hon. Gentleman brushes it aside by abolishing conscience.


Not at all. I said my views were conscientious.


Does the right hon. Gentleman think this is a warm day I suppose he thinks that is not a conscientious belief. What we mean by conscientious belief and feeling is a belief and feeling that go beyond mere matters of fact, which reach a higher sphere altogether, and which therefore bring into play a more exalted and more intense sentiment than when a mere question of the expediency of this or that line of policy is concerned. That is precisely the class of intense earnest feeling which is aroused here, and which it ought to be the duty and object of Parliament to avoid disturbing as much as possible. That is what we mean by conscientious belief, and I am glad to have been able to add to the already large store of knowledge which the right hon. Gentleman possesses by, in an imperfect way, explaining to him what conscience really means. In looking back over the discussion upon the Education Act of 1902 I found some remarkable arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman himself which it is worth while to recall to the House. The Prime Minister very properly reminded us that, as introduced, that Bill was not a compulsory measure. He said, in introducing the Bill on 24th March, 1902—that its adoption was to rest with local authorities. The principle of the Bill so far as elementary education was concerned was that of local option. It was necessary to go gradually and to avoid any suspicion of coercing the local authorities. He gave his reasons in these words— The Bill touches an enormous number of controversial problems: it may rake up the ashes of many old controversies and it may excite administrative disquiet, even alarm, in many portions of the country.… We can hardly hope to succeed in our object unless we carry with us the local authorities on whom the burden and responsibility of working the Bill will fall. We think it would be most undesirable to drive or force them, with but brief consideration and, possibly, against their will, into accepting our plan. He went on to hope that they would in a few years voluntarily adopt the Bill in its entirety. How much better to attain that result through their free and untrammelled action than to force it upon them, it may be prematurely. I entirely approve of that sentiment, and I voted in support of it. But the scheme of the Bill was afterwards recast. The county councils were compelled to administer the Act regardless of their own inclinations. The decision was left to the House. I believe the Prime Minister voted in favour of making the Bill compulsory, but many of us did not. Those were the sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman in March. In July he repelled the idea that any disturbance of social order was possible. or that there was any ground for disquiet or alarm. He had no doubt as to the Government carrying with them the local authorities. In March there were doubts: in July he so arranged the financial provisions of the Bill as to make it worth while for the councils to come in, and for the ratepayers to avoid raking up the embers of those controversies which had loomed so large in March. It would be interesting to know which of those arguments commends itself to the right hon. Gentleman now, but though interesting it is not important. The important thing to remember is that the right hon. Gentleman, the author of the Act, himself recognised and warned the House of Commons of the dangers which would follow from an endeavour to coerce the local authorities. Upon whom, then, does the balance of criminality rest? Does it rest with the authors of the Bill, who saw the danger and pointed it out to the House, but persisted in imposing on the county councils, some of whom might be refractory, what might prove in some instances to be "an intolerable strain?" Or does it rest with the authorities who have refused to be coerced into a course which they feel they cannot follow without a betrayal of the interests, and especially of the inner feelings and desires, of those whom they represent? Having passed a law which in this respect at least is a had law, having miscalculated the public sentiment, so as to make the Act a failure in respect of bringing in the sympathies and co-operation of all the world, it is not easy for the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to lift up hands in horror when some men commit acts which are in letter or in spirit a breach or an evasion of the law. A problem of this kind has been known on occasion before. Those who refused to pay Church rates were also regarded as lawbreakers, and we know what the result of that was. Really, after the speech of the Prime Minister on the main Act, after his deprecation of the methods of coercion, after his arguing against any attempt to ride roughshod over local sentiment and conscientious convictions, the authors of that Act are not entitled to take a high moral tone. They must be quite aware that by seeking to apply this double dose of coercion they are not improving—


This Bill does not coerce them.


Moral coercion.


Moral! Immoral.


Indirect coercion, at any rate; otherwise why is the Bill brought in?


Because if the county councils do not do their duty somebody else must. That is all.


Yes, and that somebody else is to do it at the cost of the county councils. That is not in the least degree coercive! Really the definements of the right hon. Gentleman are always amusing, but they sometimes carry him too far. The right course is to amend the Act, to remove the causes of breakdown, to bring the Act into conformity with public feeling. Give popular control in deed as well as in name, by making the control and management representative. Do away with those particular tests which are not only iniquitous and oppressive, but obsolete and delusive at the present time—a system which has been given up in every other Department of the State and is retained solely for the benefit of clerical interest in elementary schools. Let sectarian teaching be given by the sect and at the cost of the sect whose adherents demand it. The methods of this Bill, on the other hand, are designed to override popular local feeling, and they cannot have other than an evil effect on the interests of education. If the Government will not look facts in the face, why do not they resort to the remedy provided in the Bill itself? It is a perfectly clear one. In the words of the Attorney-General— It was the duty of the local education authority to maintain all schools alike, and therefore any words forbidding discrimination were unnecessary. If discrimination were attempted the remedy was provided under Section 11, which said that if the local authority failed to fulfil any of its duties the Board of Education should hold a public inquiry and make an order which was to be enforced by mandamus." To gaol with the offenders! Why should they not be sent to gaol? Because the Government dare not. They know that it would lead to something in the direction of civil war, and be an advertisement on a large scale for the breakdown of their Act. So this new apparatus of coercion is introduced. It is an admission that the Welsh local authorities are too far gone for imprisonment and something else must be done. The Government have recourse to another scheme, which is to sweep away the local authority and put another body in their place. They deal with the problem in the rightdown straightforward autocratic manner of administering the Act from Whitehall, impounding the ratepayers' money from Whitehall, and disregarding all the ordinary constitutional safeguards which even in a Bill of this kind the House of Commons sets up; suspend the Constitution in fact. This is a mode of dealing with things we have been accustomed to apply to what we call the "sister country" for many years.


It is the Act of 1870. [Cries of "No, no!"]


It is a totally different thing.


At all events this is the remedy to be applied by the right hon. Gentleman. It does not suggest to my mind either good to the cause of education, to the popularising of education, or in the bringing in of general sympathy with the cause of education. Nor does it suggest a very full appreciation of a strict adherence to the principles of the Constitution; and therefore we shall, I hope, oppose it with all the strength we have.

But there is another consideration which has to be urged. There is another stronger reason which I will urge in passing. This method involves that the money which ought to go to localities is to be stopped in order to be used for this purpose of education. But this money goes at present for public purposes—for the police, the lunatics, and other things; and it really means that these may be neglected in order that the particular provisions with regard to schools may be enforced. We remember the saying that "Wretches hang that jurymen may dine;" now lunatics are to go loose.


That view of the right hon. Gentleman rests on a misreading of the Bill. It is only the education money that is to be used.


Only the education grant? If that is so, and I am relieved to hear it, then that part of my argument falls to the ground. But the general education of the district is to be interfered with in order to secure the particular support which these clerical schools are thought to require. It is the more limited area which is to be poached upon; but leaving that aside, I think that I have said enough to show that in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of the majority on this side of the House at all events, the Government are going about the matter in the wrong way. They foresaw the result that would happen, but notwithstanding that they have persisted in the course they have adopted. The way to get out of the impasse in which they are placed is to amend the law in such a way as to reconcile the good feeling and the conscientious beliefs of the people among whom the Act is to be applied.


said that the right hon. Gentleman had misrepresented the character of the Bill as being a measure to coerce local authorities to do that against which they had a conscientious objection. That was exactly what the Bill did not do. The existing law might have the effect of coercing local authorities to do that against which they had a conscientious objection, for they might be ordered by mandamus to carry out the Act, and the order might be enforced by imprisonment if necessary. But the principle of the present Bill was that if the local authorities had a conscientious objection to do some act required to be done by law their conscientious scruples were to be respected and some other authority would do that which the law ordered to be done. It was no new expedient. It had been in force from 1870 down to 1902, and the expedient had constantly been put in force. The character of the security taken for the forms of the law to be observed in the Act of 1870 was that the Board of Education had power to declare any school board in default, and thereupon to appoint a school board of its own. It was composed of its own nominees, and the Board of Education could put upon that school board any gentlemen it chose to select. It had the power of laying rates on the district involved, so that the Board of Education practically administered the authority of the recalcitrant school board from Whitehall. This had been constantly done when he was Vice-President of the Council, but in practice the provision was never necessary except in the case of the small country schools. The authors of the Act of 1902 were no doubt open to the accusation that they did not think the great local authorities would act in the same way as the county councils had acted here to break the law, and therefore, that provision which experience had shown to be unnecessary in the case of great and important public bodies was omitted from the Act. It had, no doubt, surprised the Government to find that great public bodies could be so unconscious of their loyalty to the law as deliberately to set themselves, as in the case of Carmarthenshire, to break it and to glory in having broken it. But such a remedy as the Bill provided became necessary, not only in the interest of the law, but in the interest of the children. He had always tried, frequently to the annoyance of those over him, to make the interest of the children the first consideration. The effect of the action of the Welsh county councils was to leave the children uneducated, or imperfectly educated.


That is absolutely untrue.


They were withdrawing from the children the benefits which Parliament had chosen to give them. As long as the county councils, on whatever grounds, conscientious or otherwise, refused to put into operation the Act of 1902, it was the children of Wales that were suffering. He should have thought that everybody concerned would have tried to invent some temporary means by which this state of things could have been put a stop to until the advent of that great Liberal majority in the next Parliament, and pending the remedial measures which the Opposition would then no doubt bring in. This was just the, sort of remedial measure that was required. By it the administration of the Act could be provided for. The sums of money necessary for making the Welsh schools efficient could, without violating the conscience of any county councillors, be provided, and in the next few years the elementary education of Wales would be conducted with some satisfaction to the children and their parents. This was a case where, in the interest of the children, it was absolutely essential that the House should clothe the Board of Education with these extraordinary powers, because it was the only way at the present time in which the beneficent provisions of the Act could reach them.

As to the religious question, he agreed with his right hon. friend the Prime Minister that it was a very thorny and difficult question. It was thorny and difficult in that House and in legislation, but not at all difficult to settle in the schools themselves. There were two possible solutions, but there was only one which was really practicable. One way was to exclude the teaching of religion altogether from the elementary schools. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] There was one hon. Member in favour of that. It was the method pursued in Prance, and in our Australian colonies. He did not think it was the method in the Dominion of Canada. It was also followed in most of the American States. But it was a solution, right or wrong, which the people of this country would not accept. In his opinion they were right in not accepting it. They insisted on having religious instruction given to their children in the elementary schools in which they had been accustomed to have it. That was not peculiar to one religious denomination. Catholics had conscientious objections to any education at all unless religion formed a part of it. There were many members of the Church of England who had very much the same feeling on the subject as Catholics. Jews, and some bodies of Nonconformists, had very strong views on this subject, and the whole opinion of the country was in favour of some religious instruction being given in the schools. If they must give religious instruction in their schools, there was only one way in which it could be given justly, and that was, as the Prime Minister had said, by allowing every child to receive the sort of religious instruction which its parents liked.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

Under full popular control.


said he did not care whom they made the local authority or the manager so long as they made it part of their duty to see that every child received the kind of religious instruction which was acceptable to its parents. It was not impossible. It was done in thousands of schools in this country today, and the few in which religious animosities were shown and religious squabbles took place were quite exceptions to the rule. Any attempt to coerce parents, or to coerce managers or public bodies into giving a particular sort of religious instruction whether people liked it or not he was opposed to, owing to his strong devotion to the principle of religious equality. Religious equality did not mean that they were to give anybody any religious instruction, or to force a particular kind of religious instruction on the children which their parents did not want. In regard to religion, parents should be allowed to have their children instructed as they thought best. He could not enter into the feelings of the people who had a conscientious objection to pay rates for a purpose of that kind. He had no objection to Jews being taught the Jewish religion, and that Catholics, Quakers, and anybody they liked, should be taught their a religions. He would even go so far as to have Mahommedans taught their religion, but for Heaven's sake let the children be taught what their parents wished them to be taught.


That is exactly what is not done in Wales.


said if it was not done in Wales or in any section of the country he would join the hon. Member for Carnarvon in putting that to rights. In the Presbyterian schools in Scotland this difficulty did not arise with Catholics, and the school authorities in England could equally well give such religious instruction as would be acceptable to the parents if Parliament would release them from the trammels in which they were placed, and trust to that charity, moderation, and good sense which was vouched for by the action of thousands of managers throughout the country in places where religious instruction was given.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Morley)

said that after the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, in the latter part of his speech, the only course open for him was to vote for the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had been most eloquent in his defence of the rights of parents, and in his opposition to children being coerced into receiving religious instruction which their parents did not desire them to receive. That was exactly the position which hon. Members on the Opposition side took up in defence of the parents of Welsh children. Reference had been made to the position of the voter, but he could not understand how anyone could divorce the position of the voter from that of the parent. They would have popular control substantially if they got an expression of popular opinion by voters who were the parents of the children attending the schools. They heard a great deal from the Prime Minister in 1902 in defence of the parents, and ever since, but whenever they tried to get a practical means of securing for the parents control of the teaching, and control of the managers, they had always been met by a non possumus from the right hon. Gentleman. He had steadily resisted the giving of the parents any control in the education of the children, either religious or otherwise. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Cambridge University, said the only solution was to enable the public authority to give the kind of religious education which the parents of the children desired, and as an example he pointed to the system in vogue in Scotland. Did the right hon. Gentleman not recollect that the Prime Minister said the other day that that was a system which he would not attempt to establish in this country? He himself thought that the Scotch system could be made to apply to this country. The Prime Minister had stated that it would not be practicable to enforce the Scotch system in England and Wales because the people objected to denominational teaching, which was the principle of the Scotch system. Might he point out that in no Education Act, so far as he was aware, was there a single direction to the school boards in Scotland obliging them to give denominational instruction to children?


There is absolute freedom for the school boards to give denominational education in school hours out of the rates.


said he did not think the Scotch system was an ideal one for this country, but if the Prime Minister would give the same freedom to local authorities in England and Wales to do what they chose in the matter of religious instruction as was enjoyed by the school boards in Scotland, he would take it with both hands. Though he was a Nonconformist he did not pretend to speak on their behalf, but he believed that a definite proposal of that kind would have the general support of Nonconformists all over the country. He did not say that in the first instance there might not be some friction and trouble as there was when the Act of 1870 was passed. Arrangements were made when that Act came into operation by the London School Board under the Cowper-Temple clause, and their example was followed by other boards. He had not the slightest doubt that if the Scotch system were offered to England and Wales it could be made a solution of the difficulties that were forced upon them at the present time.

*MR. J. F. HOPE (Sheffield, Brightside)

asked whether the hon. Member would accept a system of special religious teaching for minorities.


said he would leave the local authorities absolutely free to take their course as WAS done in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had pointed out that that was done in Scotch schools which attended by Roman Catholics. He thought the proposal now before the House was a condemnation of the policy which the Government had pursued throughout the administration of the Act of 1902. The scheme was not practicable in the case of the big county councils. When the Department was dealing formerly with the petty school boards, did the right hon. Gentleman when he declared a school board in default, withhold a single penny of the grants from the schools of that school board? He wanted to emphasise that this was not only a Welsh question. There were similar grievances all over England. And who was to be the judge as to whether a county council was in default? The judge was to be the right hon. Gentleman presiding over the Board of Education. The Prime Minister said that he could not understand that the Nonconformists had any grievance under the Act of 1902. Was that the kind of Government which was to be the supreme judge as to whether the county councils were in defalt? If the county councils declined to hand over money to denominational schools in respect of the hour given to denominational teaching, did the Secretary to the Board of Education consider that they would be acting illegally, and would he denounce them as being in default?


No grant is given for denominational education.


said he meant that the teacher's salary for the hour devoted to religious teaching was paid for out of the rates, and that the county council was justified in withholding that portion of the salary. Again, some county councils had refused to pay the teachers of denominational schools on the same scale as teachers in provided schools. Would they be in default in thus differentiating the teachers' salaries. Then there were councils which had offered a substantial rent for denominational schools if they were brought under their control. Was that a legal proposal? Why should the right hon. Gentleman come down and say that local authorities were in default in respect of one action, when there were all kinds of proceedings which might warrant interference. He thought the Bill was entirely unjustifiable and utterly bad. The Government, knowing the strong feeling that existed against the Act of 1902, ought to have gone to the root of the matter, and not taken the course they had done.

*MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)

said that whatever criticism could be brought against the Government in connection with the Bill, it could not be suggested that they had acted precipitately. It was admitted that the various county councils had had ample time in which to formulate their plans to carry out the Act. He would ask the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment whether he would not admit that it was not intended to put the Act into operation in Wales. In these circumstances, the duty of the Government was plain; and it would le lacking in its primary duty if it failed to ask Parliament for the necessary powers for the enforcement of the law. Very little had been said about the state of affairs in Wales which led to the introduction of this Bill, or regarding the attitude of some hon. Gentlemen opposite in connection with the subject. It had been said that the Act was a failure; but he strongly protested against that. It had been his duty to pay close attention to the matter; and he believed that the Act of 1902 had proved a great boon to the great majority of the schools in England. Here and there there were serious defects, especially in Wales and the West Riding of Yorkshire. In Wales many of the authorities had declared that they would not levy any rate for the purpose of supporting voluntary schools. No exception was taken to the capacity, skill and judgment with which Mr. Lawrence conducted the inquiry in Carmarthen; and he declared that the Carmarthen Council had failed to be responsible for the control of secular instruction in voluntary schools; they had failed to appoint managers, failed to control the expenditure required for voluntary schools, and withheld their consent to the appointment of teachers. The attitude of hon. Gentlemen in the House and in Wales was very different. In Wales their attitude was one of general encouragement to disobey the law. He noticed, however, that one hon. Member admitted that the Carmarthen County Council had gone too far. That was, at any rate, a step in the right direction; but the country ought to know the facts. He was giving reasons in support of the Bill which he thought would commend themselves to the majority of English electors. One council refused to allow their attendance officers to act for voluntary schools.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.)

asked if the hon. Gentleman alleged that these things were going on at present.


said that some of them were.


asked if there was a single county in Wales where the attendance officers were forbidden to act.


said that under the Carmarthen County Council the no rate resolution had been in force for a considerable time; and if it had been rescinded, it was because this Bill was introduced. That in itself was full justification for the Bill. Further, he knew that many teachers were approaching their summer holidays without having their salaries in their pockets and without any prospect of being paid when they returned to work owing to the Parliamentary grants having been exhausted. What applied to the teacher applied with equal urgency to the children in respect of the material for carrying on the work of the schools. In the village of St. Clears there were two schools, one a provided school and the other a non-provided school. The pupils in the voluntary schools numbered ninety-one, of whom thirty-six were Nonconformists. The manager applied for the necessary material for carrying on the school, and the only reply was, "We beg to return you the requisition forwarded by you on the 27th inst." Not another word. What was to become of those children? Another teacher wrote him that his pupils were obliged to write on sugar paper. In the case of the Carnarvon schools the county council passed a resolution to the effect that they would be unable to take them over until they were put into a proper condition. That was a perfectly legitimate thing to do, and he found no objection in it, because he had moved an Amendment to the Education Bill to the same effect. But Parliament rejected that Amendment, and, it having been defeated, it was their duty to carry out the will of Parliament. When the resolution was passed, it occurred to somebody to send down a surveyor to report on the condition of the voluntary schools, and he reported that it would cost slightly over £12,000 to put them into such a condition that the county council might recognise them. But there was no promise on the part of the county council that it would recognise them if that amount was spent upon them. It was also decided to send the same surveyor to examine the Board schools, and he reported that it would take £12,227 to put the Board schools in order. The county council had, the hon. Member pointed out, taken over the Board schools and provided them with material and undertaken their maintenance under the Act. Yet there was no greater obligation upon them to take over these schools than the voluntary schools. What became, then, of the plea that they refused to maintain the voluntary schools because they were in so unsatisfactory a condition? That was not all. In (me district, the managers of a British school offered to transfer the entire building and to put the school under the complete control of the county council if they would allow them to have the use of the building for two evenings a week. Their offer was refused and the managers were told the school must be transferred entirely. The Carmarthen case was a typical case. This policy had been adopted wherever possible, and the result had been that the managers had had to keep the schools out of their own pockets or to allow the children to drift. To their credit be it said, they had sought to maintain them, with the aid of the Parliamentary grants, which, it was only fair to say, the councils of Wales hand al over to them. This policy was unfair and unjust to them. It was unfair to the teachers and children, who had been made the shuttlecocks between the parties playing out this religious strife throughout the Principality. He held that if county councils, regardless of the interests of the children, refrained from giving effect to the wish of Parliament, it was the duty of the Government to take some other step to secure that the law was carried out. It was because he hoped the Bill would do something to redress the present evils that he supported it.


thought that a case had not been made out against the action of the Carnarvonshire County Council, who appeared to have kept within the letter of the law. The First Lord of the Treasury's action in bringing in this Bill was a most palpable confession of the failure of the Act of 1902. That confession of want of foresight on the part of the Government showed that when they brought in the Act it was present to their mind that they must carry the local authorities with them. This question had been put as if it were applicable only to Wales; but he was not at all sure that there might not be difficulties in the future with regard to the county council of the West Riding, one of the greatest counties in England, or to the county council of London, and it would be a serious matter for the Government to come in conflict with such great bodies. What were they doing? It was proposed by this Bill, in the first place, to declare people managers who were not managers; then they were asked to vote to defray charges which ought be borne by local authorities out of public funds—and they would be disturbing the financial arrangements of the Act of 1902 by giving the functions proposed to the Board of Education. And. with all respect to that body, the Board of Education had not always earned the full confidence of the House or the country by perfect impartiality in these matters. What precedents were there? Teat of the Act of 1870 did not apply, because the at was directed to cases of educational default, and no part of the kingdom was more keen on education than the Principality. He was told that precedents would be found in Ireland for superseding local authorities in cases of this kind; but they had always regretted those cases, and he thought the Government would have reason to regret the application of the unfortunate precedent of Ireland to this side of the Channel.

All these difficulties might have been foreseen; if the Government thought that they would not arise they had lived in a fool's paradise, and it certainly was not for want of warning. They on that side had repeatedly urged on the Prime Minister the dangers he was running by pursuing such a course. It was true the Government took, in Clause 11, the power of mandamus, but they dared not enforce that clause, so that was no evidence of foresight. The right hon. Gentleman now tried to shuffle off the responsibility on Parliament; but there never was such a case of a one-man Bill as the case of the Act of 1902. A large part of the Party opposite did not like it, a memorial was sent to the Prime Minister, yet he insisted on forcing it through. The right hon. Gentleman was the last person to plead that the Act of 1902 was entirely the doing of Parliament. It would be within the recollection of the hon. Member for Oxford University that in the Antigone of Sophocles the case was held up to admiration of a person who disobeyed the law of the city because allegiance was due to a higher law, and the Prime Minister was really confusing the issue when he ignored the fact that the resistance which was made to the Act of 1902 by many estimable and law-abiding people, in England as well as Wales, was prompted by their inmost conviction that their allegiance was due to a higher law. A great many of the most valuable liberties which they enjoyed in England had been won by what was called at the time resistance to the law. They would be in a very different position now if courageous and high-spirited men in the past had not determined to test the law by resistance. And when measures were forced through that House by a tyrannical majority, in disregard of the feeling of the country, it made the present case very similar to those of former times. Let it not be said, however, that they were defending resistance to the law.


was understood to say that that was what the right hon. Gentleman was doing.


entirely denied that they were advocating any resistance whatever to the law. But, they said, great was the responsibility of the Government which had put conscientious men in a positron in which they had to choose between giving effect to their convictions or obeying the letter of the law. It was to the general interest of the country that the law should be of eyed, but he would remind the Prime Minister of a phrase he used three or four years ago as to the "limits of human endurance." He would like to consider what the whole policy of the Government was. The right hon. Gentleman had shown an extraordinary lack of imagination throughout in regard to this question. He had a powerful imagination when he was able to see the principle of eternal justice in what appeared to his opponents to be sordid electioneering, but he seemed to be quite unable to enter into the feelings of those who differed from him with regard to religious education. Strong and deep convictions had been aroused and the Government surely ought to have chosen the line of least resistance. The Education Act was confessedly a failure. It had hardly been passed before they heard from the Church of England proposals for a compromise. One of the Welsh Bishops, whom no one would accuse of want of courage, had brought in a Bill which, if it had been embodied in the Act of 1902, would have prevented the raising of this question now. The Government had landed Parliament in a position of very great difficulty, one which if it were to arise frequently would load to the utter destruction of Parliamentary government. If Bills were to he passed, which were opposed to the opinion of the country, by a Parliament which had lost the confidence of the country there would he demands to put measures to the referendum. If the Prime Minister persisted in ignoring the circumstances of a country like Wales he must not be surprised if a cry for Welsh Home Rule arose. Let him remember that at least three-fourths of the people of Wales did not belong to the Church of England, and to use the Prime Minister's own words, was it not the height of absurdity to apply such an Act to Wales. He fait bound to support the Amendment of his hon. friend. The true remedy was to be found not in this Bill, but in the removal of the grievances which the Act of 1902 created. They should get rid of the religious disabilities which attached to the mastership of schools; of the deficient element of popular control; of the distrust felt in many quarters of the religious education given in voluntary schools. Instead of passing this Bill, which would only embitter existing feeling, they must get rid of the practice of passing Acts which carried no moral authority with them. If the Government would insist on keeping in office for the sake of keeping their Party together let them not use office as a means of passing statutes opposed to the sentiment of the people. No Government had ever gone so far in passing Acts which lacked that element of moral authority which legislation ought to have; and nothing was more injurious to the principles of the British Constitution, which the Party opposite at one time professed to respect, than this practice.


said this Bill did not, of course, apply exclusively to Wales. It applied generally to all parts of England as well, but it had been produced particularly for the purpose of meeting an alleged default of certain county councils in Wales, and it was therefore from that point of view that he proposed to say a word or two upon it. After the speech of the hon. Member for North West Ham it was necessary that some one should put in a plea on behalf of the zeal and enthusiasm of the Welsh people for education. He had taken the trouble to prepare a statistical abstract in regard to education and he found that so far as the expenditure went of what was known as whiskey money, which was sent down in relief of the local rates, Scotland applied 70 per cent. to education and 30 par cent. to the relief of rates, and England applied 95 per cent. to education, reserving 5 per cent. for the relief of local rates, while every single farthing was in Wales devoted wholly and exclusively to education. But the best test of the zeal of a nation for education was the sacrifices it made out of local rates. The amount spent on education out of local rates was, in England (excluding London), 7d. in the pound of rateable value; in Scotland, 9.3d.; and in Wales, 11.7d. If they took the amount per head of the population it was—in England 3s., in Scotland, 4s.10½d., and in Wales, 5s. 8¾d. Within the past fifteen years the Welsh intermediate schools had put Scottish higher education in the shade. They must, in face of these figures admit, that the Welsh people were enthusiastic for education, and if they seemed to resist educational progress it could only be under most extraordinary provocation and as the result of a righteous conviction.

It was said that the Welsh voluntary schools were being starved and that the teachers were unable to get their salaries. If such a policy were being pursued he disagreed with it and he was sure that hon. Members for Wales would resent anything of that sort; but they were in receipt of £25,000 or £30,000 a year more than they received before the passing of the Act of 1902, and, therefore, if there was any scandal surely the responsibility must rest with the denominational managers. What was happening in that very Metropolis? The London County Council were withholding the rates from the voluntary schools of London. Only last Tuesday proposals were laid before the London County Council by the managers of voluntary schools asking for better qualified teachers. The committee of the London County Council reported— We consider that the proposals of the managers are not based on the same expenditure as has been hitherto incurred and we are of opinion that the consent of the Council should be refused to the appointment. And it was refused. Another set of proposals asked for additional teachers, and the report of the Committee on that was— We do not consider that the staffing conditions of the schools warrant the appointment of additional teachers. The definite policy had been adopted of not giving a single farthing of the London rates to denominational schools in London. What was the Board of Education going to do about London? Further than that, the County Council were not expending a single farthing of the Government grant in respect of improving the qualifications of teachers or adding new teachers beyond the expenditure prior to 1902. That was surely worse than what was occurring in Wales, where the whole Government grant was given to the schools. He asked again, what did the Board of Education propose to do with the London County Council? He thought it contemptible for the Board of Education always to be badgering and harrying small authorities and allowing the great authorities to do as they pleased.

The introduction of the Bill was a clear admission on the part of the Government of the breakdown of the machinery of the Act of 1902. But it was a futile Bill. The Bid would do no good; it would only accentuate the irritation. There were other of dealing with the difficulty. The Bill of the Bishop of St. Asaph, with certain modifications, might afford the basis of a happy compromise. But there would be no lasting peace in Wales until Wales got educational home rule. He was convinced that the Government would have to allow Wales to constitute a representative Education Board; to pay them out of the Consolidated Fund what was due to Wales for education, and to allow them to rate-aid their schools on terms satisfactory to themselves. All the Welsh people wanted was to be allowed to continue the enthusiasm they had already shown in retard to education and to so develop the intellect of their countrymen as to fit to make proper use of the heritage which must eventually fall into their hands.


said he had the honour to be a member of the education committee of the Borough of Wigan; and he felt bound to give his testimony to the fact that the Education Act of 1902, which had been so severely called in question, was working admirably in the county of Lancashire. He thought the House would bear with him when he said that no county was more entitled to form an opinion on that subject. It had been said that the Act was challenged by the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Bishops, but he never interpreted what they said as an accusation of the Act. They showed a great desire at the earlier stages to conciliate as far as they could those who had opposed them.


Perhaps the hon. Gentlemen will allow me to say that all I stated was that the Act had scarcely been passed when offers were made for a compromise, thus showing that it was not regarded as a final settlement.


said he thought his remarks were amply justified. There was never an Act put into operation without some friction and difficulty, but these disappeared in course of time. Mr. Lawrence, who inquired into the action of the county councils on behalf o the Board of Education, had reported that— It gas admitted that in not appointing managers and attendance officers for voluntary schools the county council had acted contrary to the provisions of the Act. That was clearly a confession on their part that they had broken the law. Again he said— The managers called before me were remarkable for their open-minded and liberal disposition towards the Nonconformist scholars. And again— I cannot regard the action of the council in using the powers of the Act to raise money upon the credit of and by means of rates levied upon Churchmen and Nonconformists alike and then refusing to apply this money to any but provided schools, as either legal or excusable. And finally— It is, in my opinion, a grave abuse of the powers confided to them by statute. He thought that that was an ample justification for hinging in this Bill, in order that justice might be done. Friends of voluntary schools were stung by the gnat injustice which the proceedings of the county councils had caused. They only asked for their fair share of public money. He thanked the Government for not allowing this session to pass without some action, because the patience of these people—and they were deserving and self-sacrificing people—had become exhausted. He sincerely hoped in the interests of peace and tranquility rid for the success of education that this Bill would forthwith be put into operation. He hoped, however, that the Bill when passed would so accomplish its purpose by bringing about a different attitude on the part of the Welsh county councils, that the example of Carmarthen would not be followed, that that statute would not have to be enforced, and that the councils of Wales would proceed in peace in the work of promoting the education of the inhabitants of the Principality.


said the speech just delivered by the hon. Baronet was no exception to the other speeches from that side of the House in one respect, viz., he had talked about everything except the Bill. One could not from the speeches delivered from the Unionist side understand what the Bill was for. One would hardly believe from those speeches that it was a Bill to amend the Education Act of 1902. According to the hon. Baronet, the law was broken in Carmarthen. There was a report that it had been broken. But there was a provision in the Act of Parliament for a mandamus to compel the county council to carry out the law, and it was because the Government found that their Act was no good and could not work that they were proposing another expedient, which he could assure them beforehand would break down as assuredly as did the other. The hon. Baronet had voted for the Government Bill blindly, not knowing what was in it. The Bill before the House was to amend the law, not to enforce it. There was a case for altering I the law, he admitted; but this was not the particular alteration to which the facts pointed. The hon. Member for West Bain had indeed tried to make out a case for the present Bill. He made a very fierce attack on the Welsh county councils, and, if he might say so, he had never seen anything end so completely in fizzle. As the hon. Member for Camberwell had pointed out, the London County Council were doing exactly the same sort of thing as the hon. Member had complained of with regard to the Welsh county councils. He thought, therefore the best thing the hon. Member could do was to sweep his own chimney before he started on the same business where they did not require his assistance. The hon. Member had made an attack upon the Carnarvonshire County Council of which he was an alderman a good many years before he entered the House. He desired to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he contended that the county council of Carnarvon was not carrying out the law? If so, would he point to a single particular in which it was not doing so.


was understood to say that he had never said the county of Carnarvon was breaking the law.


said that the only speech they had heard in support of the Bill was the speech in which the county of Carnarvon was charged with breaking the law, and the Board of Education said there was no truth in the statement.


said he should not pronounce any opinion on the subject until the matter was brought prominently before him.


said the Secretary to the Board of Education meant that he had not even received a complaint that this county was breaking the law. There were sixty voluntary Church schools in Carnarvon, they were very ably managed so far as a good many of them were concerned. There was a very able secretary and a Bishop. Did the hon. Gentleman mean to say that the county of Carnarvon as breaking the law, and not a word had been received from Mr. Fairchild, who was the secretary of the Association? Did they think that if all the horrible things alleged were going on in the county word would not have been received from Mr. Fairchild? Mr. Fairchild had actually said in public that there was no complaint against the county council of Carnarvon, that was why the matter had not been brought prominently to the hon. Gentleman's notice, and yet the hon. Member for North West Ham came to the House of Commons levelling an indictment against the county of Carnarvon which the Government themselves were not prepared to bring. Another statement made by the hon. Member which was at variance with the facts, was with regard to the examination of the school buildings by the county council of Carnarvon. What was the fact? The instructions to the surveyor were that he should examine both Board and voluntary school buildings impartially, and that if there were any Board schools badly lighted or badly ventilated, they should be condemned on exactly the same principles as the voluntary schools. There was to be no discrimination or distinction what-ever. Moreover, the county council of Carnarvon was still carrying on the schools; it had not declined to take, them over, but had given notice that unless the schools were repaired it would not be responsible for them, that was carrying out the law. Under the Act of 1902 the county councils had no right to maintain schools in had repair, if they did so they would be breaking the law. But the hon. Gentleman wanted them to break the law in order that poor little children might be sent to schools which were badly ventilated and badly lighted. It was grossly unfair that the hon. Gentleman should make such unfounded charges. The county council were not calling upon the voluntary schools to do that which they were not doing in regard to the Board schools; they were rebuilding Board schools where necessary, at the expense of the rates, and all they asked was that the voluntary schools should be repaired also. Speeches might be quoted in which leaders of tide Church party had acknowledged the way in which the county council of Carnarvonshire had done its work, but perhaps after the admission of the Beard of Education the hon. Member for North West Ham would apologise for the charges he had made.

The hon. Gentleman had also quoted Carmarthen as a typical case. It was nothing of the sort. Carmarthen was an exceptional case. It had not followed the policy laid down by the rest of the county councils, viz., to speed the whole of the Parliamentary grants and to keep the schools at the level which had been accepted by the Board of Education, to pay every teacher his salary, and to find books, fuel, and so-forth. Carmarthen was an exceptional case, and in putting it forward as typical of the county councils in Wales the hon. Member was misleading the House.


pointed out that what he had said was that the attitude of Carmarthen in regard to the "no rate" policy was typical. Several other counties had adopted a "no rate" resolution, and as recently as December, 1903, the county council of Carnarvon endorsed that decision. His point with regard to repairs was that the county council, while taking up their full obligations so far as Board schools were concerned, declined to do so in the case of voluntary schools.


said the hon. Member had altogether missed the point. The county council had a perfect right under the law, and it was their duty, to give notice to any school, voluntary or provided, which was not up to the requirements of the Board of Education with regard to ventilation, lighting, or repairs that unless it was brought up to those requirements the county council would not be responsible for its maintenance. That was the only notice the Carnarvonshire County Council had given, and up to the present they had not acted upon it because the matters were being adjudicated upon by the Board of Education. All the county council were asking was that the voluntary schools should carry out what the inspectors of the Board of Education had for years been demanding, and as they had disobeyed the law in that respect it was not for these schools to come whining about the county council, and still less to talk about the interests of the children. The interests of the children was first of all to get fresh air, instead of being cooped up in miserable and badly ventilated hovels, and that was what the county council was insisting upon.

As for Carmarthen, the hon. Member knew that was not a typical case. According to Mr. Lawrence's report, the county council had failed in four respects. Firstly, to be responsible for secular instruction; secondly, to appoint managers; thirdly, to maintain and keep efficient such schools or to control expenditure required for that purpose; and fourthly, in withholding their assent to the appointment of teachers on educational grounds only. He challenged the hon. Member to name another county council of which a similar report could be made. The case was, however, typical in many respects. It showed how Wales was treated—a country 200 or 300 miles from that House, and knowledge of whose educational matters was possessed only by its own representatives, who therefore were the last persons consulted. Stories of this sort were brought forward, but immediately they were examined they crumbled, and yet it was on these grounds that the Government brought forward fresh coercive measures. All the council was doing was to maintain the schools at their present level. There was nothing in the Act to say that they must give rates to voluntary schools. All the Act stated was that the councils should keep them efficient. But how could they be responsible for the efficiency of any institution unless they appointed the people who managed it? The mere spending of money would not make the schools efficient, there must be control of the management and staff. If one man financed the concern and pother appointed the officials, how could the man who financed be responsible for the efficiency? The Act called upon the county councils to perform an impossible task. But the Welsh county councils said there was a test which the Board of Education had themselves supplied. The Board had no right to give Parliamentary grants unless the schools were efficient, and for years these schools had received grants. Hence the county councils said they would accept that standard, and keep the schools up to it. No doubt the Board did not really think the schools efficient. He remembered a remarkable speech in which the right ho Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University said the reports condemning schools had been sent back to inspectors to be modified. Why? Because if the schools were condemned the grants would be withdrawn and a school board set up. Was that carrying out the law? For years the Board of Education had been breaking the law, and now, forsooth, these chronic law-breakers, whose normal standard of running the administration of the country was breaking the law, came and said—"The Welsh county councils are breaking the law. Stamp them out!" What virtue! They had got to come with clean hands first of all. It simply meant that the lesson of law-breaking had been taught by the Board of Education, and the Welsh county councils had learnt it—perhaps too well! But they were their mentors! There on the Treasury Bench was their teacher, who instructed them in the paths of law-breaking, and they were simply walking in the ways he trained them to follow. And now he come to birch them for it.

The Church people in Wales were perfectly satisfied with the position. There was a motion there the other day by a Church councilor, who had only just come in, and who therefore felt that he ought to do something. He moved that those schools should all be placed on the same level. He got a seconder, who just managed to scramble in by three or four votes, but although there were several Churchmen on the council, and several Conservatives, they did not get a single vote in support of the motion. Every Churchman, Conservatives, they did not get a single vote in support of the motion. Every Churchman, Conservative, and Unionist on the council voted against them, they were so absolutely satisfied with the status quo. They knew perfectly well that this law was an unfair one in Wales. They talked about the religion of the parents! The hon. Member for West Dorset was a fair-minded man, and if he knew the facts he would be willing to trust his judgment. Did he know the facts? Did he know that the majority of the parents were Nonconformists? Fill instructions had not been given to Mr. Lawrence. He was a thoroughly fair-minded judicial person, but he had no instructions, and he refused absolutely to go into the merits of the case. He said he had nothing whatever to do with those questions, and he declined. Therefore the county council said if he did not go into the merits of the case, as they had nothing but merits to present to him, they must withdraw. One thing was said, however, which had not yet been referred to. In the majority of the schools more Nonconformists than Church children attended. That was form Mr.Lawrence's report. These schools were in no sense of the term Church schools; they were parochial schools; they were parochial schools; they were built by the common effort of the parishioners, but the trustees had invariably a Church Trust. The parochial schools had been narrowed by denominational trusts. Very often they could not even get a site for another school, and the result was that they had got the present state of things. Why did not the Board of Education have a real inquiry? He sent a gentleman to Carnarvon, who inquired into five cases which he had given, and the facts had been verified. There was a real inquiry— the inqniry into the state of the parish, the number of Nonconformists, how the school came to be built, how it had been kept going and what was the result; and it had proved absolutely the whole contention of Welsh Nonconformity in the House. Why did not they get an inquiry of that sort in Carmarthen? Simply because the Government did not want the fact. They were not bringing in this Bill as remedial legislation. Remedial! Not at all. It was simply part of the bargain. The Government found their Empire tottering, and it was just like the old Roman Empire—they had to buy off the Goths. One day the Goths came from Burton-on-Trent. The next day from Lembeth, and they threatened to sock the city. Something had to be given them. The Education Act satisfied them for a year or two, but the hordes came back. Then came the Brewers' Endowment Bill, and, said the Brewers' Endowment Bill, and, said the clergy, "We cannot have this. Our consciences will not allow it." "Oh," replied the Prime Minister, "I'll square that," and the right hon. Gentleman put it right with the present Bill. It was like compounding a spree on a Saturday night by putting a threepenny bit in the Plate on Sunday.

They had had a high constitutional doctrine from the Prime Minister. He said they must see that the law was obeyed. But what about the law - breakers in Scarborough? The Prime Minister talked there about the limits of human endurance, and of course that was not inquired into. But they had reached those limits in Wales. The Government had no regard for facts or circumstances, and three or four days of Parliamentary time had been wasted upon this spiteful little Bill. A Bill was promised in the King's Speech to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act, but what was that to the Government compared with crushing out Dissenters in Wales. They also promised a Bill to punish those who published false balance-sheets but what were they compared with the men who insisted in Wales and England upon getting the same rights as they got in Scotland. But in Wales they must be punished. Then the President of the Local Government Board was always for suppressing, and his greatest conception of statesmanship was the Muzzling Order. They could therefore appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's position in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman was true to his instinct. Here was a genuine grievance, Clause 31 of the Scotch Education Act provided that it should be lawful for a school board if they thought fit to grant pecuniary aid upon such conditions as they might from time to time prescribe to schools and institutions not under their charge. That was for Scotchmen, not for Englishmen or Welshmen. If Welshmen did that they would have to go to Holloway or else the Government would plunder the county council treasury. The Education Department would run the show. Talk about eternal justice with all this high doctrine and contention—he wondered it did not choke the Government.

In Wales the Government were not dealing with people who needed any stimulus to induce them to make sacrifices for education. They were already levying heavy rates for secondary, technical and primary education. They were collecting funds to build colleges, to which working men were subscribing out of their pittances. Crowded meetings of workmen were listening to professors on the question of building colleges, and, including miners and agricultural labourers, there were 70,000 persons on the books of the building fund for the North Wales College. Yet the Government brought in a Bill to stimulate this population to educational effort. Had the Prime Minister not better first inquire into the facts? It was said that this was a remedial measure, but doctors as a rule saw the patient first. Had the right hon. Gentleman done that? It was only quacks who prescribed on gossip. The Prime Minister had prescribed only on Episcopal gossip from one of the Welsh Bishops, who had intrigued, bullied, and pulled the wires, and of course the Government could not resist, for they were afraid of toppling over with the slightest opposition. It was simply a cowardly Bill of a craven Government.


said he desired to recall the attention of the House to the purport of and the necessity for this Bill. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen had mentioned that this was not a Welsh Bill, though he was sorry he coupled with that explanation a eulogium on law-breaking for conscience sake coupled with a suggestion that there were two large and distinguished local authorities in England which, he thought, might in due course proceed to the law-breaking which this Bill was intended to meet. He would not at that moment say anything about the religious question, because he really wished to go, to what he thought was the root of the matter at once. Was the law to be observed in the interests of the children of this country or was it to be allowed to be disobeyed because certain members of certain county councils, constituting a majority, no doubt, of those county councils, disapproved of the particular form of religious teaching which was given during a short period of the school hours in certain schools? That was the real question. After long discussion an Act was passed in 1902. Many hon. Members opposite thought that Act needed amendment. That might or might not be the case, but while that Act was the law the question before them was—should it be obeyed or should it not? The Leader of the Opposition had asked why they were not content with the remedy of mandamus. He thought that in introducing the Bill he gave abundant reasons why that remedy was not adequate for the cases which had to be dealt with under the Education Act of 1902. That being so, they had to fall back on the remedy analogous to the case of defaulting school boards. The Member for Aberdeen said that a school board would only be found in default on matters which were purely educational. He should have thought the refusal to pay a teacher's salary and to provide books for a school were eminently educational matters.

It was said that this Bill treated local authorities with greater severity than the Act of 1870 treated defaulting school boards, but any one who read its terms would see that the provisions of the present Bill compared favourably with the earlier Act in the matter of severity. The Education Act of 1902 gave to the Board of Education a very extensive appellate jurisdiction on a variety of matters, and the decision of the Board was to be final. To have an appellate jurisdiction of that nature, however, and to have no executive powers behind it was really to reduce an important section of the Act of 1902 almost to a dead letter. He was bound to say, generally, that when the Board of Education gave a decision it was accepted. But, if the local authorities did not accept it, a long and elaborate remedy would have to be enforced, although the dispute in question might only arise from a simple misunderstanding. A common instance of such a misunderstanding was this—local authorities were entitled to demand reasonable alterations and improvements in a voluntary school. Some local authorities thought that they were not bound to maintain a school if its buildings were not in their opinion satisfactory. The truth was that a local authority was bound to maintain the school unless and until managers refused to carry out in a reasonable time reasonable demands for alterations. He gave that as an illustration of the sort of misunderstanding which, until cleared up, might deprive a school of maintenance. Coming to cases of deliberate default, he was very reluctant to deal with the cases which he had before him—the cases of serious default on the part of the local authorities at the present time—but, after all, he was bound to call attention to them. The county of Montgomery passed a no-rate resolution, and some little time ago circulated a notice that they would pay no more than the Parliamentary grant to managers of voluntary schools, and that when that grant was exhausted no more money would be forthcoming. What was the result? The holidays were approaching, and the managers had applied fruitlessly for the teachers' salaries, which remained unpaid. A manager of a voluntary school wrote to say— The teachers are still here, and are unable to go away. The head teacher is a married woman, who has a family dependent on her, aad it is of vital importance to her that her salary should be paid. She makes daily application to me for money, and I have no means of paying it to her. What action am I to take in the matter, and how are we to carry on the school after the holidays. That was a case which demanded a prompt remedy, and one not provided by mandamus. In Merionethshire the committee of the county council had taken similar action, and bills had been presented in all the voluntary schools] for salaries and maintenance, but there were no funds to meet them. He could cite other instances; but what he had mentioned was enough to show that cases occurred which required prompt and immediate remedy. It was asked why they had not included a remedy in the Act of 1902. He was bound to say it was not present to his own mind at the time that the men who would come forward to ask to be elected on corporate bodies, knowing that these authorities had administrative duties of a certain sort, would wholly decline to carry out those duties in the sense in which they were imposed on the local authorities by the statute.

He thought he need hardly call attention to the terms of the Bill itself, which were very short. They enabled the Board of Education to apply a prompt remedy to these difficulties, and, unlike the case of the defaulting school boards, the remedy ceased automatically as soon as the council ceased to make default. The Board would only be too glad to drop this method of treatment directly they were spared the trouble of doing so. Alluding to another point, he believed some local authorities in England were anxious lest the Board should trouble them by constant application of this remedy, thus constantly interfering with the discharge of their duties. He would point out that the Board of Education had every reason to use this Act as little as possible. The communications of the Board with the local authorities were close and constant allover the country, and were almost invariably friendly. The Board was seriously concerned in promoting the education of the country, and in working in the utmost harmony with the local authorities, and they would certainly be most reluctant to do anything which would interfere with the ordinary discharge by local authorities of their ordinary duties. There was another very strong reason why the Board was likely to use the Act as little as possible, and that was because it would add greatly to their already considerable administrative burdens. Lastly, it must be borne in mind that the power would be exercised under public and Parliamentary criticism. Under these circumstances he thought that local authorities need have no fear that the Board would be over anxious to exercise their powers. With regard to the special situation in Wales, it had been a matter of complaint that the inquiry in Carmarthen was not of a sufficiently general character. The inquiry which they held was limited by the terms of the Act of 1902. They had to inquire whether or not the county council of Carmarthen had made default in the discharge of its duties under the Act. They were not entitled to hold a general inquiry into the educational situation in Wales, nor had he promised such an inquiry. Another point was that there ought to be inquiry into the constitution of bodies of managers. Well, there had been and were such inquiries, and he could assure hon. Members that the Board was endeavouring most anxiously to arrive at a just result in the composition of these bodies. The draft final Orders had been made on the request of the existing managers; the Board was holding inquiries to ascertain how far the proposed Orders corresponded with the actual rights of each ease; if they did not they would be amended.

He was bound to say, in conclusion, that, although they heard in that House a great deal about the acrimony and ill-feeling which the Act of 1902 had occasioned, their representatives who made inquiries found a friendly feeling prevailing among the various denominations on the spot. He had no desire, lastly, to see Nonconformist children driven to Anglican schools, because he had no desire to see any child taught a religion which was not acceptable to its parents. Conversely, he desired that the child should have the opportunity of being brought up in the religion of its parents, but to attain that end he did not think public control was sufficient. The insufficiency of public, control for this purpose was shown by the existence of voluntary schools in Scotland, for there the local authority, with full power to do so, did not always provide the accommodation required. But he saw no reason why some solution of that sort should not be reached. It prevailed in reformatory schools, industrial schools and deaf and blind schools, and he hoped it would shortly prevail in schools for defective and epileptic children. That was a work in which he would gladly engage with all who wished to see the religious difficulty removed from educational discussions. In the meantime what were the remedies? There was the remedy suggested in another place which it might have been hoped might point to a solution of the difficulty. It was received with expressions of friendliness from representatives of the other Party in the country, but obviously that solution was not available during the present session. Then there was the provision of new schools. If the people of a place disapproved heartily of the religious teaching in the only school available, it was always possible for them, though he admitted at some cost, to provide a new school under the Act of 1902. Failing that, surely there, must still be a school of some sort in every locality, and that school ought to be efficient. He was satisfied that there were schools in Wales that were not efficient, which were not likely to be efficient, and which were inefficient by the deliberate default of the local education authority. This was a grave injustice to the children of the locality. Whether they were Nonconformists or Anglicans, they were entitled to a school at which elementary instruction was given fully and adequately. Pending an amicable settlement of the religious difficulty, it was to promote this uniform efficiency that he asked the House to read the Bill a second time.

MR. ABEL THOMAS (Carmarthenshire, E.)

said he ventured to think that as long as the Education Act was in force it was utterly impossible for Nonconformist children not to be driven to Church schools and not to be compelled to accept Church doctrines in those schools. The inquiry in Carmarthenshire, at which he was present, at any rate elicited the fact that in every Church school the religious teaching, which was distinctly of a denominational character, took between forty and fifty minutes of each day, and when they remembered how short the school hours were, that was a very substantial amount of the day given for religious instruction, chiefly relating to the tenets of the Church of England. He had no doubt that the same thing applied to the whole of Wales. Almost without exception these schools had a majority of Nonconformist children in them. They were told before the Commissioner went down that the inquiry would be broad and general; but the order for the inquiry made it an exceedingly narrow one. It was ridiculous, after the promise which was made, that the inquiry should have been in the shape and form in which it was. It seemed to him that the real remedy for the position in Wales was not to be found in this Bill or anything like it. They had to face the real question of amending the Act of 1902, and making it meet the reasonable conscientious objections of the people of Wales. Until they did that, they might tinker at it as much as they liked—the result would be the same. They were increasing and emphasising the difference between the Nonconformists and the Churchmen in Wales, and they were doing harm and harm only, and it seemed to him that an attempt to bolster up an Act which could not be enforced was very much the same as the conduct of the ostrich, which was said to bury its head in the sand when driven into a corner. That at any rate was not the way to carry on any successful legislation, and if the Government were to face the difficulty it would become a very simple matter. In the meanwhile, what he was afraid of was that they were driving the people to passive resistance throughout the whole thirteen counties, and the result would be that they would have disorder changing into most serious acts of violence. Why in the world could not the Government, when it found that it had made a mistake, face it and get rid of it?

When this subject was previously discussed in the House it was suggested by one hon. Member that the school children were left starving in the cold without light or fire. In those circumstances he took care that the position should come out very emphatically before Mr. Lawrence. He reported that he had heard of no instance in which anything like that took place. As a fact, there had been no deficiency in the school management in consequence of what the county councils had done. In every instance the Church people did what they had done prior to the passing of the Act of 1902, nothing more; because, by means of the grants, almost invariably they had had more since 1902 than they received before the Act. There never was any difficulty in reality. There was a great number of complaints, but they all vanished, and it was found as a fact that the schools were properly conducted; they had sufficient books and more than sufficient fire and light. Again he urged the Government to face the real difficulty and amend the Act instead of tinkering with it in this way. Then perhaps they would have done something for education which would be of real benefit to the country.

MR. EDWARDS (Radnor)

said it was an extraordinary claim to say that this Bill was brought in to redress a grievance in regard to defaulting authorities. It was hard to find who the defaulting authorities were. There was a certain amount of disappointment that the right hon. Gentleman did not have an inquiry into the whole circumstances in Wales. There might have been an inquiry of some kind in one county, but he should have thought if the Government were really anxious to know the whole circumstances they would have had a fuller inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman had at his disposal plenty of able men who could have found out the facts. The Government would then have been able to legislate really knowing the whole case they had to deal with. The Government, instead of proceeding with this Bill, might have taken up in earnest the measure which the Bishop of St. Asaph brought forward in another place. He thought much credit was due to the Bishop for having brought forward a Bill which proposed a conciliatory settlement of this matter. Unfortunately, that Bill did not meet with a sufficient amount of support, and it was not proceeded with it any further. There was no doubt that the state of things in regard to the Education Act in Wales was a serious one. As a rule the people of Wales acquiesced in the decisions of the majority, but he did not think that the opinion of the majority in this matter had been constitutionally ascertained. Not only did hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House object to that Act, but even the friends of the measure objected to many of the clauses in it. That was shown by the fact that a Bill had been brought forward in another place to amend the Act. When any laws which represented the views of the people were passed they received willing obedience in Wales. They did so because they represented the views of the people; but in this case there was evidence on all sides that the Act did not represent the views of the people of Wales. Take for instance the attitude of the people of the county he had the honour to represent. There, when the Education Act was passed, the county council had a majority of six in favour of working the Act. That county council was elected before the Bill was introduced. It was one of the two county councils in Wales which had a Tory majority. When the election came on in March the people of Radnorshire expressed their opinion of the Act very plainly. They converted the Unionist majority of six into a Liberal majority of ten. It was that attitude of the people of Wales which the right hon. Gentleman refused to recognise in dealing with this question.

He wanted to know why those who were responsible did not weigh the facts. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of what had been discovered. It had been found that there were parishes where although the school was said to be a Church school, there was not a single Church child in the school. The school was, of course, claimed to be Church property. The vicar in one case instructed the master not to teach the children the catechism. All honour to the vicar for having done that. This showed what a preponderance there must be of Nonconformists in the parish. In another case the vicar was so impressed with the state of things that he gave instructions that the Apostles' Creed was to be taught from the standpoint of the Board of Education. That was an extraordinary instruction for any clergyman to make. Those national schools were claimed by the Church, but in North and South Wales it would be found that the schools had been built to a great extent by the voluntary contributions, not only of Churchmen but of Nonconformists as well. He knew a case in his own constituency where the school was built in 1872 by the voluntary efforts of the parishioners as a parish school. The Nonconformists were in an enormous majority, and yet that school had been entirely passed over to the Church. The people of the village resented the fact that in the school built by their own money, the majority of them being Nonconformists, the children were unable to attain to the position of headmaster. No one, therefore, could assert that the people of Wales had no ground for repudiating an Act which perpetuated a gross disability of that kind. The protest in Wales was practically unanimous, and it was constitutional. The policy of the people of Wales had been expressed by all the Welsh county councils—for there was not a single county council which was not now brought into line, and he believed that the policy was within the letter of the law. Did the House expect the people of Wales to administer an Act which in their opinion clashed with their sense of justice and equity?

This Bill was a clever Departmental prescription for securing temporary relief from the worst symptoms of the trouble that they had in Wales. But any remedy which was devoted to curing only the symptoms and not to reaching the root of the matter deserved the title which the hon. Member for Carnarvon had given it—a quack remedy. Welshmen were anxious for education. They had done a great deal for education, and if the Board of Education had shown the least anxiety to meet the people of Wales in a conciliatory spirit, they would have been generously met. They had not done that, but they had treated in a very Laodicean spirit the efforts of other people

who had tried conciliation. Scotland got what it wanted, but Wales, which out of its poverty had built its colleges and its schools, which had made great struggles for the cause of education—Wales was to have nothing but this message of coercion from the Government. That was a thing against which they had every right to protest.

And, it being half-past Five of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the Business.

Whereupon Sir WILLIAM ANSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 226; Noes, 104. (Division List No. 239.)

Aird, Sir John Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Worc. Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden Chapman, Edward Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Anson, Sir William Reynell Charrington, Spencer Graham, Henry Robert
Arkwright, John Stanhope Churchill, Winston Spencer Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. Clare, Octavius Leigh Greene, Sir E.W(B'rySEdm'nds
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Clive, Captain Percy A. Greene, Henry D.(Shrewasbury)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Cochrance, Hon. Thos. H.A.E. Greene, W. Raymond(Cambs.)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy Coddington, Sir William Grenfell, William Henry
Bailey, James (Walworth) Coghill, Douglas Harry Gretton, John
Bain, Colonel James Robert Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Gunter, Sir Robert
Balcarres, Lord Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Hall, Edward Marshall
Baldwin, Alfred Cripps, Charles Alfred Hakset, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r) Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton) Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Hare, Thomas Leigh
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W(Leeds Davenport, William Bromley Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Denny, Colonel Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich)
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Dickson, Charles Scott Haslett, Sir James Horner
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Digby, John K.D. Wingfield Heath, James(Staffords., N.W.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C. Helder, Augustus
Bignold, Sir Arthur Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.
Bigwood, James Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Hickman, Sir Alfred
Bill, Charles Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir. John E. Hoare, Sir Samuel
Bingham, Lord Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside
Blundell, Colonel Henry Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Horner, Frederick William
Bond, Edward Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Howard, Jn.(Kent, Faversham)
Bowles, Lt.-Col. H.F.(Middlesex Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Hudson, George Bickersteth
Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.) Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Hunt, Rowland
Bull, William James Finaly, Sir Robert Bannatyne Jameson, Major J. Eustace
Burdett-Coutts, W. Fison, Frederick William Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Glasgow FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.
Campbell, J H.M.(Dublin Univ. Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Flannery, Sir Fortescue Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)
Cautley, Henry Strother Flower, Sir Ernest Keswick, William
Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire Forster, Henry William Kimber, Henry
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Gardner, Ernest Laurie, Lieut.-General
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Garfit, William Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Gibbs, Hon. A.G.H. Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm. Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby Lawson, J. Grant(Yorks., N.R.
Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) Myers, William Henry Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Nicholson, William Graham Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.)
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.) Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Parker, Sir Gilbert Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.
Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley Thorburn, Sir Walter
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.) Percy, Earl Thornton, Percy M.
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Platt-Higgins, Frederick Tollemache, Henry James
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Plummer, Sir Walter R Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Tritton, Charles Ernest
Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth Pretyman, Ernest George Tuff, Charles
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Macdona, John Cumming Purvis, Robert Tully, Jasper
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Pym, C. Guy Valentia, Viscount
M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W Randles, John S. Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H.(Sheffield
Manners, Lord Cecil Rankin, Sir James Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Martin, Richard Biddulph Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Warde, Colonel C. E.
Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Reid, James (Greenock) Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E(Taunton
Maxwell, RtHn Sir H.E.(Wigt'n) Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire Richards, Henry Charles Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne
Mildmay, Francis Bingham Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green Whitmore. Charles Algernon
Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Milvain, Thomas Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Mitchell, William (Burnley) Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Wills, Sir Frederick
Molesworth, Sir Lewis Round, Rt. Hon. James Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.
Montagu, G.(Huntingdon) Royds, Clement Molyneux Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks)
Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Morrell, George Herbert Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Morrison, James Archibald Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Seton-Karr, Sir Henry Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Mount, William Arthur Sharpe, William Edward T. Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)
Muntz, Sir Philip A. Simeon, Sir Barrington TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ortnskirk
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Labouchere, Henry
Allen, Charles P. Duncan, J. Hastings Lambert, George
Ambrose, Robert Edwards, Frank Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)
Asher, Alexander Emmott, Alfred Layland-Barratt, Francis
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Leamy, Edmund
Atherley-Jones, L. Eve, Harry Trelawney Leng, Sir John
Black, Alexander William Farquharson, Dr. Robert Levy, Maurice
Boland, John Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Lewis, John Herbert
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Field, William Lloyd-George, David
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James. Flavin, Michael Joseph Lough, Thomas
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lundon, W.
Buxton, Sydney Charles Fuller, J. M. F. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Caldwell, James Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick) MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Cameron, Robert Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill M'Kean, John
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton M'Kenna, Reginald
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin
Causton, Richard Knight Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe
Cawley, Frederick Harcourt, RtHnSirW (Monnm'th Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)
Channing, Francis Allston Harwood, George Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Clancy, John Joseph Hayden, John Patrick Morley, Charles (Breconshire)
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Moss, Samuel
Cromer William Randal Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) Murphy, John
Crombie, John William Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Nannetti, Joseph P.
Crooks, William Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. Newnes, Sir George
Cullinan, J. Jacoby, James Alfred Nussey, Thomas Willans
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan Joicey, Sir James O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)
Delany, William Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galway Jones, William (Carnarvonshire O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Joyce, Michael O'Shaughnessy, P.J.
Dobbie, Joseph Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W. Parrott, William
Doogan, P. C. Kitson, Sir James Partington. Oswald
Paulton, James Mellor Schwann, Charles E. Wallace, Robert
Perks, Robert William Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Philipps, John Wynford Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)
Pirie, Duncan V. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Weir, James Galloway
Price, Robert John Shipman, Dr. John G. White, George (Norfolk)
Rea, Russell Slack, John Bamford White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Reddy, M. Sloan, Thomas Henry Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Smith, Samuel (Flint) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Rickett, J. Compton Soares, Ernest J. Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Stanhope, Hon. Philip James Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Roberts, John H.(Denbighs.) Strachey, Sir Edward Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)
Robson, William Snowdon Sullivan, Donal Young, Samuel
Roe, Sir Thomas Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Rose, Charles Day Tennant, Harold John TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.
Runciman, Walter Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)
Russell, T. W. Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)
Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

The House divided:—Ayes, 245; Noes, 111. (Division List No.240.)

Aird, Sir John Clive, Captain Percy A. Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hare, Thomas Leigh
Ambrose, Robert Coddington, Sir William Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Coghill, Douglas Harry Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Haslett, Sir James Horner
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Hayden, John Patrick
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cripps, Charles Alfred Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Helder, Augustus
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Davenport, William Bromley Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Delany, William Hickman, Sir Alfred
Bain, Colonel James Robert Denny Colonel Hoare, Sir Samuel
Balcarres, Lord Devlin, CharlesRamsay (Galway Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside
Baldwin, Alfred Dickson, Charles Scott Horner, Frederick William
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Howard, John(Kent, Faversham
Balfour, Capt C. B. (Hornsey) Dimsdale, Rt.Hon. SirJosephC. Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Hudson, George Bickersteth
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Doogan, P. C. Hunt, Rowland
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Jameson, Major J. Eustace
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse
Bignold, Arthur Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.
Bigwood, James Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Bill, Charles Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Joyce, Michael
Bingham, Lord Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Manc'r Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh
Boland, John Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Keswick, William
Bond, Edward Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Kimber, Henry
Bowles, Lt-Col. H.F.(Middlesex Fison, Frederick William Laurie, Lieut-General
Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.) Flannery, Sir Fortescue Lawson, John. G. (Yorks., N.R.
Bull, William James Flavin, Michael Joseph Leamy, Edmund
Burdett-Coutts, W. Flower, Sir Ernest Lee. A. H. (Hants., Fareham)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Glasgow Forster, Henry William Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Campbell, J.H.M(Dublin Univ. Gardner, Ernest. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Garfit William Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham
Cautley, Henry Strother Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)
Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derbyshire Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Graham, Henry Robert Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Greene, Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds) Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm. Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Lundon, W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A(Worc. Geeene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Chapman, Edward Grenfell, William Henry Macdona, John Cumming
Charrington, Spencer Gunter, Sir Robert MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Clancy, John Joseph Hall, Edward Marshall M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Clare, Octavius Leigl. Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W
M'Kean, John Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.
Manners, Lord Cecil Percy, Earl Sullivan, Donal
Martin, Richard Biddulph Platt-Higgins, Frederick Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Plummer, Sir Walter R. Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.
Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H.E(Wigt'n Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Thorburn, Sir Walter
Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire Pretyman, Ernest George Thornton, Percy M.
Mildmay, Francis Bingham Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Tollemache, Henry James
Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. Purvis, Robert Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Milvain, Thomas Pym, C. Guy Tritton, Charles Ernest
Mitchell, William (Burnley) Randles, John S. Tuff, Charles
Molesworth, Sir Lewis Rankin, Sir James Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Tully, Jasper
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Reddy, M. Valentia, Viscount
Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Redmond, John E.(Waterford) Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H(Sheffield
Morrell, George Herbert Reid, James (Greenock) Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Morrison, James Archibald Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Warde, Colonel C. E.
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Richards, Henry Charles Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E.(Taunton
Mount, William Arthur Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Ritchie, Rt. Hon, Chas. Thomson Whiteley, H.(Ashton-und-Lyne
Muntz, Sir Philip A. Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Murphy, John Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham(Bute Round, Rt. Hon. James Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Royds, Clement Molyneux Wills, Sir Frederick
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Myers, William Henry Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)
Nannetti, Joseph P. Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Nicholson, William Graham Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) Seton-Karr, Sir Henry Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Sharpe, William Edward T. Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Simeon, Sir Barrington Young, Samuel
O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk Alexander Acland-Hood
Parker, Sir Gilbert Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset) and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Gordon, Sir W. Brampton Paulton, James Mellor
Asher, Alexander Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Perks, Robert William
Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale Philipps, John Wynford
Atherley-Jones, L. Harcourt, Rt. Hn SirW(Monm'th Pirie, Duncan V.
Black, Alexander William Harwood, George Price, Robert John
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Rea, Russell
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E. Rickett, J. Compton
Buchanan, Thoman Ryburn Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Caldwell, James Jacoby, James Alfred Robson, William Snowdon
Cameron, Robert Joicey, Sir James Roe, Sir Thomas
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Jones, David Brymnor (Swansea Rose, Charles Day
Causton, Richard Knight Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Runciman, Walter
Channing, Francis Allston Kitson, Sir James Russell, T. W.
Churchill, Winston Spencer Labouchere, Henry Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Lambert, George Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Cremer, William Randal Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Schwann, Charles E.
Crombie, John William Layland-Barratt, Francis Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)- Leng, Sir John Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Levy, Maurice Shipman, Dr. John G.
Dobbie, Joseph Lewis, John Herbert Slack, John Bamford
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Lloyd-George, David Sloan, Thomas Henry
Duncan, J. Hastings Lough, Thomas Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Edwards, Frank Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Soares, Ernest J.
Emmott, Alfred M'Kenna, Reginald Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan) M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Strachey, Sir Edward
Eve, Harry Trelawney Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Tennant, Harold John
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N.) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Field, William Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Moss, Samuel Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Fuller, J. M. F. Newnes, Sir George Wallace, Robert
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick Nussey, Thomas Wiilans Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Griffith, Ellis J. Parrott, William Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Partington, Oswald Weir, James Galloway
White, George (Norfolk) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur
White, Luke (York, E. R.) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Whiteley, George (York, W.R. Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

claimed, "That the Main Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes, 233; Noes, 102. (Division List No.241.)

Aird, Sir John Doogan, P. C. Leamy, Edmund
Allhusen, Augustus HenryEden Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Lee, ArthurH.(Hants., Fareham.
Ambrose, Robert Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Arkwright, John Stanhope Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Bristol, S
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Fergusson, Rt. Hon. SirJ (Manc'r Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. SirH. Field, William Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Bailey. James (Walworth) Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lundon, W.
Balcarres, Lord Fison, Frederick William Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Baldwin, Alfred FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Macdona, John Cumming
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r) Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Flannery, Sir Fortescue M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Balfour, RtHn. Gerald W.(Leeds Flavin, Michael Joseph M'Kean, John
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Flower, Sir Ernest Manners, Lord Cecil
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Forster, Henry William Martin, Richard Biddulph
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Gardner, Ernest Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Garfit, William Maxwell, RtHn. Sir H.E.(Wigt'n
Bignold, Sir Arthur Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Maxwell, W J.H.(Dumfriesshire
Bigwood, James Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Bill, Charles Graham, Henry Robert Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Bingham, Lord Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Milvain, Thomas
Blundell, Colonel Henry Greene, Sir E.W.(B'rySEdm'nds Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Boland, John Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Bond, Edward Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Grenfell, William Henry Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Gunter, Sir Robert Morrell, George Herbert
Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.) Hall, Edward Marshall Morrison, James Archibald
Bull, William James Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford Mount, William Arthur
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Glasgow Hare, Thomas Leigh Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ. Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th) Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Harris, Dr. Freak. R. (Dulwich) Murray, RtHn. A. Graham (Bute
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Haslett, Sir James Horner Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Cautley, Henry Strother Hayden, John Patrick Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire Heath, James (Staffords. N. W. Myers, William Henry
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Helder, Augustus Nannetti, Joseph, P.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Nicholson, William Graham
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hickman, Sir Alfred Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. Hoare, Sir Samuel Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Worc. Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid
Charrington, Spencer Horner, Frederick William O'Brien, Patrick Kilkenny)
Clancy, John Joseph Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.)
Clare, Octavius Leigh Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Clive, Captain Percy A. Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hudson, George Bickersteth Parker, Sir Gilbert
Coddington, Sir William Hunt, Roland Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Coghill, Douglas Harry Jameson, Major J. Eustace Percy, Earl
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Cripps, Charles Alfred Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Plummer, Sir Walter R.
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Davenport, William Bromley Joyce, Michael Pretyman, Ernest George
Delany, William Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W. Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Denny, Colonel Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh) Purvis, Robert
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Keswick, William Pym, C. Guy
Dickson, Charles Scott Kimber, Henry Randles, John S.
Digby, John K.D. Wingfield- Laurie, Lieut.-General Rankin, Sir James
Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C. Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Reddy, M.
Dixon-Hartland, SirFred Dixon Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks, N.R Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Reid, James (Greenock) Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk Whiteley, H.(Ashton und Lyne
Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Richards, Henry Charles Sullivan, Donal Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson Thornburn, Sir Walter Wills, Sir Frederick
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Thornton, Percy M. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Tollemache, Henry James Wilson-Todd, SirW. H. (Yorks.)
Round, Rt. Hon. James Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Royds, Clement Molyneux Tritton, Charles Ernest Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Tuff, Charles Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Tully, Jasper Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Valentia, Viscount Young, Samuel
Seton-Karr, Sir Henry Vincent, Col. SirC. E.H.(Sheffield
Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Warde, Colonel C. E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Simeon, Sir Barrington Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C.E.(Taunton
Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) Wharton, Rt. Hon John Lloyd
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) Rose, Charles Day
Asher, Alexander Jones, William(Carnarvonshire Runciman, Walter
Atherley-Jones, L. Kitson, Sir James Russell, T. W.
Black, Alexander William Labouchere, Henry Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Lambert, George Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Schwann, Charles E.
Caldwell, James Layland-Barratt, Francis Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Cameron, Robert Leng, Sir John Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Levy, Maurice Shipman, Dr. John G.
Channing, Francis Allston Lewis, John Herbert Slack, John Bamford
Churchill, Winston Spencer Lloyd-George, David Sloan, Thomas Henry
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Lough, Thomas Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Cremer, William Randal Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Soares, Ernest J.
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles M'Kenna, Reginald Strachey. Sir Edward
Dobbie, Joseph M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Tennant, Harold John
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Duncan, J. Hastings Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Edwards, Frank Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)
Emmott, Alfred Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Moss, Samuel Wallace, Robert
Eve, Harry Trelawney Newnes, Sir George Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Nussey, Thomas Willans Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Fuller, J. M. F. Parrott, William Weir, James Galloway
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick) Partington, Oswald White, George (Norfolk)
Griffith, Ellis J. Paulton, James Mellor White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Perks, Robert William Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Gordon, Sir W. Brampton Philipps, John Wynford Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale Pirie, Duncan V. Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Harcourt, RtHnSirW (Monm'th Price, Robert John Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R)
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Rea, Russell
Hobhouse C. E. H.(Bristol, E.) Rickett, J. Compton TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton.
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. Roberts, John H.(Denbighs.)
Jacoby, James Alfred Robson, William Snowdon
Joicey, Sir James Roe, Sir Thomas

Main Question put accordingly.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed for Tuesday next.