§ Postponed Proceeding on Amendment to Question [7th May]," That the Bill be now read a second time," resumed.
§ Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ MR. RENDALL,continuing his speech, said: Then it is urged by many speakers on the other side that Bible teaching is not sufficient for a large majority of the people of this country, but the evidence of the last thirty years has been that it is quite sufficient. The hon. Member for Cambridge University quoted Ruskin, and he spoke of Ruskin's strong testimony to the education of the heart; but education of the heart is best given by a teacher whose character we are sure of. Far more likely is it to be given by him than by such a one of whom we can say we know something of his doctrine. If we look at the education of the children of this country, I am assured that we shall be more sure of its value if we know full well that the characters of the teachers are perfect rather than if we know they profess one doctrine or another. The principle of all-round facilities has been very cleverly argued and many speeches have been made in order to demand some concession, but I would recall to the House the words used by Sir Joshua Fitch. In dealing with this matter some little time ago Sir Joshua Fitch said—;
It would mean: (1) An inquiry into the religious beliefs and preferences of the parents 1242 —;a most difficult task in itself, one never attempted before, and sure to arouse widespread and just resentment; (2) a corresponding separation of the scholars into classes to receive the specific denominational instruction required; (3) an inquiry into the theological opinions of the staff of teachers, in order to determine their fitness to give denominational instruction; or (4) the employment of clerical or other experts from outside to supersede the ordinary staff, and thus to impair the legitimate authority of the head teacher; and (5) the inevitable introduction into schools of religious and sectarian differences, happily unrecognisable by the children at present, but certain to become mischievously apparent in the corporate life of the school; the more so, because the meaning and reason of the new departure will not only be unintelligible to the majority of the scholars, but are sure to be misunderstood.For this reason it seems to me that the proposal to allow facilities in all schools is a most unsuitable proposal and would lead to a great deal of quarrelling.I come lastly to this point whether the Members of this House are bound by their pledges to support the Government proposal as to the four-fifths clause and the facilities to be given in each school on two days a week. I think there is no moral or legal claim for either of those demands. I think in regard to the building of the schools enough money has come from the taxes and enough from persons willing to give in order to avoid paying taxes. These persons gave that money for no other purpose than to avoid paying the heavy rate that would have come upon them if they had not paid voluntarily. I do not like compromises in any form, but in this world we are obliged to compromise very often, and for the sake of peace, I think we ought to support the Government in regard to these two clauses. I think the proposal of the hon. Member for North Camberwell in regard to making this four-fifths clause mandatory is one requiring our careful consideration. What might be done as a matter of grace would not be so likely to be done as if the authorities were forced to do it. But upon that part of the Bill I should like to see the Bill passed as it is. On this occasion I regret that hon. Members representing Ireland are not able to act with us, but they have to safeguard the interests of their national religion, and they are doing so. What I want 1243 to urge is that while there may be a difficulty between the Protestants and the Catholics and in like manner between the Protestants and the Jews, still there is no such difficulty between the various Protestants of this country, and general undenominational teaching could be allowed in all the schools of the country. That is the general opinion of the laymen of this country, and though there are persons who hold high ecclesiastical views who are making a great fuss about the proposals in this Bill, I am inclined to think that that is due to the fact that it is a question of property; that if there was no property concerned in this matter they would make a great deal less fuss. I think a very small section of the laymen of England take that line, and that the advertisement which has been given to the section of the public holding these views is an advertisement given to a section which represents a very small portion of the opinion of the country. I believe Churchmen as a rule are inclined to think that undenominational teaching is good enough for them. For my own part, I can only say if this Bill is to be interfered with by the bishops the Bible is good enough for me, and I am prepared to fight an election or a bye-election on that point.
§ * SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)I hope the House will allow me to say a few words upon this Bill from the point of view of one who has given a great deal of time to the administration of education. I do not propose to occupy much time, but I may be permitted to express my sincere regret that the hon. Member for the Thorn by division has presented what may be called another bundle of stories without either a description of the place or the date or any indication whatever to enable us to verify the statements.
§ MR. RENDALLI gave the place in three instances. I do not know the dates, one was Mildenhall, Suffolk,—;another was in Glamorganshire, and another was Pucklechurch.
§ * SIR FRANCIS POWELLBut even supposing the incidents reported were accurate, they do not cover the whole ground. There are exceptions to every 1244 rule, and weak members of every society' and nothing can be more unfair than to bring forward stories of this kind even supposing they were absolutely true. They are rare exceptions to a general rule, and they by no means prove the real position of the case. I do not propose to discuss the clauses of the first part of the Bill, which has been fully entered into by previous speakers. I may, however, be permitted to make one remark. It appears to me, after a careful examination of the clauses on more than one occasion, that there are no real facilities; that there is no certainty with regard to facilities. The facilities proposed in the Bill are difficult to obtain, and it is almost impossible to render them permanent. I assent to the statement made by the hon. Member for North Camberwell last night that Clause 4 requires alteration, and that what is now permissive should be made compulsory. That remark also applies to many cases in the first portion of the Bill. There is no doubt that many Church of England schools have been transferred owing to want of courage on the part of those who were the owners or trustees. In many cases, with more time given to consideration, such action would have been cancelled. Still the fact remains that we have lost many schools owing to the weakness of those who betrayed their trusts, and I have no doubt whatever that if this clause of the Bill becomes law the same unhappy result will arise on future occasions. What I desire to see is permanence of trusts. Many of these schools have been built, as has been already stated, at a very great sacrifice of money, amounting in many cases to many thousands of pounds. And the construction of these schools has cost that which to many is more dear than pecuniary sacrifice; at the cost of great anxiety, suffering, and labour, extending over many years. As you go through the country you find in many cases that the school buildings adjoin the church, and the passer-by will see at once that the school is part of the parochial organisation, and it certainly seems to me to be almost an insult to those who have erected these schools to say that these schools, being a portion of the parochial organisation, shall be eliminated by such a Bill as this, and devoted to a purpose different from that on behalf of which 1245 they were erected. So much for the first clauses of the Bill.
Now I desire to make one observation which I am, I think, in one sense bound to make from my having taken an active part in educational deliberations. I must associate myself to-day, as I did during the debates which took place upon the Bill of 1902, with those who do not regard with any alarm the operation of the Cowper-Temple clause. I believe that most valuable instruction in Biblical, and therefore Christian knowledge, is given under the Cowper-Temple clause. I desire to go one step further, and to express my great regret that observations should have been made concerning the Cowper-Temple clause which has rendered even possible any misconstruction as to its aims and intentions. I am quite sure there has been no disposition to cast any slight upon Biblical teaching. My regret is that any word should have been spoken, even in a most incautious moment, which would disparage that form of instruction.
I desire chiefly on this occasion to pass from this part of the Bill to the second, which deals with endowments. I hope that the attention, not only of the Government, but also of the country, will be closely directed to those clauses. I myself have been intimately connected with some of our grammar schools. I have been a life governor of the Bradford Grammar School ever since the year 1870, and therefore I have a long and varied experience of the working of those trusts. The language used by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Duchy yesterday gave me the impression that he did not altogether appreciate the working of Part II. of the Bill. One of the most important considerations is the date at which any scheme under the Bill will operate. It does not affect the old endowments alone, it affects new institutions. It affects institutions of a few years standing—;such a school, for example, as that well-known and highly honoured school the Leys School in Cambridge, unless I be in error of a very limited character as to the date of that institution. My impression is that that school is brought under the compulsory operation of this Bill. Another institution of recent date 1246 which I feel almost certain will come under the operation of the Act is the Holloway School for Girls at Egham. I cannot myself believe that the Government really fully understand the position, and I hope the House will permit me to call attention to the real operation of these clauses. This is not a Party matter; it is not a political matter; it is not a denominational matter. Under the existing law, schemes for the most part cannot be altered except on the initiative of the governing body. These clauses propose that the initiative should be placed in the hands of the Education Board. I believe that to be a most dangerous movement in the direction of centralisation. I feel myself quite convinced that there is an inconsistency between the giving of these new powers and the great affection for local independence and local action of which we hear so much just commendation. I believe that those in the country who administer these institutions are more competent than the central authority can be to know what are the wants and, in legal language, the needs of the district, and I think it is a very great misfortune that so much power should be given to the central authority under this Bill. There is a great difference between action by the consent of the central authority and action by the initiative of the central authority. The power which initiates is eminently more powerful than that which simply gives consent, and I do hope that those who are entrusted with the great and responsible office of administering educational charities will carefully study the operation of these clauses and see that no injury is done to the institutions in which they take so laudable and patriotic an interest.
The next point to which I desire to call attention is the date of the operation of these schemes. Under the present law a scheme can only affect a charity of fifty years standing—;fifty years from the Act of 1869. But under the Bill as it now stands a scheme operates thirty years back, the period not running from the date of this Bill, if it becomes an Act, but from the date of the scheme. That is to say, whereas under the Act of 1869 you have a fixed date, under the operation of this Bill you have a date constantly varying from year to year as time passes. 1247 The effect of that would be to constantly bring in new institutions. I have had too much experience of legislation on these subjects not to know that many changes take place in the course of centuries, and in the evolution of public opinion, and that changes must be made in the administration of trusts accordingly. But this remark does not apply to more recent endowments. A policy which was wise thirty years ago is not foolish now, and there are many conditions which have been proved by experience to be salutary, but which it handled in a rough manne by those not fully conversant with the working of the system may prove most mischievous and injurious to the trusts. Another remark I would wish to make is as to the somewhat crude language used in the operative clause. If any hon. Member will examine the statute of 1868 and other statutes, he will find what care is taken in the language of clause after clause. I will mention one or two of the provisions wherein I think greater care ought to have been taken. There is the teaching of religion. Under the Act of 1869 and the subsequent Acts there is careful provision, not wholly satisfactory, I admit, with regard to what I may describe as religious securities; there is the security for safe-guarding religious teaching, there is the provision for the Conscience Clause, and provision of many kinds affecting students, teachers, and the rights of the parents. They are drawn with precision, accuracy, and care; but they are swept into this Bill by one comprehensive clause framed in the most drastic language and in the most sweeping form of words. There are in the old statute, provisions as to certain conditions of life and certain classes. Those were carefully investigated by a Committee of this House, of which I had the honour of being a Member, and the Committee were unanimous that those provisions required rather greater rigidity than greater elasticity. But under this clause they are all swept together and the clause has to be put into operation by the action of the central authority, without that careful investigation which was required by the Act of 1869.
There is one further subject to which I think some reference ought 1248 to be made, and that is the permanence of the new endowments. I feel anxious that these trusts should continue. Benevolent founders should be encouraged to continue their foundations, and they ought not to be alarmed in any way by the action of the legislature. Then there is the question of procedure. It may be that the procedure might be simplified. I do not say that it is not capable of improvement, but there is a revolutionary change in the procedure made by this Bill. Certain forms have to be complied with in framing a new scheme—;certain publications made, and certain inquiries instituted. At the present time the charity has power to carry out the whole scheme after inquiry and without loss of time. Under the new Act, where there is opposition, the scheme cannot become law without reference to Parliament. It will have to be brought here by Provisional Order, and in case of opposition it will have to be referred to a Select Committee, and the whole case will have to be investigated. If there is opposition it must be before a Committee according to Parliamentary usage and at the cost of the charity. This means that if the governors or trustees think that the central authority has acted wrongly they cannot protect their property without expending funds, which in many cases they can ill afford to do. Personally, I have for a good many years now been taking a great interest in educational work in the north of England. In my opinion this is a question which ought to be considered carefully by all those who have at heart the interests of the educational foundations of the country. I rejoice at having had this opportunity of submitting my views to the House, and I thank hon. Members for the kind consideration with which they have I listened to a somewhat technical explanation. I now desire to express my disapproval of the Bill as it now stands. How far it can be altered to meet the objections which have been raised will depend upon the temper with which the Government accept our suggestions. I hope that temper will be reasonable, and that this great opportunity of improving, our educational system will not be lost- 1249 It would be wrong of me if I did not express great alarm, and I must confess that my fears are greater than my hopes. I earnestly desire that this attempt at legislation may not be unsuccessful, and I hope that the effect of these proposals, as they pass through Parliament, may be of such a character as to improve the educational system of the country. I trust that the result will be real progress in education, and that this measure will produce peace, calmness, and goodwill in a region of our social life where they are so essential to success.
§ * MR. SPICER (Hackney, Central)I am sure that we all have a great respect for the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan, and if the spirit and temper he has displayed in dealing with this question is indicative of what we may expect on the other side of the House generally, then I think there are great hopes for the future of this Bill. I was especially glad to hear the hon. Baronet's testimony to the Bible teaching given under the Cowper-Temple Clause. It is the first time I have heard from the Opposition such emphatic testimony to the value of that teaching. It comes as a remarkable contrast to the general tenour of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cambridge University, who seems to hold such pessimistic views, and who has such a poor appreciation of those who for over thirty years have been carrying on this Bible teaching in our various schools. It is to me rather strange that the hon. Member should raise doubts on this question, seeing that so large a percentage of the teachers in our board schools have been trained in Church of England training colleges. I desire to look at this question perhaps from a different point of view from some hon. Members. I had not the honour of a seat in the 1900 Parliament, and therefore I was able to take a more active part in connection with outside work. I sometimes feel that one of the disadvantages of Members of this House is that whilst they are earnestly engaged in the discussion of some great measure they are apt to get a little out of touch with the prevailing feeling of the country. I will give one illustration. I think the feeling outside this House during the discussion of the 1250 1902 Education Bill with regard to the abolition of our great school boards was much more intense than perhaps it was in this House. Probably comparatively few Members of this House have had the opportunity of serving upon school boards, because it is not often that one can occupy both positions. Although I am perfectly well aware of some of the weaknesses of our school board system, I believe that a great injury was done to the educational work of the country by the abolition at one blow of all our school boards, and the dismissal at one stroke of men of character and power who for the first time had come forward to serve the public in connection with these Boards. There is no doubt that what led to a reversal of the position of parties in this House was the strong feeling of the injustice of putting the voluntary schools on the rates. Not only this, but when these voluntary schools were put on the rates all Free Churchmen were debarred in those schools from taking the position of headmaster and headmistress. That was one of the main factors which led to a complete reversal of the political complexion of this House. With the Education Act of 1902 commenced the slump of the Tory Party. It commenced with the Education Act and was completed by the proposals made with regard to the fiscal question. At any rate, we on the Ministerial side of the House have comeback with a distinct mandate upon this subject. In many of the speeches to which I have listened in this debate this mandate seems to have been completely forgotten. I believe that only the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University has thrown any doubt upon that mandate. We all know that a very distinct mandate has been given to us in reference to popular control of all State supported schools and the abolition of all religious tests, and we dare not support any Bill which does not provide for the carrying out of those two principles. Hon. members on the Opposition side seem to think that they are now in the same position as they were in the 1900 Parliament, but may I remind them that the Church of England to-day in connection with this education question is not in the same position as it was a few years ago. Looking through the list of Members of this House, I have 1251 sometimes wondered whether the number of Free Churchmen in this House is not larger than the number of actual members of the Church of England. If that is so, then it surely alters the whole position, and it means that really hon. Members opposite have no right to assume the position of former years. At the present moment in this country Free Churchmen are doing a good half of the religious work of the nation without any help from the State. I think the leaders of the Church of England have spoken too hurriedly and too positively in regard to a great measure of this kind, and that they are running great risk of making the general community feel that they are anti-national with regard to the system of education, that they are anti-popular with regard to the management of that system, that they are anti-biblical, and that they are anxious to put the Creeds of the Church before the teaching of the Bible. What has led to this state of things? I say it is the deliberate action of the Church of England and of the Unionist party since 1870. Up to that time the elementary education of the country was mostly in the hands of the Church of England, and I give them full credit for the sacrifices they made up to that time. It was also helped by other Churches who were receiving grants from the State, but there was a huge deficiency in the supply of education. Mr. Forster brought in his Bill; that Bill recognised the work that was being done, and where there was a deficiency it gave power to the ratepayers to form school boards and supply that deficiency. The Church of England has never as a whole loyally accepted the new conditions. If they had only accepted the new conditions we should not be in the position we are in to-day. I hold that the Church then lost a great opportunity for good of the best kind. I speak as a Free Churchman. There are few parts of the country where I do not know intimately the position of the section of the Free Church to which I belong. I know our own difficulties and disadvantages. We are trying to get rid of these disadvantages from year to year, and we are succeeding. I was a little surprised that the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge should quote some fossil of Noncon- 1252 formity who expressed the opinion that the Bible was easy to teach. It was not worthy of one occupying the hon. Member's position. We have at any rate tried to set an example in educating our ministry, and, speaking as a Congregationalist, I say that we are sending out from Mansfield College on the average better educated men in our ministry than the Church of England at the present time. After the passing of the Act of 1870 the Church of England, if they had loyally accepted the position, might have led the education movement of the country, because they have such enormous advantages, social, educational, and financial; but instead of that they as a rule either opposed or did what they could to minimise it. The principle of the Act of 1870 was that they were to receive grants equal to the amount they raised in fees or subscriptions. It was practically sixpence to sixpence, but they were not content with that, and subsequent Governments, with the support of a Party majority, gave them not sixpence to sixpence, but something like tenpence to twopence. Having asked more State help, the Church was not entitled to so much power in the management. But although they received ten-pence for every twopence, they were still allowed the whole management of the schools. In 1902 the Church passed over their schools entirely, apart from the actual buildings, to the support of the State. Now that the schools are being supported entirely by the State they have no right to ask that they should also have the control of the education. The cry of confiscation which has been raised under the present Bill has fallen on deaf ears, because it is not in accordance with facts. It must be recollected that the Church of England is dependent on the State for the support of their schools, and the present Bill proposes to pay an adequate rent for the use of the buildings. That is not confiscation. Much has been said about parents' rights. Parents have the rights of citizens and no more. They have not the right to ask that, at the State's expense, they should have the special religious teaching they require. In his speech the hon. Member for Aston Manor gave an illustration which showed that 1253 it was practically impossible to have such a system. Undenominational teaching is not a Nonconformist proposal. It was not started by the Nonconformists. The mover of it in the London School Board was, I believe, Mr. W. H. Smith, and he was supported by Nonconformists and Agnostics. The State, I maintain, can only give in religious teaching that which is common to all. We have tested the so-called school board teaching. We have had thirty-five years of it, and it has proved satisfactory. I hold that the religious teaching of the children is the responsibility of the churches and the parents. Of course I know that the logical consequence in connection with this is secular education—;that the State should look after the secular and that the churches and the parents should look after the religious education. Let me say that in my recent contest I took up this position. I said that personally I wanted to see the Bible continued in the schools, but I admitted that strong denominationalists might say, "You may be content with that, but we are not." I said if they took up that position I was bound to take only one position, and say, "Very well, if you denominationalists claim that you will not have simple Bible teaching, upon you must rest the responsibility of the State taking the secular and the churches taking the religious teaching." [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] As a Christian man I do not dread that time. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for North Camberwell say last night that if that was done he feared that it would mean that a number of children, especially in the slums, would go uncared for. Surely in this Parliament we are not going to legislate for the continuance of slums. I believe that the great danger under which we are living at the present time is that so many who ought to be taking part in the religious education of the children, not only in the churches and schools, but in the homes, are relying upon the work's being done by the official in the schools. You are asking why there is religious indifference. One reason is that so many who are taking an active part in looking after the religious education of children in the House of Commons, and elsewhere, are not taking an active part in the religious 1254 teaching of either the children at home or the children who surround them, but are leaving the work to the official teacher. I speak of this feelingly. I do not wish to make personal references, but I have tried for the last forty years to take my share of this work, and I say that, having done that, I do not look with fear even to the time when the State shall recognise the secular and the churches and homes shall recognise the Christian teaching. After all, this Bible teaching, at which some hon. Members sneer, is in harmony with the principles under which we are living day by day. There are the public schools. I do not claim that they are national, but any man who knows them must acknowledge that the teaching of the Bible in these schools is carried on in an undenominational spirit. In everyday life we try to recognise the good in every part. I was extremely sorry to hear the speech of the hon. Member for South Longford, because it showed that the chasm between Protestant and Roman Catholic is even deeper than some of us had thought. I confess that as I listened to that speech, although I recognised, as all hon. Members must have recognised, the spirit that is behind it, I asked myself whether it would not be better that the Roman Catholics of this country, where in sufficient numbers, should have separate treatment outside this Bill altogether. After all, the great majority of the people in this country are Protestants, and we ought to try and frame a policy of education suitable to all Protestants to whichever section they may belong. I feel keenly on this subject, and I support this Bill because I believe it is an honest attempt to deal with this question in a national and broad spirit.
§ SIR JOHN KENNAWAY (Devonshire, Honiton)I am very glad that my hon. friend who has just sat down did justice to the earlier attempts and to the sacrifices made by the Church of England to care for the education of the children before the State took any interest or part in the matter, thereby earning the gratitude of the whole of the people of the country. I am one of the very few Members in the House who took a part in the passing of the Education Act in 1870, and I think that the hon. Member 1255 did scant justice to what the Church of England has done since that time. During the thirty years that elapsed between the passing of that Act and 1902, the Church of England set herself to work, and I am not going outside the mark when I say that she built 6,000 schools and spent several millions of money. The Church did not oppose the school boards, but she felt that they did not give the full teaching which she believed to be necessary, and therefore she set herself to do the best in her power to fill the gap, and to enlarge her system. So far from the Act of 1902 being a gain to the Church, it has thrown a very great additional expense on her on account of the additional demands made by the local authorities. I think I am within the mark in saying that the Church has spent more than a million in the last three years in supplying these deficiences. I do not think it is fair to call this an Education Bill or a Bill to make better provision for education. It will destroy a good deal of the best sort of education that the schools have been giving, and it will disturb education rather than make better provision for the children. It might be called a Church of England Disability Bill. It was introduced for the payment of election debts. There was a great deal done for the Government in the last election by the Nonconformists, and it is reasonable that they should expect their reward. I am not disposed to dispute the fact that as evinced in the elections there was a mandate from the country to the Government to deal with the question, and the Government had very little choice but to introduce the Bill as the first measure of importance in their programme. Had the Bill been fair and reasonable it would not have aroused strong opposition, but it goes so far beyond that and the necessities of the case that we feel bound to raise the most energetic protest against it, and to record our emphatic objection to its arbitrary provisions. There is a cynical disregard of the feelings of Churchmen especially, and also of our Roman Catholic brethren. I am not accustomed to the use of adjectives, which are very often unnecessary and hurtful; but I do not think I am going beyond 1256 what is fair and right when I say that I think that the Bill is extravagant, unjust, arbitrary, and calamitous. It is extravagant because, at a time when national finances are subjected to a great strain and when the Government have come in with great professions of economy, it adds one million a year to the public charge without any educational benefit, and uses that million to deprive Churchmen of rights and privileges which they value above money, and for which they have made great efforts and sacrifices. They were encouraged to make these by promises of various Governments that the school board system was introduced to supplement and not to supplant the then existing system. The Bill is unnecessary, because it will interfere with hundreds of schools which are working without a hitch, and without a complaint from the parents; in a given time they have done a great deal to improve the education of the country, and they are doing their work harmoniously and well. Now, everything will be turned topsy-turvy, and many of the best teachers, who value their position for the sake of the religious teaching they can give, will be lost to the service. It is calamitous, because it does deliberate dishonour to religious education and makes it for the first time an extra subject dependent on the option of the local authorities. The extended facilities are of little use. It is tyrannical, because it forbids many teachers giving religious instruction, which instruction is so important in the formation of character and also of morals. Then there is the question of the interference with trusts. The doctrine of trusts is that they are sacred and should not be subject to the caprice of any one. In dealing with the trusts there is power to ignore the wishes of their founders, and they are placed at the mercy of irresponsible, irremovable Commissioners, armed with most drastic powers, even the power of putting into force when they want to take possession of a school the Small Tenements Act. I hope and believe that this provision as to the Commissioners will entirely disappear from the Bill. I have said all this because I thought it was only right and fair to place before hon. Gentlemen opposite the grounds for what seems to them an unreasonable opposition. 1257 I am sure that hon. Members are not desirous of doing any injustice even to Churchmen, and that they have been greatly misled by the agitators who have spoken of the Bill of 1902 as imposing further disabilities upon Nonconformists, whereas on the contrary it introduced public management into the schools. [Laughter.] It is easy to laugh, but nobody can deny that these schools were under the Act placed under the county councils instead of being left to one man, one parson power as in the past. It is therefore absurd to say that no public management was introduced. But the control given was not sufficient for hon. Members opposite; they wanted the whole control, and hence the agitation, which has been fomented very largely by the kind of statement made yesterday by the hon. Member for the Louth Division of Lincolnshire, when he said that the bitterness of the agitation was caused by the fact that the Church of England was rapidly approaching in doctrine, creed, and ritual the Roman Catholic Church. I have had some opportunity of ascertaining how far that statement is true. I can, speaking with authority, give it an emphatic denial. I do not deny that there have been in some quarters something which might give colour to such a statement, but to speak of the Church of England as a whole, of a large majority in it, as approaching the doctrine, creed, and ritual of the Roman Catholic Church is grossly erroneous. We wish that our Nonconformist friends would do justice to us as we would desire to do justice to them, and not, in the course of removing the liability to pay a small amount of rates, to inflict a greater injustice upon us, and one which in the words of the hon. Member for Leicester would give ground for a more aggravated form of "passive resistance" by Churchmen than anything of that nature which has occurred before. I am prepared to admit that the necessary outcome of the Church's acceptance of rate aid and of the result of the last election are the points raised as to the abolition of tests and complete public control. We did accept those points in principle in 1902. We asked our friends to go a long way 1258 in doing so, and got very little credit for it. But we were able to induce them to accept those points because we took security for that which we valued so much, the continuance of religion. Now the Government threaten us that they will do away with that security, but I ask what are they going to put in its place? How are you going to ensure that our sacrifices and efforts have not been in vain? We want to consider fairly and fully what is possible under the circumstances, and we ask at all events that the question of denominational freedom under public control should be considered. Is that impossible? Such a system exists in various forms in Scotland, in Germany and, I believe, in Ireland. Is it impossible in England? I believe it might be so worked as to be thoroughly democratic, ideal, and yet preserve the teaching which we value. It is only in some such way as this that we can avoid that secular education which the hon. Member for North Camberwell said last night was abhorrent to the general feeling of the country. We might be driven to counsels of despair if we are not able to come to some agreement by which it can be avoided. The responsibility will be very heavy upon those on the other side of the House who, by obstinate refusal of concession, bring about that result. I am ready to accept Biblical teaching, in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, as laying the foundation upon which the ampler teaching of Christian faith can be secured, but it ought to be compulsory and in school hours, facilities being granted on one or two days a week for denominational teaching to all schools, provided and-non-provided schools alike. I would associate myself very closely also with what fell from the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan in regard to Part II. of this Bill. The Bill was thought to apply only to elementary schools, but, as a matter of fact, Part II. applies to all endowments except those of the Universities, and of seven public schools. The provisions are very far-reaching. The Commissioners are entitled to make provision in regard to any trust of over thirty years standing and to disregard the wishes of the founders. This part of the Bill goes very much beyond the proposals of the Endowed 1259 Schools Commission, which only recommended interference where the charity was wholly or partially useless, mischievous, or obsolete. In thanking the House for listening to me, I will merely say that my desire has been simply to ask others to look at this matter as fairly as they would ask us to look at it if they were in opposition, and to express the earnest hope and belief that it may be possible by Amendment so to alter the Bill that our objections may be removed. I admit that there will be great difficulty, but I hope that this cruel sense of injustice under which we shall suffer if the Bill passes in its present form may be removed, otherwise we may refuse to consider it and seek to bring about its rejection by every means in our power. I am sure that none of us wish the prolongation of this controversy year after year. We want a settlement of it, and it is because the Bill in its present form does not offer that that I shall most unhesitatingly vote against it.
§ * THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH,) Islington, W.Those of us who, like myself, have been accustomed to listen to the right hon. Gentleman have always heard from him something which appealed to our commonsense rather than to our passions, and he will find on this side of the House a disposition to reciprocate the good wishes he expressed, that we may be able to arrive by conciliation at an adjustment of the very grave questions which are raised by this Bill. I do not intend to trouble the House at any length with the contentious points which have been raised in the debate. I will only say after an experience in three Parliaments, that my right hon. friend who introduced the Bill ought to be well satisfied with the progress it has made. I have never seen a large and contentious measure better received than this Bill has been. It has been met with approval by a large and solid majority in this House, and I am perfectly satisfied with its reception in the country. The clergy it is true have raised great objections to the Bill. I am not one to speak lightly of the clergy, but they are not all politicians, and many of 1260 them do not know the best means of realising the objects they have at heart. Putting aside the opposition of the clergy, the Government may feel that the Bill has been well received. Certain objections have been made, with which I have deep sympathy, by the Gentlemen who represent Ireland. I can only say that there has been a great disposition to meet many of the criticisms they and other minorities have levelled at the Bill. It may not be easy to bring the provisions they have criticised up to the standard they desire, but I appeal to them to have regard to the equilibrium of the Bill. It is exceedingly difficult to deal with this matter of education in a way acceptable to everybody. Many of the Amendments which are asked for would not tend to produce the result which hon. Members anticipate. The hon. Member for Louth asks us to strike Clause 4 out of the Bill altogether, but then the hon. Member for North Camberwell asks us to make the clause mandatory, and I ask many who desire to support the Government to consider the difficult position in which we are placed in trying to steer an even keel through all these difficulties, and I ask them to look at the Bill in as sympathetic a manner as possible. The Bill was not prepared in the interests of any church; it is a simple educational measure for the improvement of educational facilities for the children of the poor. It has been introduced in a spirit of moderation and conciliation, which will continue to guide to the end of our deliberations those who are responsible for it. I have been considering what is the best way in which I can assist the House in discussing this matter, and I have come to the conclusion that I can do so by answering the appeal addressed to the Government, by the hon. Member for Aston Manor, and by saying something in reference to the finances of the Bill. After all, have the whole of these difficulties arisen out of the question of how we are to finance the Church schools. The Church has complained of the intolerable strain, but this was not a strain upon any man's conscience; it was only as train upon the cash of the Church. Now the Church has got rid of that intolerable strain and thrown 1261 it on to the back of the nation. So far as I know, the country has never had an opportunity—;in this House certainly we had no opportunity in the closured debates of 1902—;of considering what this strain was. We are the representatives of the nation, and it becomes us to ask what is the strain to-day and what it is likely to become to-morrow. There was a movement in regard to this matter, to resist the payment of the rate, which swept like a storm over many parts of the country. I know that superior persons looked upon that passive resistance movement, and said that the demand was small and that resistance was unreasonable, but you can never measure the force of resistance of this kind by the mere size of the demand which is made. It is true that the demand was small. The demand for ship money was small, yet the resistance to it led to a revolution. And since the days of ship money I do not know that there has been such a feeling of indignation in this country as that which swept through it at the time of the late general election. Much of that indignation arose from the financial proposals in the Education Act of the late Government. It may be said that it is a mean thing for us to raise this question of finance in connection with such a sacred subject as education, but the more sacred the subject the more desirable it is that its financial basis should rest on something generally and willingly accepted by the people. Now, if the House will allow me, I will throw myself on its indulgence for a moment while I discuss this large question. Let us first consider what change the Education Act of 1902 made in the educational finance of the country. When my right hon. friend introduced this Bill, he said we were here to amend these Acts. Let us then consider their effect from the point of view of finance as well as everything else. Those who will carry their minds back to the year 1902 will remember that the step which the Government of the day then took was to ask the nation to accept the financial burden of 14,000 voluntary schools scattered over every part of the country, to allow that burden to be borne upon the rates, to leave the control of those schools in the hands of 1262 the private individuals and bodies of trustees who controlled them previously, to allow them to open other schools and to throw the financial burden of those schools also upon the back of the nation. That was the appeal that was made, but no estimate of the cost was given; yet when you take the cost of the 23,000 elementary schools of this country you find it costs on an average £1,000 a year to maintain each school. This was the burden lightly thrown upon the nation practically without any opportunity to discuss it. The nation was not asked to shoulder the whole burden. It was supposed that a contribution was made by the Church contributing the building. The position was made rather worse by that, because of the pecuniary conflict which immediately arose. If the whole thing had been taken over there would have been no strife as to money, and the managers of those schools would have been what we hope to make them by this Bill, the servants of the public authority. That was the arrangement made in 1902, an arrangement which in its nature was a bad one. What was the principle on which it rested? The principle was that education, our greatest national service, should be financed by a mixture of philanthropy and State aid. I object to philanthropy in such a connection. It does not lead to economy. The philanthropist too often exacts a larger share of the patronage and control than his contribution warrants. There has been a long and interesting financial connection between these schools and the State. Many of them received building grants. I do not wish to make light of those sacrifices to which the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and others referred through which these schools were built. What, how ever, is the history of the schools? In early days many received a small grant from the State. Then for many years they received a larger annual grant. Then in 1891 another grant was given to them of 10s., and in 1897 a further additional grant of 5s. So that in 1902, when the late Government dealt with this matter, they were in receipt of 35s. per scholar in respect of every school in the country. If the trustees of these 1263 schools were so anxious to retain them, why did not they remain satisfied with the 35s. per head which they were receiving, instead of driving this very hard bargain? The fact is, whenever one demand was satisfied another arose, until at last in 1902 came the demand that the whole expenditure should be taken over by the State whatever it might be. Let us see what contribution the late Government gave when they saddled the nation with that mighty burden. Practically the whole financial aid in the Bill of 1902 was given under Section 10. It is called an aid grant. That grant took the place of the 5s. grant, and of the necessitous school grants that had been made previously. These together amounted to about £1,000,000 and the aid grant to £2,250,000, so that the total Exchequer fresh coutribution was £1,250,000. Let hon. Members remember the huge new expense to be incurred and contrast that with what it is proposed to do under this Bill. The most important feature of this arrangement was the abolition of the principle of dealing with necessitous schools in a special way. Within two years of the passing of the Act, the hon. Members for East and West Ham were thundering against the late Prime Minister for relief. They got nothing from the right hon. Gentleman except interesting speeches, and no step was taken to deal with the matter before the present Government came in. What the House has particularly to bear in mind with regard to this Act of 1902 is the capricious changes that it made in the laws of educational finance. The precise provisions of the Aid Grant are of the most extraordinary character. Those who know them are amused by them. Those who do not know them must be amazed when they hear them. The provisions were first 4s. per scholar and then 1½d. for every 2d. in which the produce of a penny rate falls under 10s. Why any one of these provisions was invented no man living could ever find out. All are involved in the deepest mystery. The effect has been to give a practically level grant of 9s. 6d. per scholar with one or two unjust exceptions, and this has proved very disappointing so far as necessi- 1264 tous schools are concerned, as well as from other standpoints. Another extraordinary provision of the Act was Cause 18 (c) which stated that three-fourths, or at least a half, of the cost of providing any school should be thrown on the country parishes which the school served. I cannot think how any Government that knew anything about a country parish in England could propose such a provision. Its object can only have been to prevent the building of schools by the local education authority. I have gathered a few examples of how this provision works in the county of Buckinghamshire, where there are many parishes in which a penny rate only provides £5 and several parishes in which it provides less than £12. The result is that there are parishes languishing under rates of 1s., 1s. 6d., and 2s. in the pound in excess of the county rate. That was not the only difficulty into which the country parishes were plunged. I happen to be a little familiar with the depopulated district of Romney, in Kent, where there was for the single school a 3d. voluntary rate. Then this Act came along and the rate was raised to 10d. with no change whatever in the school. It is no wonder that the country should revolt at such provisions. The case in the towns is no better. Only last week the rate for the parish of Westminster was of such an extraordinary character that the city councillors issued an elaborate explanation—;a sort of apology—;for the rate. They gave the figures for the last seven years, which showed that the rates for education had increased by 70 per cent. during that period, so that the City of Westminster is paying £193,000 a year more, which is equal to a rate of 8d. in the pound.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSONThe Act had only been in operation three years.
§ * MR. LOUGHThe late Government were extravagant for a much longer period than the hon. Baronet thinks. There is one other provision in the Act of 1902 to which I must make reference—;Section 13, which dealt with endowments. When we consider the drastic way in which endowments were dealt with in 1265 the Act it is perfectly astonishing to listen to the criticisms that are levelled at this Bill. What did that clause do? It endeavoured to wrench away educational endowments, which were available for the purposes of elementary education, from the purposes to which the founders had devoted them, and to apply them to the reduction of the education rate. There were two objections to that. It was contrary to the old and sound doctrine with regard to the use that ought to be made of these endowments, and secondly, if they had succeeded, the endowments would have gone to reduce the rate in a different area from that which was intended to be benefited. Luckily, for technical reasons, which I need not explain, this clause has not been operative, or only to a small extent, not more than £20,000 of endowments having been dealt with. The administrative difficulty of the Act has been gigantic, and even my short experience at the Board of Education shows me that it was only brought into operation by the unsparing efforts of the officials both there and among the Local Authorities. Let me give two examples of these difficulties. The payments under the old system had to be made to different bodies from those created under the new system, so at first these latter had no money, and a system of temporary instalments was resorted to for three successive years until the Government itself disappeared and left it to its successors to place things on a stable basis. But a worse step was taken. An Act was passed called the Education Working Balances Act, and its object was to allow authorities to borrow in order to be able to set up a balance at the bank. I think that was an exceedingly bad principle, though 161 out of 327 authorities have resorted to it, because it involved paying interest on the balance all the year round, and consequently it was extremely extravagant. I wish now to summarise the results. A recent Return shows that the total rates collected by all the education authorities in the last year were £2,000,000 more than in the previous year, and now amount to £11,250,000. I estimate this year's increase at £1,000,000, and this will make in rates alone the total increase £5,000,000 in four years. In London for the three 1266 years of the operation of the Act the rates have been 1s. 2½d. 1s. 4d. and 1s. 7d. The Acts which have thrown this heavy burden on the rates have instituted a system of control tending to inefficiency and extravagance. One of the features of the old school board system was the extent to which it used voluntary help. The system of the Bill of 1902 has caused a great increase of officialism and administrative expenses, the latter now amounting to about £1,000,000. These are very, serious results. A system in its nature extravagant and difficult to control has been set up, and the great bulk of the additional cost has been thrown not on the Exchequer, but on the local rates.
Now I come to deal with the present Bill. Its financial proposals are based on two principles—;the promotion of an economical and efficient system of administration, the affording of relief to the local authority. The Bill sets up the principle of absolute local control, so that for the first time the local authorities will be masters in their own house. They will engage the teachers, and every branch of the service; they will make their own bargains with owners of schools in their own way. Everything that can be done by facilities for borrowing cheaply has been done to relieve localities in the cost of providing schools. The period of repayment has been extended, and a lower rate of interest provided. The Bill facilitates the acquisition and transfer of land, and it permits borrowing for playgrounds, equipments, and alterations. Country parishes have been relieved by an alteration of the clause in the last Act, whereby the parish is left with only a quarter of the cost of building a school instead of three-quarters or a half. The right hon. Member for Dover has unreasonably misrepresented this provision. In a speech at the Albert Hall the right hon. Gentleman treated this clause as a new proposal which would turn these areas into a howling wilderness, when, as a matter of fact, it is a drastic measure of relief. I think the right hon. Gentleman might have read the Bill before making that criticism. The great urban districts are granted autonomy, and we hope that what we have done will enable them to discharge their educational duties more efficiently and 1267 economically. The grant of £1,000,000 is for no mysterious scheme like that of 1902. We provide it for purposes of expenditure which are far more limited than those of the Act of 1902. As my right hon. friend has explained to the House, it will be largely applied to the reduction of rates in those districts where provision has to be made for the purposes of the Bill. The Bill makes endowments available for the purpose for which they were intended. The House should not be led away by the denunciations of these clauses. I will do my hon. friends opposite the justice of saying that when they so heartily denounced the clauses they did not understand what was proposed. They are simple in their object, and I think that when they are understood by the House no reasonable person will see any objection to them. The disposition of the Government towards the schools is generous and sympathetic. No financial support is necessarily withdrawn. But it is almost impossible to understand the action of the Government without going outside the limits of the Bill. I will put one illustration before the House on a matter already referred to—;I mean the case of the necessitous schools. One of the worst changes the late Government made was the doing away with all special treatment of the necessitous school districts. The proposals for relieving them will command general approval. Necessitous districts suffer for three reasons. The children are an unduly large proportion of the population. Barking stands at the head of such districts with 240 children at school to every 1,000 of the population, and Bexhill is the lowest with 97. In many of these urban districts such as West Ham the children in elementary schools represent a fifth of the population. Then in these places the rates are very high, often 10s. in the £, expenses of building schools are great, and there is much poverty. I think it will be recognised from the explanation I have given that the Government desire to do all in its power to simplify and improve the System of educational finance. There is a great deal to be done, and I should like to see some movement towards consolidating the Acts under which the various grants are given, as even the 1268 names of these grants have now only a historic interest. I think there should be one consolidated grant. Then I think an improvement would be made if all the schools would adopt the same school year. All such improvements do not need legislation, but they would meet difficulties, facilitate economies, and assist the localities. The need of every effort is apparent when we realize the total cost of the service. With the additional grant the estimates this year amount to £13,750,000, when we add the rates this makes £26,000,000 for England and Wales alone. If we add to this, say £5,500,000 for the total cost in Scotland and Ireland, the charge for Education in the United Kingdom is £31,500,000. Therefore it represents at this moment the heaviest, as it is the most important, branch of State expenditure, I appeal to hon. Members to take as favourable a view as they can of a Bill which, according to the right hon. Member for Oxford University, preserves intact the framework of the Act of 1902. The proposals are liberal, moderate, and conciliatory. They may be a little costly for a time, and put restraint upon extreme views, but in so far as they carry out reforms without unnecessarily reversing the policy of the predecessors of the Government, they form an illustrious example of the spirit that has contributed so much to the stability of British institutions.
§ * LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)I believe the hon. Gentleman said that the education policy of the late Government was bad, but he did not succeed in proving that the rates in the City of Westminster had risen by 70 per cent. in the last three years in consequence.
§ * LORD BALCARRESI quite understand that, but the hon. Gentleman has not given the House the basis of his misleading estimate. I confess that I do not see how this Bill remedies the extravagance which has been laid to the charge of the Party now in opposition. I see no suggestion of economy, treating economy as a 1269 saving of money, in any part of this Bill. I do not call extending the period for the repayment of loans for public buildings good economy; it is most extravagant. I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not allow that system to pervade other branches of his Department. The Secretary to the Board of Education, in a moment of pessimism, rather gave away the whole case when he said the scheme might be a little costly for a time. This scheme will be costly, and the sum of£1,000,000 provided in the Bill will be wholly insufficient to meet the new charges which will have to be met. Turning to the effect of Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill on the local authorities, I maintain that the President of the Board of Education gave no reason in his speech to justify Clause 4, except that in his opinion a certain elasticity ought to be introduced into urban areas. Why should this distinction be drawn between town and country? It is illogical, partial, and unfair. I consider that the dual system is most unfair. The explanation of the distinction has been given by the Secretary for India, who admitted that the clause was introduced; to satisfy the conscientious scruples of the non-Protestant minority. I am in favour of their scruples being satisfied, but I do not see why their rights or the rights of other communities which are equal and concurrent should be taken away and solemnly regranted in the form of favours. The conditions attending the operation of Clause 4 will colour and control the whole of our local and civic life. The means of evasion are such that they will not only invite, but force, local authorities into the innermost religious strife from which they have hitherto been free. The hon. Gentleman is optimistic in regard to the attitude of the local authorities. The only condition imposed in the Bill is that they must consider an application, but there is no appeal from their decision. The Minister for Education was most 1270 eloquent, in introducing the Bill, in stating that the local authorities should be trusted to be fair-minded; but denominationalists have not always been treated with complete fairness and equitableness, for instance in Wales, and even in London. The right hon. Gentleman says that the English people have a positive genius for the administration of their laws. He did not use the word "British" people; perhaps he had in his mind the Scottish extraction of himself and myself; and he deliberately excluded the countrymen of the President of the Board of Trade. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the scheme is limited to urban areas? He tells us he wants elasticity, but I cannot see why he should limit the population to 5,000. That in itself is a hardship to the Church of England. The Chancellor of the Duchy, speaking yesterday attacked us severely, though not in the provocative manner of the President of the Board of Trade. We oppose this Bill because the members of the Church of England think that it inflicts injustice upon us. Under the special facilities clause the Jewish community can save 100 per cent. of its schools; the Wesleyans 52 per cent.; the Roman Catholics 77 per cent., but the Church of England, which educates five times as many children as any other denomination, can only save 25 per cent. of its schools. Is it not natural that we should feel some sense of injustice? Is it not inevitable under these circumstances that we should feel that we were being harshly treated, and if we use strong language should be pardoned?
§ MR. PAUL (Northampton)Who use strong language?
§ * LORD BALCARRESMembers of the Church of England.
§ * LORD BALCARRESAnd as such the hon. Member is entitled to support the Bill, but when I say "we" I mean the vast majority of the Church of England, and I do not know whether the hon. Member claims that if he were to appeal to the Church people in his constituency, they would agree with him that it is a Bill of a fair or honourable character towards their Church. At any rate, some members of the Church to which I belong feel that this Bill is a grave act of injustice. Four-fifths of the parents can demand facilities, but why not a half, or a bare majority? Surely that is the more simple method of ascertaining the view of the parish. The President of the Board of Education reminded us that minorities must suffer. It is indeed the badge of all their tribe, but does the right hon. Gentleman infer that the minority in this country is the Church of England, the Roman Catholics, or the Jews, the three chief denominations which together oppose this Bill? I do not think it can be said that the Church is in a minority, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to have more regard to the rights of the majority than he has shown by this Bill. With regard to the position of the teacher, why is the teacher in the town to be allowed to give this religious teaching while the teacher in the country is refused that permission? The distinction between two days and five days is, like the distinction between town and country, illogical, meaningless, and probably unjust. The House has not yet learned from the speeches which have been delivered what is going to be the precise relationship between the local authority and the teacher in the school. The right hon. Gentleman informed a deputation that the intention of the clause is that the teachers should remain the same as they are—;those who are most qualified to give the particular religious instruction which hitherto has been given in the school. That required 1272 a little amplification. It presumably does not apply exclusively to the living generation of teachers. When the teacher dies or is promoted, or retires, is a man to succeed him who will fulfil the conditions laid down by the right hon. Gentleman?
§ MR. BIRRELLThat is what I meant.
§ * LORD BALCARRESThen the whole claim of the right hon. Gentleman to have abolished tests is gone. The late Government in 1902 were more frank. They did not put into their Bill a clause saying that they were going to abolish teachers' tests and then allow it to be dragged out of them by a deputation waiting upon the Minister that the intention of the clause was illusory, and that the tests as they now exist in voluntary schools in the country are in the future to continue as in the past. Much balm will therefrom come to the soul of the passive resister! The permissive clause is the most objectionable of all, because it will create strife within the local authorities where strife does not now exist. There is practically no strife now except on the political platform and in the political Press. I wrote the other day to the chairman of the Lancashire Education Committee who has had more practical experience of education than any living man, and I asked how far the religious difficulty showed itself by the withdrawal of children, and he replied—;
We have no information as to the children withdrawn by their parents from religious instruction. This is not notified to us.This is a matter which does not affect the life of the school. It is somewhat significant in a county like Lancashire where our feelings on this subject are very deep, that this gentleman does not think it worth while to make inquiry into the point as to whether children are withdrawn from religious instruction or not. Yet this is a county where the 1273 people are sufficiently manly and independent to have no scruple in withdrawing their children if they desire to do so, any more than they would have any scruple in sending their children to a Congregational church, or in going themselves to any particular place of worship they might choose as opposed to any other. This clause introduces deliberately religious strife into every local area. To secure your four-fifths majority you will have to have a religious canvas. Does any Member want that? Having got your majority you must immediately make efforts to retain it, and one form those efforts will take will be to do away with Sub-clause B. Wherever there are not two schools the four-fifths majority clause would be altogether worthless unless we could at once get a small school built to accommodate the balance of our children from the voluntary school, and that is not desirable. The removal of a few children, the migration of half-a-dozen families, the opening of a new mill, or of a new seam of coal,—;all these things must readily and quickly change the conditions under which these facilities are granted. Then you would have inquiries re-opened and the old intrigues and constant fights on the local authority. But even as this clause is drafted, even before the withdrawal operates we should be entitled to re-open all these questions. The long and short of it is that there is going to be perpetual strife, confusion and intrigue, owing to the apple of discord wilfully thrown down by the Board of Education. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education said that if these facilities were illusory they would be a fraud. I take his own words, and I go further. There is no logic in them, no stability, and no security. They mean constant friction where there is now no friction; constant friction in the town councils, for instance, where in ninety-nine cases out of 100 there is now absolutely no difficulty on religious questions. [An HON. 1274 MEMBER: Oh, oh!] Does the hon Member say that in ninety-nine cases out of 100 there is friction [An HON. MEMBER: No.] But under this Bill you are going to introduce it, because a town council, however wrongly the hon. Member may think, will be elected from one side and the other by people who in this case take a most profound interest in the religious question. I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman has realised his responsibility towards religious denominations. He has miscalculated the depth of the convictions of Churchmen, but he has also miscalculated our strength. We are told that the alternative to this clause is secular education or secularism, whatever it may be called—;the exclusion of any sort of religious teaching from our schools. That is a threat [MINISTERIAL Cries of "No"]—;a threat at least to those who believe in religious education, and history does not show that that form of threat is one of which denominationalists need be afraid. I deny emphatically that secularism is the alternative. It is admitted in all quarters of the House that the country will not at this time stand secularism, and it is my firm belief that the right hon. Gentleman will find it sufficiently difficult to pass his Bill with Clause 4 in it; but if he excludes the clause with a view to introducing secularism, he will find it absolutely impossible.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned"—;(Mr. Bryce)—;put, and agreed to.
§ Debate to be resumed To-morrow.