Lords Sitting of 9 December 1902

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES)BILL.
  Petition in favour of; of Conservatives and Unionists of Sheffield; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition against: of the School Board of Savoch, Aberdeenshire; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS.
  Annual Series:
  No. 2919. Portugal.
  No. 2920. Chile (Supplementary).

  TRANSVAAL.
  Liquor Licensing Ordinance, 1902. (No. 32.)

  LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND).
  Returns for the year 1900-1901.
  Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY.
  Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, patients seen, and miles travelled by the visitors of lunatics, pursuant to the Lunacy Act, 1890, between 1st April, 1902, and 30th September, 1902: laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Moved, "That the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill,"—(The Duke of Dexonshire.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The EARL of HALSBURY)having put the Question and declared it carried, left the Woolsack, and the EARL of MoRLEY took the Chair.
EARL CARRINGTONthen rose to speak, but—
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The EARL of MORLEY)informed him that the House had gone into Committee.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I think it was a very distinct understanding on Friday night, when the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill was brought to a close, that the two or three noble Lords who still desired to address the House should have an opportunity of doing so on the motion for going into Committee.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I agree with the noble Lord that that was the understanding; but I am bound to say that when I put the question no one rose, am it is extremely difficult for the person who has to preside over these deliberations to conduct the business properly if no one will take the trouble to take the ordinary means of dissenting from, or agreeing with, the Motion before the House. Strictly speaking, we are in Committee, but if the general consent of the House is obtained, I will move that the Committee be not proceeded with.
The Motion was agreed to, and the Lord Chancellor resumed his seat on the Woolsack.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I desire to thank your Lordships very heartily for the courtesy you have extended to me in permitting me at this stage of the Bill to say a few words on its main principles, to which we are very greatly opposed. The curtain has now fallen on another act of the education drama. On a day last week, which will be remembered I think by all educationists as "fatal Friday," your Lordships gave a Second Reading to this Bill by a majority of between four and five to one, and thereby endorsed the principles of a measure which was carried in the other House of Parliament by the stupendous majority of 250, owing, I am bound to admit, to the votes of the Irish allies of the Government. The Bill when it came

335
into your Lordships' House was described by Lord Goschen, who invariably hits the nail on the head, as "a Bill to save Church schools from death," but it is also a Bill which gives the coup de grace to the School Boards. I will confine my remarks to the case of the voluntary schools as affected by the Bill.
There are 14,000 voluntary schools, or denominational schools, or non-provided schools, or national schools—whatever you call them—they are Church schools; and, as your Lordships are aware, half the children of the working men of this country are educated in them. Twelve thousand of these schools belong to the Church of England, and it is these schools that I shall refer to first. The Bill, as we read it, endows the Church schools with public money, and leaves them practically under clerical control. We should be among the first to acknowledge the devotion, the sacrifices, and the earnestness of a great many of the clergy as regards education, but we object to the Bill because it Makes the parson omnipotent as regards religious teaching. The reason for that is not far to seek. In the Church of England, when a clergyman has been given a living, and has been inducted, he is practically on his own freehold. He is the absolute master of his own actions, and interference with him is extremely difficult and expensive. Indeed, only recently we read in the newspapers an account of a clergyman of the Chursh of England who openly declared, having been censured in private by his Bishop, that if the language which had been applied to him had been applied to him in public he would have had no difficulty in bringing an action for libel. To those who have property in the country, and who have voluntary schools, this is a matter of considerable anxiety. Take the case of the Rev. Mr. Leeper, who was given a living by KebleCollege. Mr. Leeper was inducted into the living by the Bishop of Exeter, and is now a recognised rector or vicar of the Church of England, although, on the testimony of Sir H. Howorth, which I have not seen contradicted, he is the author of a manual of devotion in which every Romish doctrine is taught and inculcated with the sole exception of the supremacy of the Pope. It has been my experience, and it must have been
336
that of not a few of your Lordships who have the giving of livings, to find that many clergymen—God-fearing, conscientious men, no doubt—are out of touch and out of harmony with the population, and very considerable friction and difficulty is apt to ensue. Therefore it was that after the Bill was read a second time in the House of Commons he protested strongly against one-man control of religious teaching.
The objections went on increasing till at last the difficulties became very formidable, dangerous, and menacing; so much so that the Ministerial newspapers had to say that the objections were stage thunder. Some of the clergy described the objections as insincere, and the protests of Dr. Clifford and many other leaders of the Nonconformist Church were openly denounced as the veriest bunkum and the merest claptrap. But, though we were as men crying in the wilderness, there suddenly came a bolt from the blue and we discovered a very unexpected and very strong ally. About five weeks ago an Amendment was put down by Colonel Kenyon-Slaney to the effect that religious instruction should be under the control of the managers, and, to some people's great astonishment, Sir William Anson rose and announced that the Government were inclined to accept the Amendment. The Prime Minister also rose in his place and supported it. Why did he support it? The Prime Minister said he did so—
"On account of the abuse bore and there by the clergyman—very rarely, he admitted—of the powers that were given him by the trust. The harm done to the whole cause of religious education in elementary schools was not to be measured in words. He met it at every turn and on every occasion."
By that statement the Prime Minister raised an ecclesiastical tornado, which he was possibly not aware would be the result of his change of front. Of course, the Kenyon-Slaney Clause had to be explained, and the Church of England took it very much to heart. They were told that it was not a slur, that it was never meant in any way to be a reflection upon them; yet they were very indignant, and resented it accordingly. I do not wonder at it. Let us put ourselves in the position of a clergyman of the Church of England, who, during a long, holy, and religious life, had done the best in his power to promote religious education. We hear of hundreds of such men in

337
London—men like Canon Barker—who have raised as much as £40,000 or £50,000 for their schools, which are a pattern to the country, and which they hope to hand down in the same condition to their successors. Then, there are heaps of men who lead most devoted lives in obscurity in the country, and who have managed, either through the help of the squire of the parish, or by sending their daughters out as governesses, and by pinching and saving, to have efficient schools. One can imagine the feelings of such men when they were told that they were to have five other men with them to see that they taught education properly. It would be no use to tell them that these men would be of the greatest possible assistance. The clergyman would say that was all very well, but he did not believe it. A devout, religious and conscientious parson would most strongly object that the squire, a churchwarden, a retired naval or military officer, a member of the County Council, and, perhaps, a Dissenter thrown in to see fair play, should be over him as the supreme arbiters of religious faith. The Bishop of St. Asaph saw that at once, and he declared to his clergy in Wales that though he had the most profound respect for his brother Bishop of London, yet he was not going to accept his version of the Kenyon-SIaney Amendment; it would be necessary, he said, before he accepted it, that he should be informed more clearly of its meaning. So the Prime Minister found himself between the devil and the deep sea, because by this Bill he had set England in a blaze, and by his acceptance of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Rosebery's schoolfellow, he had set the Church in an uproar. Though you may turn this Clause inside out as much as you like, though you may say that it all depends upon where you put a comma as to what it means, you are face to face with this terrible fact, which you must recognise in all its naked hideousness, that there is in the Church of England so much inconsistency and uncertainty amongst the ministers, that by 211 votes to 41 the House of Commons accepted the Prime Minister's advice, and practically declared before Christendom that in the year 1902 Old England cannot trust her parson. So much for the Church of England schools.
As I have said, there are 14,000 Church schools in this country, 12,000 of which belong to the Established Church.
338
There are, I think, 450 schools which belong to the Wesleyans, 1,000 which may be called odds and ends, and there are 1,042 which belong to the Roman Catholic Church. I think that of all the speeches we listened to on the Second Reading, the one which touched those who were privileged to hear it most was the speech of the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Llandaff, who spoke with genuine emotion of the sacrifices that had been made by his Church to establish and maintain their own schools. He spoke of the Catholic religion being in a great minority in this country. He also spoke of the poverty of the Roman Catholic Church in England, and ended by stating that he feared his Church was an unpopular one in this country. The Prime Minister spoke of the Roman Catholic Church as a religious body against which no doubt a strong feeling prevailed amongst large sections of society; and if you look at the continent of Europe, if you look at the terrible scenes taking place in France, Spain, and Portugal in connection with the expulsion of the nuns and other religious communities, you will see that the Roman Catholic Church is undergoing a time of great trouble. But in spite of what has happened on the continent of Europe, free, tolerant England has given Roman Catholicism a home, and said, to quote the words of M. Clemenceau, "So long as you ask only for liberty of belief and to practise your religion we refuse you nothing. I submit with all seriousness that it is a very remarkable thing that in Protestant England we should, under this Bill, for the first time practically endow Roman Catholic schools.
I may be told, my Lords, that the Bill before us is the simple flinale to the Act of 1870, but I well remember that we were told at that time that the result of the compromise would be that all the "rotten" Church schools would eventually die out and that the best ones would survive; and I venture to say that if we had imagined for one moment that thirty-two years afterwards we should have seen a Bill introduced which kept up with public money clerical schools and left them under clerical control, including Roman Catholic schools— I say, on my honour, that I for one, and, I believe, all that band of Liberals with whom I voted, would have cut off our hand at the wrist before consenting to a

339
compromise which would have led to such disastrous results. How is it possible to contend that it is right to endow the Roman Catholic religion as it is endowed under this Bill? I further respectfully ask a question which I think the nation has a right to have answered, How do the Bench of Bishops reconcile it with their conscience? The mandate of the Roman Catholic Church is "faith and discipline "; but the English people have their faith too, and I believe that one of the principal articles of that faith is that our Sovereign is, under Christ, over all persons, ecclesiastical and temporal in his dominions, supreme. That the Sovereign, in Christ, is the sole head of the Church is a doctrine to which the Episcopacy and clergy with one voice agree. The Bishops are appointed by the Sovereign, and I believe by Royal authority alone Convocations are summoned and dissolved. The King on his accession swears a solemn oath, in language which some of us think far too strong, to preserve inviolate the Protestant religion, and yet the Bishops are actively supporting a Bill which proposes to vote public money for the endowment, support, and sanction of those who teach the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope, and of the doctrines of the Church of Rome—a Church which has absolutely refused to recognise our Prelates and clergy as properly ordained ecclesiastics. What will be the result of this Bill when it becomes law? I have said there are over 1,000 Roman Catholic schools now. Cardinal Vaughan himself has told us that the great object of a Catholic school is not so much to promote education as to turn out good Catholics, and he has publicly complimented the Prime Minister on his victory over the Nonconformists. The Bishops may be content to follow their course, and they may have no conscientious scruples on this head; but it cannot bo denied that they, in return for a subscription, are willing to coerce those of their fellow countrymen—Churchmen and Nonconformists alike—who, by payment and obedience to the law, must sacrifice principles which they hold to be sacred, and which, from generation to generation, they have tenaciously upheld, even at the cost of the most bitter suffering. I followed my noble
340
friend Lord Spencer, who leads the small band of Liberals in this House with so much courage and consistency, into the Division Lobby against this Bill on Friday last, with the fixed belief that we were serving the best interests of our religion and of our country in registering our protest against this fatal and most iniquitous Bill.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER: My Lords, I think it desirable that a word should be said in reply to what has fallen from the noble Lord opposite in respect to his appeal to the Episcopal Bench. We are asked how we reconcile our consciences to endowing the Roman Catholic Church by this Bill. I refuse altogether to admit that the assignment either of rates or of taxes, or both, for the support of schools under a local authority which has entire control of the secular education in them is an endowment either of the Church of Rome or of the Church of England. The rates and taxes are given to the local authority, not to either Church. Neither Church can touch a penny of the money. Whatever advantage we get, we get indirectly through our schools being kept open by the local authority. Indirectly we get this advantage, that the local authority, by keeping the school open, enables us to give religious instruction such as we believe in. But if we do get this indirect advantage we get back no more than we have already paid for in rates. We represent half the population of England, and for many years we have suffered a gross injustice. We have been obliged to pay rates for the maintenance of schools we did not use, and to subscribe to the support of the schools we did use. What the Government has done is simply to put an end to that injustice. Nonconformists get exactly the same indirect advantage as the Church of England or the Church of Rome, because the money which represents the rest of the rates and taxes is given to the support of schools which, under the Cowper-Temple Clause, provide religious education for the children of Nonconformists which is entirely acceptable to them. They get precisely the same indirect advantage as we obtain. No question of conscience

341
arises in the matter, and I think that the noble Lord's appeal to the Bench of Bishops, as persons who had difficulty in reconciling their consciences to the action they had taken, was a little superfluous.
THE LOUD BlSHOP of HEREFORD: My Lords, like the noble Earl opposite. I feel grateful to your Lordships for giving me this opportunity of addressing the House in opposition to the Bill. I will not attempt to follow my brother of Manchester with regard to the special point he has raised, because we may have an opportunity of dealing with that point when we come to certain Amendments in Committee. I occupy a somewhat isolated position among my right rev. brethren in reference to this matter. In fact. if the noble Ear! on the Cross Benches would spare me the loan of a famous phrase, I may venture to say that I have to plough my lonely furrow in this matter. It is a furrow, my Lords, which I hope and believe will bear some good fruit for the Church of England when I am gone. I feel that I can perhaps best set my views before the House it I base them on two or three of the speeches which have been already delivered —the speeches of my right rev. brother of Winchester, of my younger Episcopal brother of London, and of the noble Viscount Lord Goschen. The Bishop of Winchester, I am bound to acknowledge, surprised me to some extent by taking exception to the Non conformist call to prayer for the defeat of this Bill. I was surprised, because I drew an entirely different inference from that call to prayer than that which my right rev. brother seems to have drawn. I take it as indicating beyond all question that the great Nonconformist bodies in England are in deadlv earnest about this measure. If we knew more about Nonconformists than some of us do, I think we would recognise that they are in the habit ot praying directly and in deadly earnest for the things which they desire.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I regret to have to interrupt my right rev. brother, but I should be sorry that it should be supposed that I had
342
taken the smallest exception to the Nonconformists having asked in all their places of worship for united prayer on the subject of this Bill. That course would have been entirely suitable. What I objected to was the terms in which that was done, because the Nonconformist authorities, instead of asking for Divine guidance, prejudged the case by a series of vituperative epithets as to the character of the Bill.
THE LORDBISHOP OF HEREFORD: I am glad to hear this explanation, and to know that my right rev. brother did not intend to take exception to the directness of the prayer. Any of us who have had the opportunity of studying such a life as that of Oliver Cromwell know very well how prayer and action went together. I remember, my Lords, hearing the noble Earrl(LordRosebery)give a most interesting account of how that great Englishman was lost for two hours immediately before one of his greatest battles, and how he was found in a garret on his knees with his Bible and his sword in front to him. Does any one suppose that for those two hours the great Oliver was wrestling with his God in some platitudinous prayer? No, beyond a doubt he was praying, as a great many Nonconformists are praying with regard to this Bill, that his enemies might be smitten hip and thigh with the sword of the Lord and of Gideon. I venture to dwell on this for a moment because I have an impression—I may be wrong—that a great many members of this House are very imperfectly acquainted with the sentiments of our Nonconformist fellow countrymen. Among Nonconformists I have a great many intimate friends, and there are in that body some of the best and holiest Englishmen I know. They are not men who take part in politial life, but they have told me again and again during the last few months that it is hopeless for them at present to look for that godly union and concord for which we, have been labouring until this time of stress and storm is over. Therefore, I think we do well to consider what the prayers of the Nonconformists mean in this matter.
My right rev. brother said further that the, opposition to this Bill was mainly a Nonconformist opposition. I cannot but

343
think that he was under a misapprehension on this point I leave noble Lords opposite to take care of themselves, but, at any rate, much as I respect Nonconformists, I feel that it was a little hard upon me as a Bishop who opposes this Bill to be classed implicitly as a Nonconformist. I oppose this Bill as a Churchman. The Bishop of Winchester said that he supported the Bill both as an Educationist and as a Churchman. I venture to say that I oppose the measure on precisely those grounds, and on one other—namely, as a citizen. I do not presume to put myself in the scales against either of my right rev. brethren the Bishop of Winchester or the Bishop of London, but if I might lie permitted to gather up and bring with me all the educational lay opinion with which I am acquainted in our great universities, and public schools—in fact, the great mass of educational thought up and down the country—to fill up—as one might say, then I am not afraid of the scales going down against me. What I desire, then, to urge is that this Bill deserves to be opposed first on educational grounds, and on those grounds I would merely indicate one or two of many points. I will take Part II. of the Bill, the part for which wo have all been looking and longing during seven long and lean years, and which deals with secondary and technical education. Having had a good deal to do with education of every degree, from the elementary school to the University, I venture to say that this is a miserable provision considering the need and the opportunity. The most important paragraph in that part of the Bill is the one which allows the local authority, if they wish, to levy a 2d. rate. No one who knows anything of what our educational needs are, and what we should be doing, can describe that in any other void but as a niggardly and parsimonious allowance. I have wondered again and again whether the members of the Government have ever read their own Yellow-books on the subject of higher education in other countries, which are published under the direction of Mr. Michael Saddler. No one could sit down to the study of these illuminating books without seeing that it is necessary that we should do ten times as much as is proposed in Part II. of the Bill. What I also complain of is that this work of education is just left
344
to the 'prentice hands of bodies which have not had to do with educational matters before, so that among the most backward and inert portions of the people you will naturally get the least efficient bodies to manage this difficult business.
Moreover, I object to the destruction of the School Boards for two reasons. First, because it destroys all direct popular representation on the management of the schools, and in doing that everyone who has had to do with local educational matters knows that it is sweeping away one of the greatest of all educational forces existent in this country. I say that, having myself sat upon two School Boards and having also managed a great number of Voluntary Schools. Secondly, no proper arrangement is made for continuation classes. There is no obligation to attend these classes, or even to provide them. What a waste is involved in our truncated system of elementary education ! We spend a large amount of money and the lives of a vast number of persons in educating children in elementary schools up to the age of twelve or thirteen, and then we let them go, no one knows whither, as regards educational influence. Can a more wasteful process be imagined? It is just as if every springtime your Lordships were to have one of your fields ploughed, cultivated, sown with good seed, and fenced in, and then, just as the seed was beginning to grow in the April sunshine, yon pulled down the fence and let the whole world trample over it; and repeated this process year by year and every year. What a grand opportunity has been missed in not adding to this system a system of continuation classes something like that found in Germany and elsewhere! A German boy leaves the elementary school at the age of fourteen, and he is bound to go on with continuation class instruction till the age of seventeen. Let us put the English boy and the German boy together at the age of seventeen, and you will understand how it is that Germany is going ahead of England in so many directions.
Again, then there is no real provision in this Bill to help talent up the ladder of progress. On the other hand—I do not like to use strong words, but I know no other word which quite fits the case—very great care has been taken to confiscate the endowments which have hitherto been

345
used for the benefit of the poor. As I read that Clause of the Bill, I could not but think what would have happened in both Houses of Parliament if a Radical Government had brought in such a confiscation of endowments. What an outcry we should have had from every Bench in this House against the sacrilegious hand which was robbing the poor of the endowments they had hitherto enjoyed. I still hope, though it is with a very faint hope, that by an Amendment which I have put down this injustice to the poor may be remedied. I object to the Bill also as a citizen, because every voice from the country outside of a Government dockyard that has reached us of late has declared unmistakably that the country does not like the Bill further, I object to it because I have always been taught for forty years of public life, that it is a Constitutional axiom that any institution maintained by rates and taxes should be under public control, Again, I object to the Bill because it shuts the door in half the schools, to a considerable extent, though no longer, of course, entirely, against a great multitude of Nonconformist teachers. Further it does hardly anything to uplift and help forward our citizen education, and it sows the seeds of discord and sectarian strife in the community like a crop of dragon's teeth. But I chiefly object to it as a member of the Church of England. I may be mistaken, and I shall be thankful if I am proved to be so, but I have a great fear in my mind that this is a very dangerous step for the Church, and that the Church has received in gifts which come to it under the Bill a very insidious blow. Undoubtedly it has given great strength to the opposition to the Church in the country, and it leaves us, without doubt, as a Church, in a position of unstable equilibrium. There is no finality whatever about this measure. If there is one thing in political life more certain than another it is that there will come by-and-by a radical change in the sentiment of the community, and that one of the first things that will have to be done will be to make a new system of public education. In these circumstances, as I have before asked some of my right rev. brothern, are we likely to get a system anything like
346
so advantageous as we might have got at the present juncture? I think we shall probably get a system of absolute popular control of all schools, with no tests. I do not know whether that would be more to the taste of my right rev. brethren than the present arrangement.
I regret that the Church seems to have acquiesced so readily in the policy which is described in an old doctrine that "they should get who have the power, and they should keep who can." That, in the vernacular, which I am shy of using, is what people sometimes describe as a game of "grab." I do not like it. I feel that this aggressive policy of getting all you can is bad enough in the open held of political life. In China and in Africa it is bad enough, but I cannot endure it in the Church of Christ. If i had to formulate in a single sentence my reasons for objecting so strongly to this policy of aggressive grasping at all we can secure without giving the popular control which we ought to give, I would say that it is because it tends to destroy the influence of the Church by corrupting its highest spirit—corruptio optimi pessima. This kind of policy, in so far as it tends to destroy the spiritual influence of the Church in English life, is propter vitam vivendi perdere causas. I have been perhaps more closely associated for thirty years with our venerable Primate than any other Bishop, and I had hoped that the most rev. Prelate might have crowned his greatcareer by persuading the Government to bring in a great and liberal educational measure on the expanding and progressive lines of the Endowed Schools Act, in regard to which he took such an honourable part. I deplore that he has acquiesced in this Bill instead of using his great and well-won influence in the production of a really good educational measure. The Bill does not give us the sustaining and strengthening bread of educational progress, but a miserable bone of contention in our English life. The Bishop of London, in the course of the Second Reading debate, quoted certain statistics by way of attack on the School Board system, and I feel that those statistics ought not to go unchallenged. He some of my right rev. brethren, are said that he had examined, or caused to be examined, a large number

347
of lads in the East of London—in Stepney and Bethnal Green, which, after all, is only one section of the world—and he found that about 80 per cent. of them went neither to Church nor chapel. In saying this he was reproducing statistics which he had produced in the summer of 1899 in The Times. He said then that 1,000 boys of about fifteen years of age had been examined, of whom 900 went nowhere. On that occasion a great educational authority said it would be interesting to know from the Bishop in what sort of schools these children had been brought up, board schools or voluntary schools. But the Bishop said, "I forgot to inquire." He forgot to inquire. Then what are these statistics worth for his purpose? I venture to think that it is quite possible that half of these lads grew up in our Church schools. As these statistics were quoted with a view of depreciating the education given in the board schools, I feel it my duty to say that I think such statistics are worthless, and the illogical inferences drawn from them are misleading. I was sorry that my right rev. brother drew the inference that the teaching of the Old and New Testaments is not really the teaching of religion. I appeal to your Lordships to say, from your own personal experience, whether the best lessons of your religious life have not been learnt at your mother's knee in the teaching of the beauties the attraction and the power of the Divine life of Jesus.
I desire to say one or two words with regard to the subject of tests, on which the noble Viscount Lord Goschen spoke the other day. The noble Viscount won his spurs in political life by throwing open the doors of the Tory Universities to all comers, and there is not a single person in the Universities who would not tell him what a good work he then did. But what has he to say about a similar opening of the door in elementary schools? Instead of pleading for an open door the noble Viscount drew an idyllic picture of a country school where the liberal-minded squire and parson invited the Nonconformist minister to share in their educational feast; but, having regard to their trust deed, they had to tell him they were not sure they were doing right, but they welcomed him out of pure love
348
and charity, only they were obliged to seat him below the salt. They hoped, however, he would feel that "Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith." This, my Lords, is all very beautiful, but now the Nonconformist will say, "It is true the dining-room is yours still, but the chairs and tables and everything on the board are no more yours than mine Why should I still have to sit below the salt or be liable to have the door shut in my face?" I regret that the noble Viscount, with his great record, should ever have brought himself to support this Bill. I, myself, do not look on the Billas a strictly educational measure, but as an opportunist political patchwork, and a thing, consequently, that will not last. Moreover, I believe that if the noble Duke had been unhampered by his surroundings he would have given us a ten times better Bill. I regard with interest and gratitude the work which for years the noble Duke has done for technical and higher instruction; but the noble Duke has found himself involved in the serpent coils of political entanglement. I think of him as a pathetic and noble Laocoon, a victim to that ill-starred union, which has been very disastrous to English life, between old-fashioned Tory and traditional Whig and Birmingham Radical. That is admitted to be the source and the origin of all the bad elements of this Bill. Such a Bill as this would have been impossible in English politics but for that disastrous union. As for the Bill itself, I will do my best to amend it; but when it has passed, as I presume it will, for it is a foregone conclusion, and the discussion in this House is a very unreal discussion, I will also do my best to administer it in my diocese and neighbourhood in all honesty and for the good of the people. If it dies in its infancy, however, I shall lift up no lamentation over it, for I believe that the death of this poor offspring of a united Cabinet will be the resurrection of a new and a better hope for our educational advancement, and still more for that godly union and concord as between one denomination and another which I had hoped to see growing in these latter years of my life.
EARL SPENCER: I rise merely to explain the position which I and my noble friends behind me propose to take with regard to the Amendments to this

349
Bill. Having opposed the Bill on Second Reading, and having been very severly beaten, we mean, of course, to accept that, and not to move Amendments which would uselessly repeat the view we have already advanced on Second Reading. Any Amendments which we would care to move would really be aganist the substance of the Bill, which your Lordships approved when you accorded the measure a Second Reading. Moreover, I beleive that a great many of the Amendements would go very near to transgressing the privileges of the other House. I quite admit that the other House is the guardian of its own privileges, but I should be very sorry myself to do anything which would be supposed to infringe those privileges. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said that he will deal with such questions as they are brought the Committee. While I for one would agree that we ought not to touch on questions of finance, I would point out that there are other questions much more difficult to solve—questions as to the conditions on which the grant is made—which we reserve the right to discuss and consider as they come up.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, I rise to express dissent from the view which the noble Earl has just taken on the subject of privilege. I deny altogether that there is any breach of constitutional privilege in your Lordships discussing and interfering with any of the Clauses of the Bill which are connected with financial considerations.
LORD DAVEY: My Lords, I should not presume for one moment to set my opinion aganist that of the noble Duke, who has had such a vast experience of Parliamentry life, larger perhaps, than that enjoyed by any other Member of your Lorships' House. I am, however, bound to say that it is not my opinion alone, but also the opinion of others better qualified to speak, that the Resolution of the House Commons of 1678, which has now been acquiesced in by this House for upwards of 300 years, no longer remains a mere Resolution, but has become part of the constitutional law of this country. I quite agree with what was said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the other night, that in a Bill of this
350
kind, which deals not only with finance but also contains a number of other provisions, we need not be too particular in scrutinsing Amendments which may possibly affect either the "conditions, qualifications, or limitations" of the grant which is made by the Bill. But undoubtedly this Bill does come within the definition "aid or supply" to His Majesty, referred to in the Resoultion of 1678, and the constitutional practice of this House, arising out of that resoultion, has been not to interfere with either the amount, extent, or incidence of the rate which such a Bill enabled a local authority to raise.
I have given careful study to the the provisions of this Bill, and endeavoured to make myself acquainted with its Clauses, and the conclusion I have come to is that every Amendment of importance is so dependent on questions of finance, either of rating or of Parliamentary grant, that it would be difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to make any Amendment of real substance, such as some of us on this side of the House would desire to make. Let me give your Lordships three illustrations of what I mean. The proviso of Clause I contains what many of us regard as one of the most serious blots on the Bill, because it is inconsistent with the establishment of one authority to control secondary and elementary education. In that proviso the Council of a borough with a population of over 10,000, or on an urban district, with a population of over 20,000, is made the local authority for the purpose of elementary education, but not of secondary education. We contend on this side of the House that there should be one authority in these districts for both elementary and secondary education. But that confusion is made worse conformed by Clause 3 of the Bill. I find there that although the Council of a non-county borough or urban district is not made the local authprity for the purpose of secondary education, it shall have power, as well as the County Council, to spend such sums as they think fit for the purpose of suppling or aiding the supply of education other than elementary. Therfore we have this position, that the authority which is not the local authority for the purpose of secondary education, may still spend money and raise a sum not exceeding the amount which would be produced by a rate of one penny in the pound. It

351
is obvious that it would be idle to submit any Amendment to remove the serious disfigurement in the Bill, because in attempting to amend that we should be altering the incidence of the rate. I will take another example. There is a good deal of difference of opinion with regard to Clause 7, which imposes upon the local education authority the obligation of maintaining denominational schools, and there are many things in it which we would like to alter. I feel very strongly, for instance, on the provision, which was not in the original Bill, which enables the trustees on a charitable trust to charge a rent for the use of the master's residence, I find tucked away in the Clause the words:—
" Compliance with this section shall be one of the conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in order to obtain a Parliamentary grant."
I am not quite sure as to the effect of those words, but they seem to me to make compliance with the whole section a condition of the enjoyment of a Parliamentary grant. Take Clause 14, which was alluded to by my right reverend friend the Bishop of Hereford, and which relates to endowments. That, of course is a very important Clause, and one that has given rise to a great deal of controversy. It is obvious that if you alter the distribution of the endowments under the Clause, which provides that certain parts of the endowments shall go to the local educational authority, practically in relief of the rates, you will be interfering with the amount of the rate, because, if the local educational authority does not get the benefit of that portion of the endowments allotted to them by this Clause, the rate which they will have to levy for the purpose will, of course, be increased. I have given these illustrations in support of my contention that every Amendment of importance is so dependent on questions of finance that it would be impossible to make any Amendment of real substance without coming within the charge of committing a breach of constitutional privilege. In these circumstances, I am not surprised that my noble friend Lord Spencer has thought fit to take the course he mentioned with regard to Amendments.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 1:—
LORD WENLOCKmoved to provide that the Council of a borough with a population of over "twenty" thousand, and not of over "ten" thousand as in the Clause, should be the local education authority for that borough. The object of his Amendment was, he said, to place the boroughs on the same footing in this respect as Urban District Councils. He would give an example of how the Clause as at present constituted would work. In the Isle of Wight, the County Council would not be the central and responsible body to carry on education in that area, but there would be three separate authorities—the County Council and the Councils of the boroughs of Ryde, which had a population of just over 10,000, and of Newport which had a population of 11,000. This would prevent the establishment of one really good educational scheme for the whole of the area. He could not help thinking that some bargain must have been struck between the Government and the Association of Municipal Corporations in regard to this matter, but he was sure the arrangement proposed in the Bill would produce extremely bad educational results, and would simply lead to the perpetuation of the small and very inefficient School Boards which this measure so wisely did away with
Amendment moved—
" In page 1, line 10. to leave out 'ten'and to insert 'twenty.'"—(Lord Wenlock.)
LORD HERRIESsupported the Amendment on the ground that it was most important to place the smaller boroughs under the control of the County Council. He had had the honour of being Chairman of the Technical Instruction Committee of his county ever since it was first started, and could assure their Lordships that if the boroughs in question were to be no longer subject to the County Council, but were to be allowed to become their own local education authority, a great injury would be done to the cause of national education.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I cannot deny that from an educational

353
point of view tliis Amendment would have a certain advantage; but I am afraid that from the practical point of view it is one which it is quite impossible to ask the House to accept. There are, I believe, fifty-one English and four Welsh boroughs which would be affected by this Amendment, and would lose the educational autonomy which the Bill proposes to continue to them; but all thost boroughs which are in Wales are at present under School Boards, and about half of those in England are similarly situated. There can be no doubt that the small boroughs which have up to the present enjoyed complete educational autonomy would very strongly resent being deprived of it, as suggested by this Amendment. The House will also, perhaps, recollect that it was upon a point of this kind affecting the privileges of the small boroughs that the Bill of 1896 received the first, and, I believe, what was really the fatal blow. I do not desire in the least to attempt to intimidate your Lordships by referring to majorities in the other House of Parliament, but when I state that a similar Amendment to this was defeated in the House of Commons by a majority of 220, I think it must be obvious that any such Amendment as this would be very little likely to meet with acceptance in the other House. There is also another objection which your Lordships ought to consider. Boroughs with a population of 10,000 are already separate authorities for certain purposes under the Act of 1888, and to create, as would be the effect of this Amendment, a separate category of boroughs, some possessing a different set of powers, between 10,000 and 20,000, would be a very considerable inconvenience. I am afraid, therefore, it is impossible for His Majesty's Government to accept the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:—
LORD REAYinquired whether the local education authority would have compulsory powers to acquire sites to
354
provide for the needs of secondary education. Under the Technical Instruction Acts there was only power to obtain sites by agreement. He desired to know whether the Government intended that in future thai system should prevail, or whether they proposed to give compulsory powers.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: There are no compulsory powers under this Clause.
EARL BKAUCHAMPmoved an Amendment to provide that the local education authority should take such steps "as are necessary," instead of such steps "as seem to them desirable," to aid the supply of higher education. He said that he moved the Amendment in no hostility to the Bill, but for the purpose of stiffening its provisions in regard to secondary education. As the Clause now stood the question of drainage would be on a better footing than that of secondary education, for drainage was compulsory and secondary education was not, except, of course, that the whisky money had to be spent for the purpose of technical education. At present this branch of education was carried on in a very happy-go-lucky manner, and there was a great demand for further provision. For instance, Somersetshire had five times as many evening continuation scholars as the county of Gloucester, which did not spend half the whisky money on technical instruction. It was eminently desirable that counties like Gloucester should be made to do something more for higher education, and he hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
" In page 1. lines 19 and 20, to leave out 'seem to them desirable,'and to insert 'art; necessary,'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD HARRISopposed the Amendment, not because he was out of sympathy with the object of the noble Earl, but because the whole cost of secondary education was to be thrown on the ratepayers.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: No, there is the whisky money.
LORD HARRIS,continuing, said that if any part of the Government grants now used for technical education had to be used for secondary education as distinguished from technical education, it would be absolutely necessary to interrupt the system of technical education which now existed. He confessed to the greatest possible disappointment in regard to this part of the Bill. He had thought the Bill would deal comprehensively with secondary education, but that part of the Bill had become almost swamped by elementary education. The improvement of secondary education was a national burden, and he objected to this Clause because it would throw an additional burden on the shoulders of the ratepayers for a national purpose, and it would do this in the teeth of the Report of the Commission on Local Taxation, over which Lord Balfour presided, which expressed in the strongest terms the opinion that the ratepayers were already overburdened, find that as regards matters which could be considered national they should be relieved.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My noble friend who has just spoken is mistaken in supposing that secondary education is only aided by the Government from what is called the whisky money grant. He entirely forgets that the whole of what used to appear in the Estimates as the grant to the Science and Art Department is now given in aid of secondary education, although the greater part of that education may be described as technical or art education. But those grants still continue to be given, and there is no doubt that any steps which may be taken by municipal authorities under this Bill to extend secondary education will have to be met by a very considerable additional grant from the central authority. My noble friend is therefore mistaken in supposing that this Bill puts a new charge for secondary education solelyupon the ratepayers. With regard to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord opposite, I do not think I can add anything to what I said at the conclusion of this debate the other night. The noble Earl lias explained that his Amendment will give a very much more compulsory character to the Clause than it
356
already possesses. As I stated in moving the Second Reading, the scope of the Clause was considerably extended in Committee in the other House. The changes which were made in Committee were, in the first place, to make the application of the whisky money to higher education compulsory, and. in the second place, to oblige the local education authority to consider the needs of their area in respect to higher education and to take such steps as might then, after consultation with the Board of Education, seem to them desirable. I understand that the Amendment which the noble Earl has proposed would compel them to take such steps as the Hoard of Education might consider desirable, but I cannot conceive anything in the present state ot things which would be more likely to indispose the authorities and the ratepayers generally to an extension of secondary education, which, we agree, to him is eminently desirable, than to drive, rather than lead, the local authorities. I think it is quite impossible to go further than the Clause now goes, and I regret therefore that we are unable to accept the Amendment.
EARL SPENCER: The Amendment which has been proposed by the noble Earl so entirely agrees with the views I expressed on the Second Reading of the Bill that I shall certainly vote for it. Stronger words than those in the Clause ought to be inserted, because the Clause, as far as I can see, leaves it perfectly open to the local authorities to take no step whatever, even though tliero may be a pressing need.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY): I should like to say that the Board of Education desires to act as an advisory body, and does not wish to bring compulsion on the local education authorities. In the event of an extreme case arising the Board of Education, if the Amendment were carried, would have the power to force the authority to raise a rate for secondary education. Such a provision would be directly opposed to the pledge I gave the other day. The Government have been denounced for not having donea greatdeal

357
more to promote secondary education, but I maintain that much has been done in this direction by ear-marking the whisky money in the cause of secondary education. I also deny that we have, as Lord Harris appears to think, inflicted any injustice whatever on the ratepayers by the line we have adopted in this Bill.
LORD BURGHCLEREagreed with what had been said by Earl Spencer as to the desirability of higher education being advanced as far as possible, and admitted that we, were lamentably behind other nations in that respect. It had been stated that the Government had earmarked the whisky money for the purpose of technical education. He might be wrong, but that was not his reading of the Clause, which provided that the local education authority—
"For that purpose shall apply all, or so much as they deem necessary, of the residue under Section 1 of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act. 1890, and shall carry forward for the like purpose any balance thereof which may remain unexpended."
Surely, the whole of that was governed by the words "as they deem necessary."
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: They will not be able to spend the money on any other purpose.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid that although this might be so, there was

CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Cowper, E.

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Dartmouth, E.

Nelson, E.

Denbigh, E.

Northbrook, E.

Norfolk, D (E. Marshal.)

Derby, E.

Onslow, E.

Bedford, D.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Radnor, E.

Newcastle, D.

Romney, E.

Northumberland, D.

Ducie, E.

Saint Germans, E.

Portland, D.

Egerton, E.

Selborne, E.

Rutland, D.

Eldon, E.

Shaftesbury, E.

Simerset, D.

Ellesmere, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Wellington, D.

Feversham, E.

Stamford, E.

Hardwicke, E.

Stanhope, E.

Aliesbury, M.

Harewood, E.

Strafford, E.

Bath, M.

Hillsborough, E. (M. Dornshire.)

Tankerville, E.

Bristol, M.

vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Camden, M.

Ilchester, E.

Verulam, E.

Hertford, M.

Lathom, E.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Lansdowne, M

Lauderdale, E.

Wharncliffe, E.

Winchester, M.

Leven and Melfile, E.

Yarborough, E.

Zetland, M.

Lichfield, E.

Churuchif, V. [Teller.]

Londes borough, E.

Cross, V.

Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Lucan, E.

Falkland, V.

Abingdon, E.

Lytton, E.

Falmouth, V.

Bathurst, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Gosehen, V.

Belmore, E.

Manvers, E.

Halifax, V.

Bradford, E.

Mayo, E.

Knutsford, V.

Coventry, E.

Morley, E.

Llandaff, V.

nothing in the Clause to compel them to it in this particular way. They might put it in the bank and let it accumulate. It would be better if the Cause provided that the local authority should spend the whisky money year by year on secondary education. The object of the Amendment was to make it compulsory on the local authority to take such steps as were necessary, instead of such steps as seemed to them desirable.
LORD HARRISsaid he would like to have this point cleared up. Would the Bill prevent County Councils from devoting any portion of the whisky money to the relief of the rates?
The DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Yes.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid that he certainly should support the Government if the Amendment were pressed. He regretted that more had not been done to make compulsory or semi-compulsory provision for secondary education, but he thought it was perfectly impossible now so far to alter the measure as to make the radical changes suggested by the noble Earl.
On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 174: Not-Contents, 33.

Ridley, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Ludlow, L.

Colechester, L.

Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)

Congleton, L.

Chester, L.Bp.

Cottesloe, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clofden.)

Chichester, L. Bp.

Crawshaw, L.

Middleton, L.

Durham, L. Bp

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Ely, L. Bp.

De Freyne, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

London, L. Bp.

De Mauley, L.

Mostyn, L.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Dormer, L.

Muncaster, L.

Newcastle, L. Bp.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Newton, L.

Ripon, L. Bp.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

North, L.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Ellen borough, L.

O'Brien, L.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Elphinstone, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Southwell, L. Bp.

Erskine, L.

Pirbright, L.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Rathmore, L.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Redesdale, L.

Forester, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Addington, L.

Gage,L. (V. Gage.)

Rosmead, L.

Allerton, L.

Glanusk, L.

Rothsechild, L.

Arundell of Wardour,L.

Glenesk, L.

Rowton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Gromanston, L. (V. Gormanston)

Saltoun, L.

Avebury, L.

Seaton, L.

Balfour. J.

Harris, L.

Sherborne, L.

Barry more, L.

Hatherton, L.

Snjte, L. (V. Barrington.)

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Herries, L.

Stalbridge, L.

Belper, L.

Hothfield, L.

Stanmore, L.

Boston, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Suffield, L.

Braybrooke, L.

Hylton, L.

Teynham, L.

Braye, L.

James, L.

Tredegar, L.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Henry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Burton, L.

Kenyon, L.

Wenlock, L.

Calthorpe. L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Wimborne, L.

Chelmsford, L.

Lawrence, L.

Windsor, L.

Cheylesmore, L.

Lindley, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northampton, M.

Hampden, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Beauchamp, E. [Teller.]

Norwich, L. Bp.

Monkswell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Reay, L.

Carrington, E.

Ribblesdale, L. [Reller.]

Chesterlield, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Crewe, E.

Brassey, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Burghclere, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Sandwich, E.

Coleridge, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Spencer, E.

Davey, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Denman, L.

Wandsworth, L.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Farrer, L.

Welby, L.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREmoved to omit the words "including the training of teachers" from the first part of Clause 2, which read—
"The local education authority shall consider the educational needs of their area, and take such steps as seem to them desirable, after consultation with the Board of Education, to supply, or aid the supply, of education other than elementary (including the training of teachers), and" etc.
He said: The words I propodse to omit are rather out of place in this Clause, and can only limit its operation, inas-much as the special mention of the training of teachers might be held to exclude other subjects which ought to be included. Clause 23 makes all the
Provision necessary with reference to this subject of the training of teachers.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, lines 21 and 22, to leave out 'including the training of teachers.'"—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
EARL SPENCER: If that is the correct view of the matter, and if clause 23 makes the necessary provision, I will not object to this Amendment. But I should strongly oppose it if I thought its effect would be to give a hint that nothing was to be done with regard to this exceedingly important branch of the subject.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BURGHCLEREasked what was to become of the whisky money in the event of the local education authority not setting up a secondary school.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It need not set up a school itself but can employ the money in aiding other schools, in scholarships, or in any other way in which it is now employed.
EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved the substitution of the words "Board of Education," for "Local Government Board'' in the proviso to the effect that the amount raised by the Council of a county under the Act should not exceed a twopenny rate, or such higher rate as the County Council, with the consent of the Local Government Board, might fix. He held that, at a time when the whole of the educational system was being put on a different footing, the body who ought to be applied to for permission under such circumstances was the Board of Education. It was quite true that at the present time the Local Government Board held inquiries when it was a question of raising a loan, but the question in this Clause was one of rating, and, therefore, entirely different.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1,line 2,line 3, to leave out 'Local Government Board,'and to insert 'Board of Education.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The question of the extension or not of the limit of 2d. must be considered in relation to the whole financial responsibilities of the country, and not their educational responsibilities only. The Local Government Board is the Department which is charged with watching over questions affecting the whole expenditure of the country, and the Board of Education has no means of knowing anything beyond such responsibilities as rest upon them in respect of education. Therefore, if any Government Department is to be charged with this duty, I think it must be the Local Government Board.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
LORD DAVEYinquired what means there were in this Clause to stimulate local educational authorities and compel
362
them to do something substantial to promote secondary education. He asked this question because he observed that it was proposed to repeal Section 16, which dealt [with School Boards in default.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I should have thought the question of the noble and learned Lord had been already answered in the course of the discussion on this Clause. The duty of supplying adequate elementary school accommodation will be compulsory on the local education authority as it is now on the School Board, but there is no such compulsory obligation upon them for the supplying of secondary education.
LORD DAVEY: That is no answer at all to my question.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the new Clauses which be proposed to move after Clause 2, though somewhat lengthy, were very innocuous. They were taken without any alteration from the Bill for the provision of technical and secondary education which His Majesty'sGovernment introduced in 1896. Therefore they had the highest sanction, and he hoped His Majesty's Government would see their way to incorporate them in the present Bill. The issue was a simple one—namely, whether the Government were prepared to accept what they recommended in 1896, or whether they were afraid of the measures they then brought forward.
Amendment moved—
" After Clause 2, to insert the following new Clauses:—
(A.)—(1) A council, for the purpose of promoting education other than elementary, may, amongst other matters—(a) aid any school to provide such education, or, with the consent of the Board of Education, take a transfer of any school which provides such education, and is not an elementary school; and (b) establish a school, and for that purpose provide land and buildings, whether by purchase, hiring, or otherwise; and (c) establish and maintain scholarships or exhibitions; and (d) supply or aid in supplying teachers; and (e) make inquiries with respect to the sanitary condition of the school buildings (including boarding houses) of any school within their area; and (f) make

363
inquiries with respect to the education given by any school within their area, except a school which, in the opinion of the Board of Education, is of a, non-local character; and (g) take such measures as they think fit for giving information to the public with respect to the result of such inquiries.
(2.) The exercise of any powers under this section shall require, in the case of an industrial, a day industrial, or a reformatory school, the consent of a Secretary of State, and in the case of a poor law school the consent of the Local Government Board.
(3) A council may guarantee, for a term not exceeding five years, any annual or other periodical payment required for the purposes of this section, and may charge on the proper fund or rate any sum required to fulfil the guarantee.
(4) If a council make it a condition of giving aid under this section, that representatives of the council be added to the trustees or other governing body of the school, and the trustee or other governing body assent to the condition 'those representatives shall for all purposes be trustees or members of the governing body of the school.
(B.)—(1) A council in the performance of their duties shall not give any preference or advantage to any school on the ground that it does or does not belong, or is or is not in connection with, or under the management of, any particular church, sect, or denomination, or that religious instruction is or is not given in the school.
(2) The council shall take care that every school aided by them is inspected and examined by such persons and in such manner as may be approved by the Board of Education with reference to the particular class of schools to which the school belongs, and shall satisfy themselves with respect to every such school: (a) that the buildings are sufficient and suitable as regards size, sanitary accommodation, convenience, repairs, and otherwise; and (b) that the furniture, fittings, and school apparatus are adequate; and (c) that there is an adequate staff of teachers; and (d) that proper discipline is maintained, that the course of education is sufficient and suitable, that the fees, if any, are suitable, and that the teaching is efficient; and (e) that proper accounts are kept showing the receipts and expenditure of the school; and (f) that the school is conducted in accordance with such regulations made by or in pursuance of any statute, or made by the Board of Education as are applicable to the school.
(3) Every council shall make such Report and Returns, and give such information to the Board of Education as the Board may from time to time require.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYdid not think they would be strengthening the measure by defining the duties of the Council, as that course would tend to the enumerated branches of education being regarded as more important than those not mentioned. As
364
the result of past experience, the Government had not repeated in this measure the Clause in question from the Act of 1896.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Clause 3:—
EARLBEAUCHAMPmoved to give Rural District Councils as well as non-county Borough and Urban District Councils power to spend sums on secondary education up to a rate of Id. in the pound. The Amendment was a somewhat important one. Their Lordships would notice that it was merely permissive, the idea being to allow the enlightened Rural District Councils the same authority in the matter of secondary education as the Bill gave to Urban District Councils. There were many rural districts which were larger and more important than some of the urban districts to which the Clause gave powers in this respect, and it was difficult to see why they should be denied those powers. The Clause already made so many new authorities that to add to them the Rural District Councils would not be making any great alteration in the principle of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 8, after 'urban,' to insert 'or rural.'"—(Earl Beauchamp)
LORD DAVEY,while not expressing any opinion as to the Amendment, could not help feeling that it came within the question of Privilege, because it enabled a district not named in the Clause to make a new rate.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The effect of the noble Earl's Amendment would undoubtedly be to increase the number of authorities which would be powers in respect of secondary education. I understood that one of the principal complaints urged against the Bill by noble Lords opposite, and especially by the noble Earl himself, was that it did not establish single education authorities: but this proposal would add to the grievance, whatever it might be. The Bill as originally introduced limited the powers under this Clause to boroughs over 10,000, and urban districts over 20,000 inhabitants; that is to say, it limited these powers to those authorities

365
which were made autonomous for the purpose of elementary education. In the course of the discussion, however, it was, point out that under the Technical Instruction Acts, Urban District Councils already possessed these powers in regard to secondary education, that they had made certain arrangements, and that it would lead to great inconvenience if those powers were taken away from them. The request of these authorities was backed up by the County Councils Association, who desired that this additional rating power which was possessed by the minor authorities should be continued. It appears to me, however, that it is quite unnecessary to place the Rural District Councils in the same category. It is far better, in my opinion, that those authorities which do not possess these powers under the Technical Instruction Acts should not have them conferred upon them, and that in respect to the whole of a county which is not included either in a borough or a large urban district the powers relating to the provision of rating for secondary education should be entirely in the hands of the County Council. I do not know what the experience of other members of this House may be, but being the Chairman of the Rural District Council myself I am bound to say that I cannot imagine any authority less likely to spend any money on the provision of technical or any other form of education than the body over which I have the honour to preside.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid the noble Duke had not answered the question put to him by Lord Davey, who desired to know the opinion of His Majesty's Government with regard to the position of the Amendment. The Amendment proposed to allow Rural District Councils to levy a rate for the purpose of education other than elementary, provided that the same did not exceed a rate of a penny in the pound. Was it competent for that House to pass an Amendment giving to a body which did not possess power to rate in the Bill as it came from the House of Commons, power to impose a rate for any particular purpose?
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFcould not see in what way the Amendment from the one upon which their Lordships had already voted, and which would have
366
compelled the County Council to aid secondary education, not where it seemed to them desirable, but wherever it was necessary. That would certainly have increased the rating burden which might be cast either on the county or district.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHcontended that the two cases were totally different. In the former case there was no proposal to add to the rate, or to give the authority any new power of rating. The rate was limited by the Clause to 2d. in the pound, and all that was proposed was that the authority should exercise the power which the Clause gave it.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFpresumed that the cases in which it would be necessary to aid secondary education would be more numerous than the cases in which the authority would think it desirable, Otherwise, there would be no object in moving the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked whether it was really necessary for practical purposes to enter into these minute questions. Earl Beauchamp had moved an Amendment, and the Government had given him an answer. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davey, thought the noble Earl had gone beyond the powers of the House, the proper course to adopt was, not to ask a question of the Government, or of the Lord Chancellor, but to move that the Amendment be not now put.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:—
VISCOUNT HALIFAXmoved to omit the latter part of the first sub-Section, which provided that "no catechism or formulary distinctive of any particular religious denomination shall be taught or used in any school, college, or hostel" provided by the Council. The words he proposed to omit were words which extended the provisions of the Cowper-Temple Clause into the area of secondary education. They precluded the local education authority from providing any schools, colleges, or hostels, except such

367
as were undenominational and administered under the provisions of the Cowper-Temple Clause. He was sure that they never would solve the religious difficulty attaching to the education question unless they were going to help all denominational or undenominational schools equally and impartially. He did not deny that in some of the larger Board schools the religious teaching had been good, but that, was because a large proportion of the teachers had been brought up in denominational colleges. It was obvious that the teaching of an insufficient Christianity might be the teaching of no Christianity at all. If they extended the operation of the Cowper-Temple Clause as proposed it would make any future satisfactory settlement of the education question much more difficult. This was essentially a matter which the local education authority could judge better of than persons at a distance, and he should have thought that it was pre-eminently a matter to leave to the discretion of the local authority. He was glad that Nonconformists should have schools provided for them which would meet their religious convictions; he could not understand why they should not be willing that he should have the same. He asked that the local authority should not, by a Clause in the Bill, be limited to helping only undenominational schools to the exclusion of denominational schools and hostels.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 24, to leave out from 'council' to the end of the sub-Section."—(Viscount Halifax.)
LORD COLCHESTERjoined with the noble Viscount who had just sat down in asking that these local education bodies should be trusted and allowed to decide according to the requirements of each case. This was a matter preeminently fitted to be left to the local education committee. They should follow the principle of the Endowed Schools Act rather than adopt the unfortunate Clause of the Act of 1870. What was done under the Endowed Schools Act, in the case of foundations which were not denominational, was in the first instance to require religious instruction to be given, and, secondly, to lay down that it should be according to the principles of the Christian faith,
368
leaving the governing bodies power to interpret that as they thought fit. Why would not a similar provision be sufficient in the case of the schools set up by this Bill? Moreover, the wording of the Cowper-Temple Clause was ambiguous, and could be very easily evaded. When he was a member of the London School Board, they had deputation after deputation asking them to keep to the spirit of the Cowper-Temple Clause. What was the spirit of that Clause? He had put the question to the deputation as to what they meant by the spirit of the Clause, but none of the answers agreed. It passed the wit of man to understand what the spirit of the Clause was. Its form was thoroughly bad, and its provision should not be extended into the area of secondary education. Had there been religious peace in the School Board as a result of that Clause? He had been for three years a member of the London School Board, but did not find it. He asked that the local education bodies should be trusted, and should not have thrown upon them the stigma that they were unworthy to decide this important question.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHdid not intend to enter upon any academic discussion of the Cowper-Temple Clause. But Wales supplied valuable evidence on this point. The Welsh Intermediate Act of 1889 was in, its religious provisions built up upon this Clause. Many still regarded that Act as defective, if not unfair. It was, therefore, at first viewed with some distrust. All that had now disappeared, and he frankly recognised that many of the dangers anticipated had not been realised. In the schemes under the Act there had been some over-straining of the Cowper-Temple Clause, but the Amendment of Viscount Goschen, if adopted, would render that impossible for the future. The Cowper-Temple Clause had certainly saved them much sectarian wrangling in their secondary schools in Wales.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURYasked the Government to state what course they intended to pursue towards Viscount Goschen's Amendment, which proposed that the local education authority might, "at the request of parents of

369
scholars, or on other grounds, allow any religious instruction to be given in the school, college, or hostel, otherwise than at the cost of the authority." He did not wish that denominational education should be endowed at the cost of the State, but he did think it was the duty of the State to allow the parents of children who attended secondary schools to have such religious instruction, at the cost of the denomination, as might reasonably be given to them.
LORD STANMOREexpressed his own dislike of the Cowper-Temple Clause, but said he presumed the noble Viscount had brought his Amendment forward mor with a view of airing his own distaste for the Clause than with any hope of obtaining from the House of Lords a reversal of the decision of the other House on this point. He (Lord Stanmore) remarked upon the great and significant change in the language now used by noble Lords on the other side of the House as compared with that held during the debates on the Education Bill of 1870. It would be remembered how much they heard at that time of undenominational Christianity, which was what was to be taught under the Cowper-Temple Clause. He noticed that no noble Lord had said anything on this Bill about undenominational Christianity. What they spoke of was undenominational religion. There was a considerable difference between the two. Moreover, he noticed that those noble Lords seemed to consider that the words "undenominational" and "undogmatic" were convertable terms, that they were synonymous and meant the same thing. Even the noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Bill, and whose moderation, sincerity, and fairness made him a leader whom he for one would love to follow if he could only agree with him, used the words as if they were the same Undenominational Christianity was a thing one could conceive, but undogmatic Christianity was a thing which had no existence. Undenominational religion was a very different thing to undenominational Christianity, because the latter, however wide, did preserve the essential dogmas of belief in Christ. Undenominational religion went further, and would include the Jew, the Agnostic, and the Mahomedan, but when they used the words "undogmatic religion" they pronounced that which could not exist, for religion began with a
370
dogma. Even if they reduced it to the very lowest expression, and made it undenominational religion, even then they had dogma. Even if they reduced the religion that was taught to simply the first Article in the Creed, "I believe in God," was not that an enormous dogma? It was, in itself, a dogma which completely put out of the question the idea of there being such a thing as undogmatic religion. They would find that undenominational religion. which, if they pursued it logically, became religion without any dogma at all—that was to say, no religion.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I cannot, of course, treat the Amendment moved by my noble friend opposite as one which is in any degree hostile to the principle of the Bill, for the Bill, as it was originally introduced, did not contain the provision he now seeks to strike out. We have always considered that while it would be a great advantage, for some of the reasons which have been stated by the noble Lord opposite and also by the noble Lord behind me, to leave the authorities a perfectly free hand in the matter, it would be very difficult, as long as the Cowper-Towple Clause remained part of the law in regard to reate-provided elementary schools, to resist its application to schools for providing education other than elementary. The proviso which it is now sought to strike out was introduced by Sir William Anson when a private Member of Parliament; and, as the hon. Gentleman was the representative of Oxford University, his Amendment cannot be supposed to have been moved in any hostile spirit either to the Government or to the Church of England. The main argument, in my opinion, for the retention of this provision is that which was referred to by the noble Lord behind me. He has said he has not found in his experience that the Cowper-Temple Clause has brought about peace. On the other hand, would not the omission of this proviso be extremely likely to produce in every local authority a spirit of strife on religious topics which would not be conducive to the interests of peace? I fully admit that there is much in

371
what has been urged by noble Lords opposite and behind me; but I ask them to consider in how many cases it is in the slightest degree probable that a local authority established under this Bill would desire to build and maintain a denominational college, and whether it is worth while, for the extremely small practical effect which the Amendment can ever be likely to have, to introduce into the discussions of every local authority created under the Bill so fruitful a subject of religious controversy? In anything that I have said with regard to this Amendment I do not wish to exclude myself or the Government from a perfectly fair consideration of the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Goschen proposes to move. I understand from some observations made by one right rev. Prelate that the acceptance of that Amendment would be preferable to teh acceptance even of that which has been moved by the noble Viscount opposite; but I will not discuss that point till we come to the Amendment itself. I only wish to say that in opposing, as I am obliged to do, the Amendment moved by the noble Earl opposite, I do not in the least desire to commit ourselves as to the view which we shall take on the next Amendment.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GOSCHENsaid he was glad to hear, in the last few words of the noble Duke, that he was prepared to give a fair consideration to his Amendment. He moved to add, after the provision that no formulary distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught or used in any school, college, or hostel provided by the local authority, the following words:—"Except in cases where the local education authority, at the request of the parents or scholars, or on other grounds, allow any religious instruction to be given in the school, college, or hostel otherwise than at the cost of the authority." He said that the Clause as it stood for the time riveted upon secondary education the Cowper-Temple Clause; and that was a very serious step. They had been assured by noble Lords opposite and by cretain Nonconformist gentlemen that everything was
372
to be done to maintain the Nonconformist grievance when this Bill was passed; and he feared that some remarks made by a noble Earl opposite might have a very baneful effect upon the working of the Bill. If agitation was to continue there should be some relaxation from the Cowper-Temple Clause by premissive means. He asked the noble Duke whether he would allow the local authority, when the parents demanded it, or when the circumstances seemed to render it necessarey, to permit denominational education to be given in those schools, colleges, and hostels at the cost of the denomination. That would establish a right of entry, which would be a useful precedent.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 26, after 'provided' to insert 'except in cases where the local education authority, at the request of parents of scholars, or on other grounds, allow any religious instruction to be given in the school, college, or hostel otherwise than at the cost of the authority.'"—(Viscount Goschen.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTERsaid that while the Amendment of Viscount Halifax, if pressed to a division, might have proved extremely comtroversial, he could not help hoping the Amendment now before the Committee would be found to be very uncontroversial. It was no doubt a very serious thing to extend the domination of the Cowper-Temple Clause, because it represented a doctrine which denominationalists had never been able to accept. In some of the speeches in connection with the Bill grave attacks had been made on the Episcopal Bench, and those who agreed with its occupants, on the ground that they were trying to get so much for themselves. Noble Lords seemed not always to remember that if undenominationalists had consciences, so also had denominationalists, and their desire to find a place in the national system of education for that form of instruction. which they conscientiously believed to be the best was not always a sign of greed or of grab. They were contending for what seemed to them to be the principle of justice and religious freedom. For these reasons be would have felt compelled to support the noble Viscount had he taken to a division his Amendment to omit a caluse which had always been made the symbol of that particular

373
form of orthodoxy which said the State might support undenominational religion but no other, and of which they had heard many professions of late, both in this House and in another place.
The present Amendment, however, might be approached in an altogether different spirit. It was not always sufficiently observed that the Cowper-Temple Clause had two effects, both important, but each separable from the other. One was that the teaching supplied by the State should be of a certain character—that distinctive formularies should not be taught, and so forth. That was an extremely important affirmation, in favour of which there were not only reasons of convenience, but reasons standing on a higher plane than convenience—viz., reasons of peace. But the Cowper-Temple Clause had also a negative or exclusive effect in that it shut out any other form of teaching, even though it were provided by other than public authorities. Surely that was a condition of things which might be departed from. He had noticed in the speeches of the Chairman of the London School Board and of Earl Spencer words to this effect: "By all means let the denominationalists teach their own children, but let, them do it at their own expense." The expression was, of course, used in a different connection, but he thought it applied equally to the present proposal. What they asked was, not that the local authority should be compelled, against its will, to admit this teaching, but that where the local authority took the view of the denominationalists as to what made for justice, and religious freedom it should allow denominationalists to come in, and, at their own expense, give instruction after their own fashion to the scholars and students. In many of these institutions the students would not be children, and that led him to point out that in several ways the application of the Cowper-Temple Clause to secondary schools differed from its application to primary schools. It was often said by the advocates of undenominational teaching that children could take in only the very simple elements of religion, and that the denominationalists desired to force upon them elaborate doctrines which their minds were incapable of understanding. Without discussing the value of that argument, he thought all would
374
agree that it applied with nothing approaching the same force to young people of greater age, and still less to such as would come under the operation of the Clause in training colleges. To his mind it would plainly make for liberty and advance the interests of the local authorities to say that even in institutions provided by them, and in which the whole of the teaching provided at their expense was absolutely undenominational, there should be opportunities afforded for young people to be instructed in the principles of the religious denomination to which they belonged.
The Amendment might further be supported by arguments of convenience. Although not a practical expert in these matters, he believed he was right in saying that in secondary schools there was a greater variety of subjects taught, and more specialisation, and, consequently, more grouping of the scholars in various ways. It would therefore be much less marked and exceptional to have denominational students grouped from time to time for religious instruction. The buildings, also, would probably lend themselves more to such special classes and arrangements than would the buildings of primary schools. Moreover, secondary institutions would, in the nature of the case, more often be of a central character; there would not be so many of them, and consequently students would have fewer options as to the schools they should attend. In many cases the particular training college or secondary school would be the only one in a large district; therefore the plea that in such institutions opportunity should be provided for student of different religious convictions to be instructed in the principles of their particular denominations had much to support it. He did no believe there would be any difficulty in working such a system. Lord Shand, if he were present, would have been able to tell the House from his own experience that he had worked such a system very effectively, and that instead of setting persons of different religious convictions sparring and jarring with one another, as was sometimes alleged would be the result of such a plan, it had led to mutual respect for the sincerity of each other's views. The acceptance of the Amendment would be a valuable concession to

375
feelings held by many people if the Government would consent to make it. More than once it had been said by noble Lords on the other side that if differences of opinion were to be provided for it should be on the basis of allowing facilities for the different convictions to organise and express themselves side by side. He hoped, therefore, in all sincerity and truth, and not in any controversial spirit, that noble Lords opposite would feel that by supporting the Amendment they would be assisting to keep the door a jar for a plan for which they themselves looked for some advantage to the future of education in this country.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid that he, at all events, was not convinced by the arguments which had been adduced in support of the Amendment. Without going into the theological question at all, he objected to the Amendment on the ground that it would break into the unity of our educational system. To all elementary schools the Cowper-Temple Clause applied. The secondary schools were now to be under and aided by the local authority, and the House of Commons had decided by a very large majority—only 29 voting against it—that to these new secondary schools the Cowper-Temple Clause should apply also. The Amendment was simply a proposal largely to nullify the application of the Clause, and, if it were inserted in the Bill, he believed there would be great risk of serious contention arising. The local authority were to be given a considerable power of discretion with regard to allowing religious instruction. They might do so, not only at the request of parents, but also "on other grounds." Those "other grounds" would have to be at the discretion of the local education authority, so that it was perfectly possible that, contrary to the wishes of a considerable number of the parents of scholars attending a particular school, the teaching of religious formularies might be introduced. In order to keep undisturbed the unity of our educational system, the same rule that applied to schools for elementary education should be applied to schools for secondary education. It was desirable, therefore, that the Amendment should not be accepted.
VISCOUNT HALIFAXpointed out that the noble Lord, in speaking of the unity of our educational arrangements, had been a little misinformed. At Birmingham, facilities were provided in the board schools for the religious education to be given. The Prime Minister also had been a little misinformed in some of the information he had placed before the House of Commons on this point, and during the last week or ten days there had appeared in the Press letters from persons of authority in Birmingham pointing out that definite religious teaching, at the expense of the various denominations, was permitted in the board schools of Birmingham, and that the system had met with a considerable amount of success. Therefore, the argument as to the unity of our educational system in this matter was not founded on fact.
THE BISHOP OF SOUTHWELL, speaking neither as a Churchman nor as a Liberal, but for Education, said he had felt the deepest regret that the effect of this Bill had not been to establish a uniform system of national education for elementary schools, with the essential condition that there should be perfect freedom of religious teaching in all the schools under the system. He believed that that was the only basis on which this question would be finally settled. He accepted the Bill as a transition stage towards that end, as the only stage from which it could be reached. It was still more important and resonable that that liberty should be provided in secondary schools, and, speaking as an old schoolmaster, he believed that the prospect of such schools being established would be materially diminished if parents felt that their childran, at the age at which they would be sent to these schools, were to be restricted in the matter of religious education by the limitations of the Cowper-Temple Clause. Parents, in his opinion, did not generally desire their children to be brought up in one set of tenets, or to be instructed in no tenets at all. In the case of elementary schools the children caught their religion at home, and it did not so much signify, in the opinion of many parents, that they were taught undenominationally at school; but in the case of children attending.

377
secondary schools, parents naturally deed that the religion of their growing years should be formed, moulded, and explained by the education they were receiving at that age where the children of Church of England parents ought to be confirmed and prepared for the Holy Communion. He thought, therefore, it would not further the development of secondary schools by the local authorities if they were prevented from allowing liberty of religious teaching in whatever form might seem to them most convenient.
THE BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid the noble Lord opposite had most properly placed his finger on the words "or on other grounds," because they formed the portion of the Amendment most likely to cause disquiet in many minds. If those words could be omitted he would heartily support the Amendment. His twenty-five years experience as headmaster of public schools had shown him that with this Amendment the Clause would almost exactly represent the actual practice at nearly all public schools. The main portion of the religious instruction was biblical instruction, but special instruction, such as in the preparation of candidates for confirmation and Holy Communion, was given to those boys whose parents desired it. If, however, the words "or on other grounds" were adhered to, he feared they would never get rid of suspicion, anxiety, and controversy.
LORD RIBBLESDALEexpressed great sympathy with the Amendment, and said that if the words "or on other grounds" were omitted and the words "to the children of such parents" inserted after "given," he would support it. The position of the local authority as "the arbiter of all educational matters"—to use the words of the Prime Minister— was amply safeguarded.
LORD REAYfelt bound to take notice of an expression used by the Bishop of Rochester to the effect that undenominational religion was the religion of those who were satisfied with the Cowper-Temple Clause. There was great confusion on that point. The parents who sent their children to board schools, and who, after the passing of this Bill, would send them to provided schools,
378
were just as loyal to their own denominations as parents who sent their children to voluntary schools. In the schools under the London School Board there were many children of Church of England parents, so that it was hardly correct to say—as Lord Halifax had maintained—that such parents were dissatisfied with the religious teaching under the Cowper-Temple Clause. Moreover, under that Clause dogmatic teaching could be given. The teaching was not denominational, but it was dogmatic. It was teaching common to many denominations, and instead of being called undenominational it might more accurately be called "multi-denominational." He could assure the noble Viscount that the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Resurrection could be and were taught under the Cowper-Temple Clause, but there were certain formularies which could not be so taught, and these would have to be taught supplementarily by the various Churches.
With regard to the particular Amendment before the Committee, he wanted an assurance that if, with the alterations which had been suggested by Lord Ribblesdale, it were agreed to, the House would not be told, when they reached the elementary part of the Bill, that it ought also to apply in that case. From his experience on the London School Board he agreed with what the Prime Minister had said in another place, that it would be impracticable in elementary schools, but with regard to secondary education he thought the circumstances were somewhat different. In reply to the question of Lord Colchester, he could only repeat that his experience in connection with School Board work in London was that the Cowper-Temple Clause had been an absolute safeguard against religious strife.
LORD COLCHESTER: What I said was that I believed there was now a calm after the storm, but that there had been the greatest disputes as to the spirit of the Cowper-Temple Clause.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLKhoped the words "or on other grounds" would not be omitted from the Amendment; the matter would be perfectly safeguarded by the local authority.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURYalso asked that the words should not be withdrawn. In the training colleges there would be young people up to the age of twenty-two years, many of whom would have no parents living. Surely young people of that age, and those old enough to be confirmed, had a right to speak for themselves, and to have their religious convictions respected.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNpointed out that no Motion had yet been made to omit the words "or on other grounds."
VISCOUNT GOSCHENsaid he would not be able to assent to either of the changes which had been suggested. It had been strongly urged that confidence should be placed in the local authorities in these matters, and that as they were to be entrusted with the vast powers proposed in the Bill, they might very well be trusted to exercise wisely this purely permissive provision. To omit the words "or on other grounds" would make the enactment too restricted, because, as had been pointed out, there were many scholars who had no parents. Moreover, they had to deal with training colleges and with older children than those in elementary schools. In fact there were many grounds that might be urged against the omission. To bring the Clause into operation would require a little organisation. It would be necessary to know that there were a sufficient number of children to form a class, and a certain amount of money would have to be raised. A single parent could not make the demand; there would have to be a general feeling among the parents of the locality, or some other ground on which to the local authority it seemed good to exercise the power. He really thought noble Lords opposite must find it difficult to object to the proposal. It was impossible to have absolute unity between elementary and secondary education, and, although he would much like to see a similar power given with regard to elementary schools, he would promise not to appeal to this Amendment as a precedent when the Committee came to consider the part of the Bill dealing with elementary education.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIR: I do not think it would be possible to omit the words to which objection has been
380
taken without making the Amendment almost ineffective. The omission of the words "or on other grounds" would seem to imply that the consent of every individual parent was to be obtained. It might be necessary in many cases to make certain arrangements in anticipation, and then in case of uncertainty with regard to the wishes of the parents the whole scheme would fall through. Then I conceive that one of the "other grounds" which my noble friend had in mind was that the Clause would apply especially to training colleges, and that the local authority might consider it extremely desirable, having regard to the needs of a considerable number of denominational schools within their area, to allow provision to be made for the religious training of the teachers to be employed in those schools. That is a ground which I imagine the local authority would take into consideration, besides the wishes of the parents concerned. The Amendment has met with so much support, and so little actual opposition, that I need say verylittle about it. As to the objection that it would destroy the unity of our educational system, I do not think there is any unity to be destroyed. I understand the noble Earl's argument to be that because a hard and fast Cowper-Temple Clause applied to elementary schools a hard and fast Cowper-Temple Clause ought also to apply to secondary schools. I would point out that Parliament has always made a difference between elementary and secondary schools with regard to religious instruction. Not only must every board school have a Cowper-Temple Clause, but under the existing law a School Board cannot aid a denominational school. But that has never been the case under the Technical Instruction Acts. Under the Technical Instruction Acts the existing local authorities may aid, have aided, and do aid very largely, denominational institutions, subject only to the protection of a Conscience Clause. I venture to think, therefore, that there has never been that unity in our educational system which the noble Earl claims for it. Taking into consideration the large amount of support which the proposal has received and the fact that it would be likely to mitigate the hardship and

381
inconvenience entailed by a hard-and-fast Cower-Temple Clause, and believing also that it is a power which many local authorities will welcome, I have no hesitation in giving, on the part of the Government, their assent to the Amendment.
EARL SPENCER: I feel that I must say a few words on this subject, because I was one of those who in the Second Reading debate said that, although satisfied with the Cowper-Temple Clause, I should not object, under certain circumstances, to an arrangement being made by which some denominational teaching might be given in the schools. I have carefully followed the debate, and, reluctantly, I confess, come to the conclusion that I shall not be able to vote for the Amendment. My reasons are the same as those put forward by my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth. I do not see that there is any sufficient ground for making this difference between the secondary and the elementary schools. If the Cowper-Temple Clause is to rule in the provided schools, I say that the same stipulation should apply to the others also. I am

CONTENTS.

Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E.

Balfour, L.

York, L. Abp.

Saint Germans, E.

Basing, L.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Shaftesbury, E.

Belhaven and Stenton. L.

Stamford, E.

Boston, L.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Stanhope, E.

Braye, L.

Newcastle, D.

Vane, E.(M. Londonderry.)

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Northumberland, D.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Rutland, D.

Churchill, V.[Teller]

Colchester, L.

Cross, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Falkland, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Bath, M.

Goschen, V.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Camden, M.

Halifax, V.

De Freyne, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Llandaff, V.

Dormer, L.

Winchester, M.

Ridley, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Erskine, L.

Clarendon, E.(L. Chamberlain.)

Chester, L. Bp.

Gage, L.(V. Gage.)

Abingdon, E.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Glanusk, L.

Bathurst, E.

Durham, L. Bp.

Glenesk, L.

Bradford, E.

Ely, L. Bp.

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

Camperdown, E.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Dartmouth, E.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Harris, L.

Denbigh, E.

London, L. Bp.

Hatherton, L.

Derby, E.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Herries, L.

Duice, E.

Newcastle, L. Bp.

Hothfield, L.

Feversham, E.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Rochester, L. Bp.

James, L.

Hillsborough, E.(M. Downshire.)

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Kenyon, L.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Lathom, E.

Southwell, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Londesborough, E.

Truro, L. Bp.

Meldrum, L. (M. Hently.)

Lucan, E.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Mayo, E.

Addington, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Morely, E.

Allerton, L.

Montagu of Beaulien, L.

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Nelson, E.

Ashbourne, L.

North, L.

encouraged in that belief by the speech of, I think, the Bishop of St. Asaph, when he spoke of his views having completely changed in Wales, with regard to the application of the Cowper- Temple Clause to secondary schools. That fact ought to strengthen us in supporting the Bill as it stands rather than in inserting the Amendment of the noble Viscount which, to a great extent, gets round that Clause. If the Bill had been framed so as to give complete popular control, a great deal might have been done in this direction. It would then have been somewhat on the lines of the Scottish system; great latitude might have been allowed to particular schools in the introduction of some such plan as is now proposed, and we should have had something approaching unity. I agree with the noble Duke that that unity does not at present exist, but it must be remembered that the Bill was framed with the object of increasing the unity between the different branches of education.
On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 14.

Petre, L.

Seaton, L.

Tredegar, L.

Robertson, L.

Stanmore, L

Wentworth, L.

Rowton, L.

Teynham, L.

Windsor, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Carrington, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

Brassey, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Burghclere, L.

Reay, L.

Spencer, E.

Coleridge, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Davey, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

EARL BEAUCHAMP, in moving to omit the words "attending as a day or evening scholar," said his Amendment practically covered the Nonconformist grievance in regard to training colleges, and, if carried, would remove that grievance. Whatever might be the nominal object of the training colleges, they were, as a matter of factlargely supported by the State, although they chiefly belonged to one religious denomination or another. The whole position of the teachers was exceedingly anomalous. Every year 3,000 students became entitled to places in the training colleges, but there were nothing like sufficient places for them. In residential colleges there were 2,083 places, and 730 in day colleges, the latter being undenominational, while only 397 places out of the 2,083 residential places were undenominational, and a large proportion even of those were filled by Church of England teachers. There were, therefore, very few places with which to satisfy the demand made by Nonconformists. But the really important thing was the amount of support given to these colleges by the State. The Oxford diocesan training college had an income from private sources of £117, while it received from the State and fees no less than £1800, so that 94 per cent, of its income came from the State, against 6 per cent, from the Church of England, and yet that institution was maintained as a Church of England institution, to which students belonging to other denominations could not gain admittance. Another instance was that of the Culham Diocesan College, where, according to the accounts for the year ending June 30th, 1901, the subscriptions from voluntary sources were £233, against £5,000 from the Government. If this Amendment were adopted, the position would be exactly the same in all training colleges, whether Church of England, Roman
384
Catholic or Nonconformist. He was not bound to the particular form of words on the Paper, but would be willing to accept any proposal which would do away with this undoubted grievance. It might be urged that as the colleges were built by the denomination, they therefore belonged to the denomination. But there was a fallacy underlying that argument. The total cost of building the Church of England training colleges was £293,000, towards which the State contributed £97,470, or, roughly speaking, one third. In view of the fact that a very large proportion of the annual cost of the upkeep also came from the State, he thought the State was justified in asking for a Conscience Clause in connection with these colleges. Those who made that request were strengthened in their demand by the opinion of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who on one occasion described the present system as "an antiquity." To show how the system worked out he mentioned a case of a Nonconformist teacher who passed very high on the list, and yet was passed over in favour of a Church of England teacher, who was more than a thousand places lower on the list. Obviously, it was much better to make it easy for a Nonconformist who passed high on the list to enter these colleges than for the State to take a teacher lower on the list whatever might be his or her religion, simply because that teacher happened to belong to a particular denomination. This question was regarded by Nonconformists as one of extreme importance, and he should therefore press the Amendment to a division. It was to the interest of the nation to get the best teachers, of whatever denomination they might be, and he hoped the amicable spirit which prevailed in the House would result in some Amendment being secured by which satisfaction would be given to the great Nonconformist communities of the country.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWELLsuggested that this Clause was hardly a convenient place for the alteration, inasmuch as it dealt rather with boarding-houses and schools than with training colleges, and if the Amendment were carried scholars would be able to claim to stay in these boarding-houses or schools without being required to attend any religious instruction at all.
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he would like the advice of the noble Earl, his leader; but personally, if the right rev. Prelate thought the Amendment would come in better in another part of the Bill, he was prepared to postpone it.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWELLsaid it was eminently desirable that Non-conformist teachers should be enabled to enter these colleges, but he thought the Amendment would be rather inconvenient in the Clause under discussion.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDthought the object of the noble Earl would be better met by an Amendment standing in his own name lower on the Paper, by which the House would be asked to provide that in every aided school or college at which boarders were received, the local authority should require suitable boarding arrangements to be made for the reception of boarders whose parents belonged to different religious denominations. The intention of that Amendment would be to exempt students from attendance at religious observances and religious teaching to which the parents objected. Section (1) of Clause 4 dealt with boarders, and it might be practically very inconvenient if a Conscience Clause were inserted in regard to boarding schools, so that individual children could claim the privileges of it. Every necessary privilege would, he thought, be secured without any inconvenience whatever by the Amendment of which he had given notice.
LoRD KINNAIRDsaid that in order to show the need for a Conscience Clause for the protection of those who did not hold the tenets of the Church of England, or who held Low Church views, he might refer to a book which was of some importance, because written by one who for eighteen years was the principal of a Church Training College. He believed
386
their Lordships would agree that children required protection from such teaching as this:-
"Church schools are, in fact, worthy of the name of Church nurseries, where the young plants are guarded, watched, and tended, so that they may grow up into goodly trees. They should be Church grounds for drill and exercise, where the young soldiers of Christ's army are taught to use the Christain armour."
The writer then went on to show what the true ideal of Church teaching should be:—
"That the Bible is emphatically the Church's Book, to which the Dissenters have no more right than have deserters to the drill and the text books of the army from which they have seceded."
EARL SPENCER: As my noble friend appealed to me as to what I would advise in this matter, I confess that I would much prefer that he should go on with his Amendment. If I had to choose between the Amendment of the Bishop of Hereford and the one now before the Committee I would prefer the simpler method of the latter. I think the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate might lead to considerable difficulty. Jt might be very difficult to provide suitable boarding arrangements, but I can see no objection to omitting words as proposed by my noble friend. This question is one of the most important in the whole Bill, and, as far as I can see, to omit these words, and thereby to guard the consciences of any Dissenters who go to the boarding houses or hostels or schools, will largely diminish the great injustice of which Nonconformists now complain.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I could not very well follow the argument of the noble Earl who moved the Amendment, as I heard him but imperfectly. I gathered, however, that he rested his case mainly on the question of the denominational training colleges which he produced figures to show received an amount of assistance from the State very disproportionate to the small amount of assistance received from private sources. I venture to think that that is a subject with which it is unnecessary to deal by legislation. The assistance which denominational colleges receive is undoubtedly very large, and a

387
perfectly legitimate subject for consideration, but it is one which may be dealt with either in the other House on the Estimates, or in this House on the Code which is annually presented. I do not think, therefore, it is necessary to pass such an Amendment as that now proposed in order to deal with what may possibly be the excessive provision made by the State for training colleges, The effect of the Amendment would be extremely serious, and would be going far beyond the law as it at present stands in the Technical Instruction Acts. It would be almost impossible for a denominational training college to accept aid from a local authority if these words were admitted. A certain amount of discipline of a religious character, such as attendance at morning and evening prayer, is a necessity, or approaches thereto, in a denominational school and for the boarders in that school, and such a provision is a necessary part of the discipline of a college. There are many strictly denominational colleges and Roman Catholic institutions receiving aid from the local authorities under the Technical Instruction Acts. By adopting this Amendment you would insist on those colleges and institutions adopting a Conscience Clause for boarders, for whom they are not intended, and whom they do not wish to admit. That a Conscience Clause should be applied in the case of day scholars is perfectly right. It is quite possible, even in the case of a Roman Catholic institution aided by the local authority, for the day classes to be attended by scholars who do not belong to the denomination, and for their protection a Conscience Clause is undoubtedly necessary. But why, because the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of England have established boarding schools intended exclusively for the education of their own children, are they to be excluded from the receipt of aid unless they propose to extend the advantages of those institutions to others than members of their own denomination? The Government certainly cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHthought the noble Duke had gone further than the case warranted. It was not proposed by
388
the Amendment that religious instruction should not be given in these schools, or that the scholars should not be required to attend chapel, and so forth. It was perfectly clear that if these words were omitted the schools and colleges concerned would be able, for the benefit of scholars belonging to the particular denomination, to conduct religious services and to give religious instruction in the way they were at present doing. The effect of the Amendment would simply be to allow scholars of other denominations to attend the schools or colleges, without being required to attend those services or to receive that instruction. That course was now taken in many colleges at Oxford, and might very well be extended to the institutions to which this Clause of the Bill applied. It would not in any way interfere with the power of an institution to give whatever instruction it desired to the members of its own denomination, but at the same time, in consideration of the assistance received from public funds, it would be required to accept scholars from other denominations without those scholars being compelled to attend that instruction.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Would it be possible for a, denominational institution to accept as a boarder a pupil who not only did not attend the religious instruction of the institution; but who did not attend any at all
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: It is done at Oxford at this moment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NEWCASTLEsaid this was really a very serious question. If there were sufficient accommodation in the training colleges he had no complaint to make of the proposal, but would feel that it was necessary that students who did not belong to the denomination of the college should be permitted to claim some of the vacant places. But the training college accommodation was altogether inadequate. He hoped that this Bill would lead local authorities to open training colleges, to which doubtless there would be the fullest possible freedom of admission. As one who had been connected with one or two of these training colleges, he knew it would be exceedingly difficult to carry on. the discipline of the institutions, and to

389
supply the teachers required in the denominational schools connected with those colleges, if the Amendment were accepted. He hoped, therefore, it would not pressed; if it were, he should certainly vote against it.
LORD BURGHCLEREpointed out that the argument of the Bishop of Newcastle hardly met the case. The right rev. Prelate had admitted the existence of a great deficiency of teachers, and expressed the hope that more colleges would be opened. But why, because there were so few teachers at the present moment, should they cut off, by insisting on the provision of the Bill, that supply of teachers which would be produced by the Amendment? He could see absolutely no harm in the proposal. Both at Oxford and Cambridge, and also at Harrow, students of all denominations—including Hindus, Parsees, and so forth—were afforded education, without being required to attend the religious services. Under the circumstances he thought it only reasonable that the Amendment should be accepted.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not for a moment deny the importance of the Amendment. It was discussed at considerable length in the other House, and the conclusion then arrived at was that considerable difference existed between residential colleges and hostels in which there were day scholars. I agree with the right rev. Prelate that it is absolutely necessary, in order to maintain, not only the spirit of the religious instruction, but also discipline, that this Amendment should not be inserted. No pressure whatever is put upon those who attend these colleges and live outside; but I think your Lordships will allow that, in whatever house or college you may have been, there was a religious service daily carried on, which not only maintained the religious atmosphere, but also discipline.

CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor).

Camden, M.

Denbigh, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Derby, E.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Winchester, M.

Doncaster, E. (D. Bucclcuch and Queensberry.)

Northumberland, D.

Portland. D.

Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Feversham, E.

Rutland, D.

Abingdon, E.

Hardwicke. E.

somerset, D.

Bathurst, E.

Hillsborough, E. (M. Down shire.)

Belmore, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Bradford, E.

Lathom, E.

Bath, M.

Dartmouth, E.

Lauderdale, E.

EARL SPENCER: At Harrow there were many Siamese; I do not think they were ordered to attend chapel.
THE MARQUEss OF LONDONDERRY: But perhaps they had services or prayers in their own house, I maintain that if the Amendment were accepted, it would upset all the necessary arrangements for the management of these schools or colleges, and restrict very largely the number of institutions which could receive aid at the present moment without sacrificing their denominational character. It is therefore, impossible for the Government to agree to this proposal.
LORD BURGHCLEREsaid it had been held to be highly reprehensible in the interests of religion to turn attendance at chapel or prayers into a mere calling over, and he believed it was now the general practice at both Oxford and Cambridge, and in the public schools, not to call upon persons of other denominations to attend the various services or chapels.
EARL BEAUCHAMPexpressed his thanks for the words of the Bishop of Southwell which would, he believed, be read in many Nonconformist circles with deep sympathy and interest. This matter was undoubtedly felt to be a substantial grievance by all the Nonconformists in the country, and he hoped their Lordships would do something to remedy that grievance.
On Question, "Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided:— Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 19.

Lichfield, E.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Glenesk, L.

Londesborough, E.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

Lucan, E.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Malmesbury, E.

Southwell, L. Bp.

Harris, L.

Mayo, E.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Hatherton, L.

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

Herries, L.

Nelson, E.

Addington, L.

Hothfield, L.

Oneslow, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Saint Germans, E.

Balfour, L.

Hylton, L.

Selborne, E.

Barrymore, L.

James, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Basing, L.

Kenyon, L.

Stamford, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Stanhope, E.

Belper, L.

Lawrence, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)

Boston, L.

Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby).

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Bray brooke, L.

Wharncliffe, E.

Braye, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Monckton, L. (V. Galway)

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Brongham and Vaux, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cross, V.

Chelmsford, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Falkland, V.

Clifford and Chudleigh, L.

Mostyn, L.

Halifax, V.

Colchester, L.

Mount Stephen, L.

Knutsford, V.

Congleton, L.

Petre, L.

Llandaff, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Ridley, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Robertson, L.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Rothschild, L.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

De Freyne, L.

Seaton, L.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Dormer, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Ely, L. Bp.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Stanmore, L.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Ellenborough, L.

Tredegar, L.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Elphinstone, L.

Wenlock, L.

London, L. Bp.

Erskine, L.

Wimborne, L.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Windsor, L.

Newcastle, L. Bp.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Ripon, L. Bp.

Glanusk, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E. [Teller.]

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Kinnaird, L.

Carrington, E.

Brassey, L.

Mendip, L. (v. Clifden.)

Chesterfield, E. [Teller]

Burghclere, L.

Monkswell, L.

Spencer, E.

Coleridge, L.

Reay, L.

Davey, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Denman, L.

Sudlev, L. (E. Arran.)

Farrer, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDmoved an Amendment to provide that in every aided school and college the local education authority should appoint two members of the governing body. He said the proposal expressed the desire to insert the kind of compromise which existed in the Endowed Schools Act, and simply affirmed the principle that where-ever a local authority gave support to an institution it ought to be represented on the managing body of that institution.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 4, page 2, line 38, after 'there-from' to insert '(3) in every aided school or college the local education authority shall appoint two members of the governing body.'"—(Bishop of Hereford.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am afraid it is impossible for the Government to agree to the Amendment.
In the first place, the main principle of theis Measure is to enable the County Council to make its own arrangements, and if we were to accept the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate that would at once strike a blow at the very foundation of the Bill. The Amendment is a reversal of the principle of sub-Section 1 of the Technical Instruction Act, 1889. The provision was alluded to by Lord Rosebery on Friday night, and after his speech on that occasion I do not think the noble Earl, if he were present, would support this Amendement. The effect of the proposal of the right rev. Prelate would be to prevent the local authority from founding scholarships at schools whose goverors did not consent to the appointment of two members by the education authority. Therefore, in the interests

393
of higher education I maintain that it would not be right or just were your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDasked for the reference made by the noble Marquess to another Section in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I referred to a Section in the Technical Instruction Act, 1889. It is diarnetrically opposed to that Section.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: Then the Endowed Schools Act is diametrically opposed to the Technical Instruction Act.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I did not say that, but that the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate is a reversal of the principle of sub-Section 1of the Technical Instruction Act.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDthen asked if the Government would be willing to accept the Amendment if the word "may" was substituted for the word "shall."
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think the whole principle of the Amendment is to take away from the County Council the power which we intend to give them, and as such I do not think I can accept it in any form.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: Then I understand that the noble Marquess leaves it to the local education authority in each case to initiate the terms on which they will give aid.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDmoved an Amendment to provide that the consent of the local authority should be required for the dismissal of teachers in all schools and colleges provided or aided under Part lI. of the Bill, and that any dismissed teacher might appeal to the Board of Education, whose decision should be final. He said there was a very strong arid general feeling among assistant masters that it was not fair to such a profession as theirs that they
394
should be subject, as they would be unless this Amendment were carried, to arbitrary dismissal without appeal of any sort. It was contrary to the ordinary English practice that they should not have an opportunity of appeal. Those who were at all familiar with school matter, were constantly coming across cases in which justice seemed to require that an appeal should be allowed, so as to afford an opportunity for some investigation. He therefore ventured to move the Amendment on behalf of a vast number of educated men engaged in secondary schools, believing it to be an Amendment which would afford them a reasonable security in the exercise of their professional duties and with a confident hope that the Government would make the concession asked for.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 4, page 2, line 38, to insert, '(4) The consent of the local education authority shall be required for dismissal of teachers in all schools and colleges provided or aided by the said authority under Part II. of this Act, and any teacher dismissed from one of the said schools or colleges may appeal to the Board of Education. whose decision shall be final.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am afraid I must again ask your Lordships not to agree to the Amendment. I need not say that anything like injustice to teachers would receive no support whatever from the Board of Education. But the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate would prevent secondary schools of a high character under governing bodies being made available for secondary education under Part II. of this Act, unless the authority was about to provide a very large subsidy for the benefit of the school. No governing body would hand over to the contributors of only a small part of the income of the school such a very important detail of the management as the control over the dismissal of teachers, otherwise any one contributing the most trifling sum might be in a position to take such a line as would prevent the authority really being in a position to use their own discretion, and under these circumstances I must ask your Lordships to decline to accept the Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDpointed out that unless the Amendment were accepted, the local authority would have nothing whatever to say to the dismissal of the teachers.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Why should they?
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDcontended that the local authority ought to have something to say in the matter, because it was in a school aided or supported by themselves. Under the Bill, as it stood, a sub-committee, or body of managers, or some local clique might dismiss a master and spoil the whole of his professional prospects, and yet there would be no person to whom that master could appeal against their decision. All he asked was that an appeal should be allowed to the local authority and the Board of Education.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ELYasked wnether it was not becoming the almost universal custom in important secondary schools for the Governors to appoint the head master and to look to him for the success of the school, putting entirely into his hands the question of the assistants. This Amendment would go exactly contrary to that almost universal practice.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDcould not quite agree with the statement of his right reverend brother, but if it was the almost universal custom he felt, from his long experience, that it was a bad one for the profession. If they wished to encourage the profession, and to induce a high type of men to enter it, it necessary that they should take care that individuals were not subjected to such arbitrary action without any right of appeal whatsoever.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDmoved an Amendment providing that in every aided school or college at which boarders were received the local education authority should require suitable boarding arrangements to be made for the reception of boarders whose parents belonged to diffcrent religious denominations. He said the object of this Amendment was
396
to enable members of different denominations to go to boarding schools and to enjoy such exemptions as were enjoyed by day scholars. His proposal touched some what closely on the subjeet discussed earlier in the debate, but he believed it met the difficulty in a better way. In country districts there would be a certain number of boarding schools, suited to the needs of those districts, but if all these schools were of a denominational character it became a great hardship to persons of a different denomination living in those districts that they should not be able to send their sons to those schools. That difficulty would be entirely met if the local authority required the children of Nonconformists to beadmitted to the local Church boarding school under some such Clause as he now proposed. Moreover, it would entirely solve the difficulty with regard to training colleges, because hostels could be established to meet the requirements of Nonconformists. With regard to secondary schools, it had to be borne in mind that there might be no other suitable school within reach, and yet these parents would have to send their childrent to some boarding school, so that, unless some such Amendment were inserted, this hardship would press very heavily upon many parents. There ought certainly to be some guarantee that the children of parents of a denomination other than that to which the local school belonged—but a school, be it remembered, aided by the local authority—should be admitted to that school without doing violence to their consciences. It was only reasonable that the training colleges, which were so largely supported by public money, should by willing to establish hostels and to make such boarding arrangements as would be suitable for the needs of such students.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: What do you mean by "boarding arrangements?"
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid the "boarding arrangements" in a training college would mean the hostel arrangements.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 4, page 2, line 38, to insert ' in every aided school or college at which boarders are received the local education authority shall require that suitable boarding arrangements are made for the reception of boarders whose parents belong to different religious denominations.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERasked the right rev. Prelateto explain his argument by a concrete case. For instance, should a Roman Catholic college be compelled at its own cost to provide a hostel or other accommodation outside for Wesleyan or Church of England students?
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid the Committee were suffering from the inconvenience of mixing up training colleges with every class of secondary school in the country. There were few training colleges, but hundreds of secondary schools distributed throughout the country. The Bishop of Winchester objected to a provision of this kind being required in the case of certain training colleges; but why, even in the extreme cases to which he referred, should not students be allowed to live in their own hostels, to attend the secular instruction, and to have arrangements made for their own religious instruction? Where was the objection to it? In the right rev. Prelate's own school at Harrow and at Clifton College, over which he himself presided for fifteen or seventeen years, there were instances of exactly that character. He himself established a house for Jews, and that house was now occupied by twenty-four boys, who were in just the position in which students would be under this Amendment. For a quarter of a century such boys had been members of that school; no difficulty had ever arisen, and, as a practical schoolmaster, he ventured to say that no difficulty would arise. He felt convinced, however, that there would be a considerable sense of injustice in many cases if no such provision was made.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHasked whether, if a Wesleyan or other secondary school was receiving a small amount under the Technical Instruction Acts, that school was an aided school, and
398
did the right rev. Prelate suggest that a Wesleyan school, under such circumstances, should be compelled to build a hostel for Church boys who might wish to attend the school? Reference had been made to the provision of a hostel for twenty-four boys at Clifton College; but many of these secondary schools would not have more than twenty-four boarders altogether, and was it intended that they should build a hostel for one boy?
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid that his Amendment asked for suitable boarding arrangements to be made. At Rugby he had a single Roman Catholic pupil, for whom he made suitableb boarding arrangements. Those "suitable boarding arrangements" consisted in allowing the boy to live in a Roman Catholic or other family agreeable to his parents, and that was what he meant by making "suitable boarding arrangements," so as to put a boy in the same position as a day scholar.
LORD BURGHCLEREhad considerable sympathy with the principles underlying the Amendment, but he thought the House had debated the real principle on a previous Amendment. There might also be some difficulties in the matter on the score of additional expense. Therefore, while he warmly supported the Amendment of Lord Beauchamp, he ventured to ask the right rev. Prelate to withdraw his proposal.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I should not have risen except out of respect for the right rev. Prelate to offer a few words in reply. From all I have heard I think his proposal is absolutely impracticable and impossible. He has told us that at Clifton there were a certain number of Jews, for whom he provided, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Asaph asked what he would have done under similar circumstances with another denomination. May I ask him whether, if he were head of a training college, and three Mohammedans arrived, he would build a mosque for them, or how would he propose to deal with them? As I say, I think his proposal is so utterly impossible that I need scarcely ask your Lordships to support the Government.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid he had pleasure in answering the noble Marquess's question. When he was Headmaster of Rugby, two Mohammedan princes arrived. He admitted them to the school, they lived in their own house, had their own religious instructor, and they were excellent members for two or three years; and no shadow of trouble or difficulty ever arose in connection with them.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDmoved to insert a new Clause calling upon the local authority to make suitable arrangements for continuation schools or classes in connection with elementary schools or otherwise, and giving them power to require that all children under seventeen years of age, if no longer attending school or under equivalent instruction, should attend not less than sixty meetings of a duly recognised continuation class during each year till they reached that age, the responsibility for such attendance to rest on both parents and employers. He felt that if an end was to be put to the enormous waste in our educational system the country would have to cease to be content with the present truncated scheme of elementary schools, under which scholars were allowed to go where they pleased at the age of twelve or thirteen. If all children up to a certain age were kept under some amount of discipline, and received a certain amount of elevating instruction after leaving the elementary schools, it would be an enormous boon to both clergy and laity in the moral and spiritual interests of the community. That was the object of the Amendment. He could find no adcquate provision in the Bill for continuation schools. He did not see that in the county of Hereford any continuation schools or classes must be provided by the local authority as a consequence of the passing of the Bill. The first part of the Amendment dealt with that point, but he desired also to go a step further, and to give the local
400
authority the power to compel children up to the age of sixteen or seventeen to attend suitable classes when provided. He had some hesitation in pressing the latter part of the proposal, but he hoped that, either in whole or in part, the Amendment would commend itself to the House.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 4, to insert the following new Clause. 'The local education authority shall make suitable arrangements for continuation schools or classes in connection with elementary schools or otherwise; and shall have power to require that all children under seventeen years of age, if no longer attending school or under equivalent instruction, shall attend not less than sixty meetings of a duly recognised continuation class during each year till they reach that age, the responsibility for such attendance to rest on both parents and employers.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid that all who had had the opportunity of practically observing the course of education in rural districts would feel that the Amendment was one deserving of the full consideration of the House. At the age of twelve, having passed a certain standard of examination, children left school, and, there being a great demand for all kinds of agricultural labour, they went at once into the fields, where they worked for ten hours a day. On returning home in the evening, they had no instruction to attend, no books to read, and no means of continuing or increasing the small store of knowledge they had attained. The result was that the large sums of money annually spent on education in the elementary schools in rural districts was to a great extent thrown away. Many chiIdren who left school at twelve years of age had for-gotten all they ever learnt by the time they reached the age of fifteen, even to the extent of not being able to write their own names. Unless that state of things was to continue something would have to be done. Private effort was doing a great deal. Through the munificence of private individuals continuation schools had been started in various districts, so that the small store of knowledge possessed by these children might be made of some utility. The Amendment, was, therefore, one to be sympathised with. But one had to consider what was practicable. The question was a very great one, and he hoped

401
before long it would be the subject of a separate Bill. A proposal to give the compulsory powers suggested in the Amendment required serious consideration, because they might be compelling a boy to attend who was unable to do so, and putting the boy or his parents under a penalty in consequence. From an abstract point of view it would be a good thing if children could be compelled up to the age of seventeen to attend continuation schools or classes to the extent of sixty evenings a year, but it was a really grave question which required to be dealt with from a practical point of view after the most careful consideration.
THK EARL OF CREWEcould quite conceive that at the present stage of the Bill it would be impossible for the Government to insert provisions giving such large powers as those suggested in the second part of the Amendment, but he appealed to the noble Duke as to whether it would not be possible as an encouraging direction to the local authorities to accept the proposal of the Bishop of Hereford as far as the words "or otherwise." Although not meeting the views of the right rev. Prelate to the full extent, it would, at any rate, show the sympathy of the Government with this important matter. There was no educational question of greater importance than that of the continuation schools, and if the Government accepted the first part of the Amendment their action would be received with satisfaction both in Parliament and in the country.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not thind your Lordships can for a moment doubt that the Board of Education realises the great importance of doing its utmost in regard to this question of contiuation shools. I have no hesitation in saying that if an Amend ment of a practical character had been placed on the Paper the noble Duke would have authorised me to accept it. But I think the remarks of the noble Earl opposite, and of my noble friend behind me, are sufficient justification of the decision of the Government to decline to accept the Amendment. They consider the proposition to be absolutely
402
impracticable at present. I do not think we should be justified in compelling a local authority, while it is, so to speak, feeling its feet in regard to the administration of the details of this Bill, to take upon itself this great additional responsibility. The Amendment would force every local authority, whether local circumstances required it or not, to provide continuation schools within its area, and it would also comple children up to a certain age to take advantage of those schools. It would not matter wheter the children were rich or poor, well-educated or ill-educated—
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: I am afraid my Amendment has been misunderstood. It is limited by the words, "if no longer attending school or under equivalent instruction."
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: But it does not in the least matter whether the children are educated or uneducated; by this Amendment, unless attending other schools, they would be forced to attend the continuation schools. Such a measure of compulsion is absolutely impossible. I have heard it said that such a system exists in Germany.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: It has existed for at least eighteen years, and I believe it is described in one of the Yellow-books issued by the noble Marquess's own Department, giving an account of education in Saxony.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Of course, if the right rev. Prelate makes the statement I accept it, but if anybody else had made it I should have denied It. Under the circumstances, I think your Lordships will see that the Amendment is absolutely impossible.
LORD RIBBLESDALEcould not agree that the Amendment was "absolutely impossible." The noble Marquess had rested the whole of his case on the word "shall"; apparently he did not like the compulsory character of the proposal. But he also stated that if anyone had adumbrated a reasonable Amendment he would have asked the noble Duke to accept it.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: To consider it.
LORD RIBBLESDALEasked whether the Government would give the House some idea as to what they would consider a "reasonable Amendment." The utterances of the noble Marquess in the course of the debate had tended to whittle away his own responsibility as President of the Board of Education, and also the little virility remaining to that Department under the Bill. Judging by the attitude of the Government, those who opposed the Bill had not yet been able to devise any reasonable Amendments, but there was a Report stage coming on, and, if they could only get at the mind of the noble Marquess, they might be able, after consultation outside, to make proposals by which something could be done. He was really surprised that the proposal of the Bishop of Hereford had not met with more sympathy on the part of the Government.
LORD REAYsuggested that, before the Report stage, the President of the Board of Education should consult the Secretary for Scotland as to the conditions under which attendance at continuation schools might be made compulsory in Scotland, and as to the conditions under which labour certificates were granted. He would then be able to introduce a Clause which would have some effect in the direction aimed at by the Amendment. The question was of the greatest importance. Unless arrangements were made so that the labour certificate should not be the end of all things, but that some continuity of education should be secured, the capital invested in the day elementary schools would give an insufficient return. He hoped the noble Marquess would look into the matter, especially as Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in the Second Reading debate, had expressed the opinion that the Bill would secure to England all the benefits already secured to Scotland by the excellent continuation Code.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I sympathise entirely with the desire of the noble Lord that continuation schools should exercise the same benefit in this
404
country as in Scotland, but the Amendment, as proposed, insists on the local authority making arrangements which I believe are absolutely impracticable. I believe that, if time is given to the local authorities to feel their feet in the administration of the duties devolved upon them by this Bill, they will see the great advantage of maintaining continuation schools, but I do not think it would be advisable to hamper them in the way suggested. I wish to give them an absolutely free hand in the discharge of their duties. I believe they will be as anxious as we are to promote the cause of education, but that they will advance, as they ought, cautiously. To impose upon them at the present moment a duty such as that suggested in the Amendment would not only be absolutely unfair to them, but it would hamper them with a charge for which they are not at present prepared. I have no doubt that eventually they will realise the importance of doing their utmost to support continuation schools, and in so doing they will receive my heartiest co-operation and assistance.
VISCOUNT GOSCHENagreed that it would be impossible at present to force upon the local authorities a system of continuation schools. As the noble Marquess had stated, these authorities had to feel their feet; a great burden had been placed on their shoulders, and it would not be wise to rely upon them to carry out such a proposal as that suggested by the right rev. Prelate. On the other hand he could not agree with the noble Marquess that it was so likely that the local authorities would be able to develop a scheme of continuation schools; it was rather the Board of Education that should develop such a scheme, and he failed to see in his noble friend's remarks any indication that there existed in that Department the germ of a system which they would like the local authorities to carry out. He might be wrong in that view.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: You are.
VISCOUNT GOSCHENsaid that possibly the Board had some plan before them by which, without the compulsory

405
system suggested by the Amendment, they would be able to introduce continuation schools. Personally, he thought it very difficult, but it was distinctly the duty of the Board of Education to consider this matter. That Department, instead of waiting for the action of the new local authorities, only now being initiated into educational duties, ought to give them a lead by framing at an early date such a system as would enable the education given in the elementary schools to be carried on. All who were acquainted with agricultural districts would agree that there was no subject to which the Government could apply their minds with more advantage. They might work out a national system. The matter was one which went to the root of our prosperity, and he associated himself with the views of the noble Lords who maintained that if we were to hold our own in this country it was essential that education should not stop at the age of fourteen or fifteen years, but should be developed, organised, and systematised beyond the limits at present existing.
EARL SPENCER: After the appeal of the noble Viscount. I do not know that it is necessary for me to say anything on this subject. I entirely endorse all that he was said as to the great importance of endeavouring to get some fixed, good, and sound system of continuation schools, and I would appeal to the noble Duke—not because the Minister for Education was unfriendly to this proposal; in fact, he held out a hope that if a practical suggestion were made, the Government would favourably consider it—but I would appeal to the noble Duke to see whether he cannot, in the Bill itself, introduce some indication that it will be the duty of the Board of Education to deal with this matter, and, if they have not already got it, give them the authority to do so. There are plenty of opportunities, before the Bill leaves this House, of introducing a Clause dealing with the subject.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Some noble Lords seem not to be aware, or to ignore the fact, that local authorities, especially county authorities, are already doing a great deal in the direction of assising and maintaining continuation schools. They do not all do it in the
406
same way, and probably it would not be desirable that they should. This is a matter which a large number of County Councils have taken up very warmly since funds were placed at their disposal by the money which my noble friend Viscount Goschen thinks ought to be known by his name rather than under its ordinary cognomen of the whisky money. They had received a certain amount of guidance from the Board of Education in the Code, but if it is a matter upon which it is possible for the Board to give them greater guidance, more assistance, and a clearer indication as to what they ought to do than is at present given, I think the question could be dealt with far better on the Code than by the introduction of a hard and fast provision into this Bill.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid that after the interesting discussion and the general expressions of sympathy with the general principle of the Amendment to which they had listened, though he could have wished the sympathy had been of a less platonic character, he was prepared to withdraw his proposal, in the hope that something would accrue from the consideration of the subject.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Clause 5:—
EARL BEAUCHAMP, in moving an Amendment providing that the local education authorities should have the "control and management" instead of merely the "control" of all secular instrucion in non-provided schools, said the principle on which he placed the Amendment on the Paper was that the popular control over the elementary education of the country, which was said to be one of the objects of the Bill, should be properly secured. The word "control" was some what vague, and he would be glad to know the exact character of the control to be exercised by the local authority. It was to make that control constant and efficient that he moved this Amendment, the effect of which would be to put the local Church of England managers merely in the position of delegates administering the Act under the local authority,

407
the local authority being paramount. He thought the system a bad one, but it was at any rate desirable that the arrangement should be clear, so that they might know exactly which authority had the paramount control over the school. Under the Bill as it stood there would be two statutory authorities, one having the control and the other the management. It was obvious that considerable friction and jealousy might arise between the two, as the inferior body was not elected or nominated by the superior body. The idea of the Bill was that the Church of England should dominate, not only the religious instruction of Church of England children, but also the secular instruction given in voluntary schools. The Amendment would secure some management on the part of the local authority, and therefore he begged to move.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 3, after ' control ' insert ' management.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: As the noble Earl has said, this Amendment introduces a very important principle; it, in fact, practically deals with the whole Bill. If the Amendment were carried its effect would be completely to alter the character of the measure. It must be taken in conjunction with another Amendment standing lower on the Paper in the name ot the noble Earl. The present Amendment invests the local authority with not only the control, but the management of schools, and his subsequent Amendment says—
" The managers of public elementary schools shall exercise such of the powers of the local education authority in relation to the control and management of the schools, with or without any restrictions, as the local authority may from time to time determine."
The scheme of the Bill is that the voluntary schools are hereafter to be managed by managers, four of whom shall be appointed under the trust and two by the local authority, and that these shall exercise the duties of the managers of the schools, the most important of which is the appointment of the teacher. The Bill also provides that the managers shall conform to
408
the directions and instructions of the local authority as regards secular education. The Amendments of the noble Earl completely reverse this procedure; they provide that the schools shall be managed, not by the body of managers, but that every power in connection with the school, including that of the appointment of the teacher, shall be exercised by the local authority. That was one of the subjects we were chiefly engaged in discussing during the two nights devoted to the Second Reading of the Bill. The Amendment entirely alters the framework; and structure of the Bill, and at this stage of the proceedings I think it hardly necessary seriously to discuss it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:—
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDmoved to provide that the foundation managers of the non-provided schools should be two, instead of four, as provided by the Bill. He said that this matter had been much discussed, not only in another place, but also on the platform andin the country generally. He believed, however, that if this Amendment, and a consequential Amendment enacting that two managers should be appointed by the major and two by the minor authority, were agreed to, they would practically get rid of the Nonconformist opposition to the Bill. They would secure popular control, and it would be perfectly easy to safeguard every legitimate interest of the denomination.
Amendment moved—
" In page 3,line 19, to leave out 'four'and insert 'two.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
THE EARL OF CREWEsaid he had no desire to enter into the general controversy on this subject; the matter had been discussed at great length in another place and in the country, and had also monopolised a considerable portion of the Second Reading debate. He merely wished to comment on the explanation given on this subject of the management of voluntary schools by the

409
Duke of Devonshire in concluding the debate on the Second Reading. On that occasion the noble Duke explained the proportion of the managers allotted by the Bill to the different contributing parties. He pointed out that the Church would now contribute a small portion of the expenses, and one which entitled them to one manager, it being obviously impossible to dinvide a manager into fractions. The ratepayers were provided with two managers, and the remaining three, according to the noble Duke, belonged to the State and were appointed by them, the argument being that those three could not be appointed directly by the State, but were appointed by the Board of Education as a part of His Majesty's Government, representing the majority in Parliament. That was a somewhat singular admission, for if those managers represented the present majority in Parliament, what was to be their fate in the event of that majority being some day turned into a minority? It seemed that it would be absolutely the duty of them majority to appoint three out of the managers in some other way. In making this admission the noble Duke seemed to him to have once for all destroyed the contention that the Bill was in any sense a final measure.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not quite recognise my argument as represented by the noble Earl opposite. As far as I recollect it, it was that if anybody had a right to appoint a majority of the managers it was the State, acting through the Education Department or the Treasury.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Through "the majority in Parliament," I think, were the words used by the noble Duke.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: If that is so, I really do not know how the words, "majority in Parliament" got in. I think my argument was and it is a fair argument—that, on the whole, the equities, if we take into account the relative contributions, are not very unequally distributed. To begin with the founders; the trustees to whom the school belongs, and in whom the school is vested, have a right to some representation in respect of the great
410
contributions they have made in times past, and the more limited contributions they will be called upon to make in the future. The ratepayers, who are in future to contribute a portion of the expense of maintenance will be represented, not only by the managers whom they will be able to appoint, but by the direct control over secular education which will be exercised under the Bill by the local authority. The State which contributes the greater proportion cannot be represented by the control which it exercises over the school through the Code and through its inspectors. I do not think it is possible to distribute these responsiblities by any arithmetical arrangement as to the managers, but I believe that, on the whole, as between the three parties who have contributed to the foundation, and will contribute to the maintenance of these schools, the matter is not inequitably divided. The right rev. Prelate who moved the Amendment is, I think, perfectly aware that it is one the framers of the Bill cannot possibly accept. The effect of it would be that instead of the voluntary managers being in a majority of two-thirds, as we intend them to be, they would be in a minority of one-third. We have proposed the best compromise we could suggest under which the continuance of the voluntary schools is possible. We have asked Parliament to make a very large and liberal pecuniary grant to the managers of these schools, and we have asked the managers, on the other hand, to surrender a large proportion of the privileges they have hitherto enjoyed. We have put this scheme before Parliament, not as an absolutely perfect or ideal arrangement, but as the best compromise we could suggest. To alter the terms of that compromise in such a way as to convert what we think ought to be a majority on the management into a minority, would fundamentally subvert the compromise, and, in our opinion, would have the effect of closing, if not every one, at any rate the great majority of the voluntary schools which have been founded for the purpose of giving distinctive religious education, and for the observance of which purpose in the future there would be no security whatever

411
if this Amendment were carried. The principal—I do not say the sole—but the principal duty of the managers in future will be the appointment of the teachers and the control of religious education. If you place that control in the hands of a majority, which need not be of a denominational character, I do not see where you can obtain any security that the religious character of the schools should be in any degree preserved.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I do not know any speech to which I have listened which has so well illustrated the allusion of the Bishop of Hereford, in which he likened the noble Duke to Laocoon, as the speech we have just heard, because when the noble Duke said, with emphasis, that this was the best compromise he could offer on this subject I seemed to see the insidious snakes twining round his limbs, and preventing him from offering anything more. Of course to call this a compromise is a play upon words, a sarcasm, indeed, a stroke of humour, but it is in no sense any description of the scheme of management offered to this House by the Government. If the noble Duke had considered the matter a little more, he would have seen that the word "compromise" was hardly applicable. The noble Duke said that the four managers who represented the foundation were to represent the considerable in the past, though no doubt less in the future, contributions they have made to the schools; but he knows perfectly well that the contributions of the managers, past, present or future, bear no relation whatever to the contributions of the State or the public, and, therefore, when he speaks of a compromise it is an abuse of language to an extent, which I think is hardly justifiable, even in a Committee of this kind—I mean a Committee in which the efforts of the minority must necessarily be sterile. But the point I wish to call attention to is not the long thrashed out principle of management, because if I spoke with the tongues of men and of angels I should not have power to alter the proposed arrangement, but the extraordinary argument of the noble Duke, which is, I think, by far the most original which has been addressed no either House of Parliament on this Bill, advanced in the short speech with he closed the
412
Second Reading debate, and to which therefore, noreply was possible at the time. I will not go into the fractions and subdivisions of fractions into which the noble Duke divided the managers on these new Boards. The noble Duke defended the arrangement in the Bill by saying that the proportions were in the main just; there were to be four managers representing the indefinite contributions of subscribers past and present, then there were to be two more managers, one, he allowed, represented the ratepayers—I am not sure that in his original speech the noble Duke did not say that both of these represented the ratepayers, and that, I am disposed to think, was his real meaning.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Two are appointed by the local authority.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The ratepayers.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The local authority.
THE EARl OF ROSEBERY: Well, I will take the local authority—that is, the ratepayers. The noble Duke said that the ratepayers had no right to more representation. But, sweeping away the insignificant contribution of the subscribers which is to entitle them to two-thirds of the Board of Management, the main contribution to the expenses of the schools is one-third by the ratepayers and two-thirds by the State. It is to the last contribution that I wish to call attention. Sir Robert Peel once asked, "What is a pound?" I wish to ask, "What is the State, which is to contribute two-thirds to this Board of Management on which it is not to be represented?" It is the great body of taxpayers of the country. The noble Duke speaks as if the State had a private income of its own from which it made its contributions to these schools, and which, therefore, entiled it to a general control or representation quite apart from its representation of the taxpayers of the country. I am not going to deliver a consitutional treatise on the King and the estates of the country, but the State in this connection is merely the great body of contributors to the Imperial taxation.

413
Owing to the care of the present Government the taxpayers of the country are absolutely the same as any consumer of bread: there is no person in the country who consumes bread, tea, or tobacco who is not a taxpayer. How is it then that this body is only to be represented by the occasional visit of an inspector? I confess I did not catch that part of the argument referred to by our noble friend as to three managers representing the State. I took the noble Duke to say that the State was to be represented by the occasional visit of an inspector.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: And the Code.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: And said that the State, as at present constituted because he apparently identified the State with the present Government wished denominational education to prevail in these schools. Well, if the State is identical with the present Government, there has never been anything so autocratic said since Louis XIV, declared, " B'Etat, c'est moi," | have never heard of such a definition of the State for generations past. Surely I am not presumptuous in thinking the noble Duke had some constitutional confusion in his mind. What we claim is that the public, ratepayers and taxpayers, have a right to the control where the State contributes the funds, whether they are contributed as taxes or rates. Idefy anybody, however noble and however learned he may be, to prove that there is an abstract entity called the State which has some fund at its disposal, not contributed by the public which entitles the State to some sort of privileged position and to arrange the Boards of these schools without any reference whatever to the contributing elements. What is the State in the mind of the noble Duke? I hope he will give us some explanation before this discussion closes. Sure I am of this, that in its financial aspect the State is the body of taxpayers, and surely the House of Commons, at any rate in its control of taxation, represents the body of taxpayers. I know of no other State in this connection. When I am told that the ratepayers have, almost as a matter of privilege, granted them by the Government the timid and questionable
414
right to appoint one-third of these boards of management, and, on the other hand, that the State, which was entitled to contribute two-thirds to these Boards, generously stands aside and only sends an inspector now and then, I really wonder whether the Constitution remains where it was and under what regime we are living. I hope that this debate will not pass away without some clear pronouncement by the Government as to the views they hold on the constitutional aspect of this question.
LORD HERRIES, speaking as a Roman Catholic, declared that the line taken by the Opposition upon this Bill would not be merely adverse, but absolutely destructive to Roman Catholic schools. Those schools had been kept up ever since 1870, chiefly at the expense of Roman Catholics, who at the same time had paid rates in support of schools suitable to Nonconformists, and if they were now to be asked to allow a body, two-thirds of which might consist of Nonconformists. Unitarians, or Agnostics, to take charge of the religious instruction in those schools, he could assure their Lordships that not a single school would be handed over. Roman Catholics were ratepayers and members of the State; they expected to be treated by their fellow countrymen in the manner in which the latter would be treated by Roman Catholics. The threat recently made that as soon as another Party came into power they would take every step possible to alter this legislation and to give a majority of the ratepayers, power over these schools, would make Roman Catholics use every endeavour to prevent that Party coming into power, and so to guard the religion of the next generation against the attacks proposed to be made upon it. If there was one idea to which Roman Catholics clung more earnestly than another, it was that the religion of their Church should be taught to the children in their schools. In former years their ancestors had to send their children to foreign countries to get an education in agreement with their religious principles. In Ireland they had the "hedge schoolmaster," who taught the children their catechism, and kept alive the faith of the Irish. Was it to be supposed, then, that in this century they were to go back on the idea of

415
having their children educated in accordance with their religion? Not a single Roman Catholic school would come on the public charge if this Amendment were insisted upon. Roman Catholics were determined that the religious instruction in their schools should be in agreement with the religion they professed, and he protested most determinedly against the attitude of the Opposition, who declared that, because a certain amount of sujpport was to be given out of the rates, Roman Catholics—who also paid their share of the rates—were not to have charge of the religious instruction in their schools.
THE DIKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am not going to enter into a constitutional discussion with the noble Earl, but I am afraid I must attempt to restate the argument I placed before the House on Friday last, and of which the noble Earl has apparently failed to grasp the meaning. My contention was that inasmuch as the larger proportion of the cost of the maintenance of schools would be paid, not by the school, but by the taxpayers, it was the taxpayer and not the ratepayer who had the right to the majortity of the representation on the board of management, if anybody. But, inasmuch as it was impossible that the taxpayer should be directly represented on the management of these schools—
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Why?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Who is to appoint the representative in the name of the taxpayers?
THE EARL Of ROSEBERY: The taxpayers of the country, I suppose; the taxpayers of the locality.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: What taxpayers? The income-tax payers?
THE EARL OK ROSEBERY: I did not say the income-tax payers only. I said the taxpayers.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Does the noble Earl mean the income-tax payers?
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: No.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Then whom does he mean?
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I mean the taxpayers. Is the noble Duke so little conversant with the finance of this country as to suppose that the revenue is derived from income tax only?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am under the impression that a considerable portion of it is. But what I maintain is that there is no constituency to elect a representative of the taxpayers on the managing bodies of the schools. The only local representation that can be the ratepayers, and my argument is that the ratepayers have no right to represent the taxpayers. In the course of my argument I may have used the word "State" in a sense which has led to the criticisms of the noble Earl, but I presume he will not deny that the taxpayers—he has admitted that the taxpayers are entitled to the largest share in the control over the education to which they contribute—
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: From the financial point of view.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I presume he will not deny that the taxpayers are represented by the Parliament; and I maintain that Parliament has a right, not only legally, but morally, to express its opinion as to the form of local government which should be on the schools which it so materially assists to maintain. The other House of Parliament has, and I believe this House ultimately will express its approval of the suggested form of government. I maintain that Parliament has a perfect right to do that, not only as the supreme authority in the country, but as representing the largest body of contributors. I do not deny that it would be competent for another Parliament, representing another set of opinions among the taxpayers, to upset the present arrangement; and the speech delivered by the noble Earl yesterday seemed to indicate an intention on his part to spare no effort to induce Parliament to do so. But Parliament, as representing the largest contribution to the schools from any source, has a perfect moral right to express its opinion as to the compromise which it has thought right to impose upon those who have hitherto had the sole management of these schools.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am sorry to trouble the House again, but the noble Duke has considerably shifted his ground. His original ground was that the State was an abstract entity, which ought to nominate the largest number of the managers.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I never admitted that the managers were the only essential element in the control of the schools. They have only a limited control. The State cannot be represented by any number of managers on the schools. It is represented by the influence which it exercises over national education through the Code annually submitted to Parliament, and by the inspectors who report to the Board of Education. It has nothing whatever to do with the constitution of the Board of Management with very limited functions.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am more perplexed than ever to know what the State is. It now seems to be the permanent Civil Government of the country. Neither of the propositions which the noble Duke controverted has been advanced by me. What I maintain is that when the taxpayers have, on the financial basis, according to the noble Duke's own contention, the right to the preponderating position on the Board of Management, it is not fair that they should be supplanted by foundation managers, who are, after all, a close and often an ecclesiastical corporation. The noble Duke talked of the moral right of Parliament to make any arrangement it chose. I think he unduly limited himself there. Might is right. Parliament, according to the old definition, can do anything it likes, except turn a man into a woman; and the noble Duke was therefore pleading a platitude to which no one has ever offered exception. But the noble Duke must have sufficient reminiscences of the past to be aware that it is not according to Liberal doctrine, or even constitutional doctrine, to admit that, where the greater part of the revenue is contributed by the public, two-thirds of the control should be given to a close corporation.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Not to the managers.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: What is given to the managers?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Only certain details are given to them.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: One of the details being the choice of the teachers, to which the majority behind the Government cling with such persistence as to show that it is not an unimportant detail.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Subject to the control of the County Council.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am obliged for the interruption, but it does not materially alter the point. The managers will be on the spot, and the local authorities will be a long way off. I do not agree that it is impossible for the taxpayers to be represented on the Board. Financially, the taxpayers have a right to a preponderating influence on the board of management, but there is another element which has as great a right to representation, and that is the parents. We on this side of the House are always asking what means the Government have taken to elicit the views of the parents as to the control of the parents over these Boards. Is it wonderful, when we do not differ, I think, in the main with those who wish for real religious instruction to be given in these schools, when we are as solicitous about that in reality as noble Lords opposite, that we also should wish to have some effect given to the wishes of the parents, and that we should deplore the fact that the Government has given no such representation on these Boards? Is it wonderful, then, that noble Lords on this side of the House should say that if the power ever comes to them—which is, perhaps, not very likely—they will endeavour to reverse the Bill in some of these respects. My noble friend, Lord Herries, has said, with great passion, that he and those who agree with him will endeavour to prevent such a consummation coming about as the return of noble Lords on this side of the House to the Ministerial side.
LORD HERRIES: Unless you change your opinions on this question.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: You need not address that to me. So far as I know, my noble friend and those who

419
agree with him need no such stimulus as that for any action they might think fit to take part in with that object in view. One word more. The noble Duke, I think, alluded to some remarks that were attributed to me yesterday, and rightly attributed; and his allusion to them was received with loud cheers on the Episcopal Bench. I stand by every word I said yesterday, but not to every word that has been read into them from prejudiced sources. It is hard enough in these days for men to make speeches every day and all day, but it will be much harder if it is the practice of faction to read into those speeches expressions which their authors did not use, and opinions which they absolutely repudiate. This I will say—I will repeat in this House what I said to the Nonconformists. I believe that of late the Nonconformists of this country have been strangely passive in regard to politics; they have been indifferent to their own Liberal alliances, and they have even, positively or negatively, supported the cause of Toryism. What I said, and what I implied, and all that I said or implied to the Nonconformists was that, if they desired to have justice done to them in the matter of education—which they certainly have not had done to them by this Bill—they must shake of this insidious sloth and resume the active political agitation which was in their old days the strength of the Liberal party.
VISCOUNT GOSCHENsaid he trusted the importance they all attributed to the words that fell from the noble Lord would excuse him for saying a few words in reply. The noble Lord had said that much had been read into his speech to the Free Churches which he never said.
LORD ROSEBERY: Hear, hear !
VISCOUNT GOSCHENsaid he thought the noble Lord alluded to the nonpayment of rates. He did not think the noble Lord told the deputation, having been Prime Minister of this country, that nothing would more prejudice their cause, that nothing would more shake his own confidence in their statesmanship, than if they were to adopt such a
420
course. If the noble Lord alluded to the non-payment of rates at all, he should have thought he would have deprecated any such action.
LORD ROSEBERY: I did deprecate it, in absolute and precise terms.
VISCOUNT GOSCHENsaid he did not wish to impute any words to the noble Lord which he did not use. The noble Lord said he deprecated such action, but he also said, ''But I am not a Nonconformist."
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: This is rather important. I said, I myself am averse to the non-payment of rates, but I am not a Nonconformist, and I am therefore not in a position to judge of the sense of intolerable wrong which has driven many just, and God-fearing, and law-abiding citizens to intimate such a course as that.
VISCOUNT GOSCHENsaid he did not misrepresent the spirit of the noble Lord's speech. He was averse to the non-payment of rates, "but he was not a Nonconformist." If the noble Lord was not a Nonconformist, ho was a tax-payer. What was likely to be the attitude of the Nonconformists after the speech which the noble Lord had made tonight in reference to their contribution to the taxes? He had never been able to understand why those who had a conscientious objection to paying a rate to a school had a conscientious objection to paying a tax to a school. Or, if they had conscientious objections to both, why they should propose to take different action as regarded a rate from that which they took in regard to a tax. He should like to know from the noble Lord whether the next step in the agitation with which they were threatened would not be that the Nonconformists would refuse to pay their taxes? He should like to put a question to the noble Lord. When he was in office, and guided the affairs of the State, were there not Nonconformists who paid taxes, and made, therefore, contributions towards the maintenance of denominational schools? Did he do anything in those years to remedy what he now called "the intolerable wrong" being done to Dissenters? The noble Lord in a passionate peroration appealed to this intolerable wrong that was being done.

421
He said the foundation managers were taking the place of the taxpayers in the management, but the foundation managers had been all along enjoying the contributions from the State which the representation now demanded for the taxpayers. Why was it now demanded for the first time? Because a change was being made which gave an opportunity for the demand. The noble Earl said this was not a compromise. No; many people would call it a confiscation. Dr. Clifford was reported to have said that the Government were taking away the control from the local authority, but that was not the case. They were giving control to the people.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: In what form?
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: In the shape of two managers.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: As against four.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: Yes, and what are they giving to the local authority? They are giving the managers, bound hand and foot, to the elective body. I hope they will manage their affairs well—
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: If they are handed over bound hand and foot, would it not be well, for the mere appearance of the thing, to give those to whom they are bound hand and foot a majority on the Board?
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: Certainly not, because there are certain things that are retained. I, in my turn, would ask the noble Earl a question. Does he attribute no importance to the control of the local authority over the managers?
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Of course I do.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: Is not that a fresh grant of authority?
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: It is, but you are taking away the School Boards. But I think it would perhaps be convenient for the House if we dropped this "shorter catechism."
VISCOUNT GOSCHENsaid he was glad to give the noble Lord an opportunity of amplifying his facts, but had he forgotten that the managers were losing a large amount of control? That could not be denied, and with that loss of control there could be no doubt that their powers were immensely reduced. The managers were not their own masters. A strict control was exercised by the Department, and now to this control another control was added. If there was a bargain, whilst some financial advantages had no doubt accrued to the denominations, the non-denominationalists had also gained a great deal. Yet they cried out that the whole of this great change had been against them, and the noble Lord encouraged them by his eloquence in complaint of a grievance which was no grievance, and when a new power had actually been placed in their hands.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: May I have a final word? But then the noble Viscount is not a Nonconformist !
LORD RIBBLESDALEobjected to the proposed distribution of the management on the grounds so ably stated by the noble Earl. He agreed with Viscount Goschen that nobody would go to martyrdom for the difference between a rate and a tax, but it should be remembered that previous to this proposal the cup of the Nonconformists was already full. At the risk of lowering the tone of the debate, he desired to bring the House back to the practical consideration that the proposed distribution of management would not tend to the efficiency either of education or of control. Only the other day the Wiltshire County Council, a Unionist body, by a vote of thiry-two against seventeen, had passed a resolution to that effect. The managers, if they were to be efficient, had no interest in economy, and the County Council having only one representative on the management, had practically no control over efficiency, and still less over economy. The probable result of the distribution would, therefore, be inefficiency in education and waste of money.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid the Church was accused of having an undue share of representation on the Board. In that accusation it was assumed that the managers would have all the powers they had hitherto possessed. That, however, was far from being the case. Their powers were to be very circumscribed; the name was nearly all that was left to them. They were called managers, but what had they to manage? Two things only. They had simply to appoint the master who should give the religious instruction, and to take care that instruction was given according to direction of the trust deed. All the powers they formerly possessed as to fixing the time, and the substance of the instruction, determining the salary of the teachers, and all the other matters that made management important, had been taken from them and placed in the hands of the local authority. He could quite understand that the arithmetical distribution would have been a matter of great importance if they were managers in the sense they had hitherto been, but as they were now retained in their position merely to superintend the mode of the religious instruction and nothing else, the question was simply whether it was unfair, seeing they gave up their school buildings at a peppercorn rent and nearly all the powers they formerly possessed, that the denomination should have such a majority of the nominal managers as would enable them effectually to carry out the one function remaining to them. He certainly could not see where the injustice came in.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDcontended that the amount of work the managers had to do did not in any way affect the justice or injustice of the arrangement. There was one satisfaction in that line of argument, however, and

CONTENTS

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Bath, M.

Belmore, E.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Bristol, M.

Camperdown,E.

Camden, M.

Coventry, E.

Norfolk, D. (E Marshal.)

Hertford, M.

Dartmouth, E.

Newcastle, D.

Landsdowne, M.

Denbigh, E.

Northumberland, D.

Winchester, M.

Derby, E.

Portland, D.

Zetland, M.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Somerset, D.

Wellington, D.

Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain)

Egerton, E.

Abingdon, E.

Feversham, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Bathurst, E.

Hardwicke, E.

that was that the word "atmosphere" had disappeared. As to the statement that the managers retained the power only of appointing the teacher to give the religious instruction, he pointed out that they retained the power of appointing all the teachers in the school. After listening to Lord Herries' speech, he was afraid it had not been rightly understood that in any plan which he had submitted he included the safeguard of religious education as an essential part of it. If popular control such as he desired to see were adopted, it would be perfectly easy to introduce—and he said it as one who had some practical experience in school matters—every legitimate safeguard in regard to religious instruction. The safeguards he had suggested from time to time were, in his humble opinion, at least as agreeable in their working, both to Anglicans and to Roman Catholics, as the Kenyon-Slaney Clause was likely to be. He feared there was little hope of carrying this Amendment, and he had no desire to take up the time of the House in dividing upon it. [OPPOSITION cries of "Divide."] He was in the hands of the Committee in the matter.
On the Question being put—
EARL NELSON (speaking seated and with his hat on)said,—On a point of Order, I beg to say that some Peers, before leaving the House, particularly asked the Bishop of Hereford whether he was going to divide. He said he was not, and on that consideration they left the House.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: I have already said that I am in the hands of the Committee.
Their Lordships divided:-Contents, 158; Not-Contents, 27.

Harewood, E.

Ely, L. Bp.

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

Hillsborough, E.(M. Downshire)

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Harris, L.

Ilchester, E.

London, L. Bp.

Hatherton, L.

Lathom, E.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Herries, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Newcastle, L. Bp.

Hillingdon, L.

Lichtield, E.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Hothfield, L.

Londesborough, E.

Ripon, L. Bp.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Lucan, E.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Hylton, L.

Lytton, E.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

James, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Kenyon, L.

Mayo, E.

Truro, L. Bp.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Morley, E.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Mount Edgecumbe, E.

Addington, L.

Ludlow, L.

Nelson, E.

Allerton, L.

Macnaghten, L.

Onslow, E.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)

Orford, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Radnor, E.

Balfour, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Hurtly.)

Romney, E.

Barrymore, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Saint Germans, E.

Basing, L.

Montagu of Brandon, L.

Selborne, E.

Belper, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Boston, L.

Mostyn, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Braybrooke, L.

Mount Stephen, L.

Stamford, E.

Braye, L.

Muncaster, L.

Stanhope, E.

Burton, L.

Newton, L.

Vane, E. (Lordouderry.)

Chelmsford, L.

North, L.

Verulam, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

O'Brien, L.

Waldegrave, E [Teller.]

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Redsdale, L.

Wharneliff, E.

Colehester, L.

Robertson, L.

Yarborough, E.

Congleton, L.

Rosmead, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Rowton, L.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Crawshaw, L.

Saltoun, L.

Cross, V.

Dawnay, L.

Seaton, L.

Falkland, V.

De Freyne, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Falmouth, V.

De Mauley, L.

Stalbridege, L.

Goschen, V.

Dormer, L.

Stanmore, L.

Halifax, V.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Teynham, L.

Knutsford, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Tredegar, L.

Llandaff. V.

Ellenborough, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ridley, V.

Eiphinstone, L.

Wenlock, L.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Wentworth, L.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Forester, L.

Wimborne, L.

Chester, L. Bp.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Windsor L.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Glanusk, L.

Zonche of Haryngworth, L.

Durham, L. Bp.

Glenesk, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northampton, M.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Kinnaird, L.

Monkswell, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Reay, L.

Carrington, E.

Brassey, L.

Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

Chesterfield, E. [Teller]

Burghelere, L.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Crewe, E.

Coleridge, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Davey, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Sandwich, E.

Denman, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Spencer, E.

Farrer, L.

Welby, L.

Headley, L.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

VISCOUNT HALIFAX, in moving a new sub-Section requiring trustees or managers to give the local authority six months' notice of their intention to close a school, said it was no use disguising the fact that under the conditions imposed by the Bill, and with every desire to make the best of the measure, it was probable—he believed certain—that many of those responsible for denominational schools would find themselves
in great difficulties. A certain Clause, subsequently to be discussed, simply bristled with difficulties; but, even apart from that Clause, there were many schools, privately owned or otherwise, which those responsible for them would not think it worth while to continue under the new conditions. This had nothing whatever to do with the religious question; it was simply a matter affecting the practical working of the Bill in

427
country districts. There were many schools entirely kept up, the buildings provided, and the salaries of the teachers paid by private owners or individuals, the only assistance derived from the State being the capitation grants earned by the pupils. The conditions under which some of these schools would be placed by the Bill were such that, with the appointment of managers, it would be almost impossible to carry them on. If such schools were given up, the local authority, would have to provide others to take their place, and in order that as little inconvenience as possible might be caused to the ratepayers and the local authority there should be a warning of the intention to surrender these, at present, denominational schools. The object of the Amendment was to secure such notice being given, and he would be prepared to substitute twelve for six months if that was thought desirable.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 30, after 'increased' to insert '(c) If the trustees or managers of schools not provided by the local authority declare their intention to cease to conduct the school as a public elementary school, they shall be bound to give the local education authority six months' notice of such intention.'"—(Viscount Halifax.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I quite recognise that inconvenience might arise in the event of managers feeling unable to continue their schools under the provisions of the Act, in the circumstances contemplated by the noble Viscount, but I do not understand by what right he proposes to compel the managers or trustees or owners of a school to keep the school open against their will for even a period of six months; neither do I see what penalty could be imposed for any infringement of such a Clause.
VISCOUNT HALIFAXasked whether the remark of the noble Duke applied to schools under private ownership without trust deeds, or to schools under trust to provide education. There were two classes of schools, one under the trust deed of the National Society and bound to provide education, and the other merely private property, which might be dealt with just as the owner thought fit. He desired it to be made clear that in the event of schools of either class being compelled to close, due notice should be
428
given to the authority which might have to supply the deficiency, so that no inconvenience should be caused to the public.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: There are, no doubt, the two classes of schools mentioned by the noble Viscount, but I cannot understand by what right he would compel the owner of an elementary school to continue that school under conditions with which he felt he could not comply. The Clause would apply to such a school just as much as to a school under a trust deed. As to schools under trusts, I conceive that whether or not they couldbe closed, would depend on the nature of the particular trust. In either case, I am unable to see by what right the noble Viscount proposes to prevent the trustees or private owners from doing that which, under the trust or by virtue of their ownership, they are entitled to do, or what power there would be to enforce any such provision.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
EARL BEAUCHAMP, who had given notice of a new sub-Section providing that the managers of public elementary schools should exercise such powers of the local authority as that body might determine, said he did not intend to move the Amendment, but simply to ask whether the Government agreed to the definition of the duties of the managers given by the Bishop of Manchester, viz., that their sole duty would be to select the head teacher of religion.
LORD DAVEYasked what would be the position and functions of the managers of the old board schools. As originally introduced, the Bill provided that they were to be managers appointed under the powers of the Act of 1870, but that provision had since been struck out, and there was nothing in the body of the Bill which in any way defined what their functions and powers would he What they could not do their Lordships knew; they could not appoint the master or the teachers, nor could they spend a single shilling of money; but it was very difficult to see what they could do.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: They will do what the local authority directs them.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid the noble Earl had not accurately quoted his statement. What he said was that the managers were directed to appoint the headmaster: they we re then to take care that the religious instructiongiven in the school was in accordance with the terms of ihe trust deed, and that was also included in the Kenyon-Slanoy Amendment.
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the right rev. Prelate had limited the power of the managers to the religious instruction, carefully saying that they had nothing to do with the secular instruction. He desired to know whether the Government accepted that definition of the duties of the managers. His Amendment was based on the definition of managers in the Act of 1870.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MAN CHESTERdid not think he had said the managers could do nothing with regard to secular education, because the local authority, if it pleased, could delegate to them certain minor functions connected with that side of the instruction. But even then they would have only a delegated authority, and would be able to do only as they were directed by the local authority.
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that in order to get a reply from the Government lie would formally move his Amendment. lie had purposely taken the words from the Act of 1870 so that they should be non-controversial, and he hoped the Government would accept them.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 30, at the end of the Clause, insert new sub-Section: '(4.) The managers of public elementary schools shall exercise such of the powers of the local education authority in relation to the control and management of the schools, with or without any conditions or restrictions, as the local authority may from time to time determine.'"—(Earll Beacuchamp.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The words which the noble Earl asks us to accept would give the managers only such powers as the local authority might from time to time determine. I conceive that under the Amendment the local authority would be able to deprive the
430
managers of the power of appointing the teachers. Is that the noble Earl's intention?
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that that was safeguarded by another Clause of the Bill. It was about the thousand and one other things connected with the management of schools that he was anxious to get a statement as to who was to be the authority.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The duties of the managers are very simple. They are responsible for the religious education; they choose the teachers; and they will carry out the instructions of the local lauthority in regard to secular instruction.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Then why not accept my Amendment?
LORD BURGHCLEREasked what was the meaning of sub-Section (3) of Clause 7, if the managers were simply to carry out the instructions of the local authority, and were, as had been stated earlier in the dabate, bound hand and foot to that authority? The sub-Section to which he referred enacted that if any questions arose between the managers and the local education authrity thay were to be determined by the Board of Education. If the Clause meant any thing, it meant there were other duties the managers would have to discharge, and that they were not bount hand and foot to the local authority. No question could possibly arise between two persons one of whom was the absolute slave of the other; therefore the managers must have some independent powers.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:—
THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTONdesired to ask a question with regard to schools in the possession of private individuals, and in connection with which there were no trust deeds. Many such schools had been leased or rented to managers. It would be difficult to say how those managers were elected, but they had been elected somehow, and when

431
one passed away another was elected to take his place. They had, however, done their duties extremely well, and he desired to know what would happen in such cases. Many Church schools were having trust deeds prepared, but certain private owners might not desire to have such a trust, preferring to rent or sell the buildings to the local authority. He could find no provision in the Bill enabling that to lie done. A further question was whether, in a case of such letting or selling, the control of the private owner would pass completely from him. If the private owner disappeared from the scene, in many cases the up-keep also would go, and a certain amount of expense would fall on poor localities.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am not at all sorry the noble Marquess has asked this question, because there are many people in the position of owning private voluntary schools of which they have hitherto had more or less entire control. Undoubtedly the position is not thoroughly understood at present, and we are preparing a long memorandum on the subject, a copy of which I should be glad to supply to the noble Marquess, or to any other noble Lord interested in the matter. The position at present is that an owner may, if he likes, have a trust deed created, subject to any restrictions there may be as to rights in tail. That can be done whether this Bill passes or not. If he does not choose to do that, he may make arrangements to let the school at a peppercorn rent from year to year. In each of those cases he is the owner of the school, and has a perfect right to nominate the managers.
THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTONsaid that what he desired to know was whether the owner, if he received from the local authority a rent for the school, would have the same control as in the past, or whether he would lose all such control.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: If the noble Marquess means a case in which a private school is handed over to a local authority and is converted into a provided school, the school undoubtedly ceases to be a voluntary school, and becomes what is now called a board school. In all probability the owner
432
then would be simply a ratepayer, and would not have the control of the school in the apartment of managers; the managers would be appointed by the local authority.
THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTONpointed out that the memorandum to which the noble Marquess had referred would not have the force of an Act of Parliament. Would it be attached as a I schedule to the Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The memorandum will be issued to instruct individual owners as to what they can do if they wish, so that they may I understand what is the real position with regard to trust deeds at the present time. The whole position is extremely hazy, and our great object at the Board of Education when this Bill is passed and before it is administered will be to remove as far as possible all msapprehension or want of understanding with regard to the matter. That is the reason we propose to issue this memorandum.
THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON, in thanking the noble Marquess for his reply, said he understood from him that there was no provision in the Bill by which a private owner would be prevented from leasing buildings belonging to him to the local authority for the purposes of a public elementary school, and receiving all the advantages given under the Bill.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid there was no mystery about the matter at all. A voluntary school was either subject to a trust deed or it was not. Both cases were covered by the Bill. If the private owner of a school chose to take advantage of the Clauses of the Bill by which the school could be maintained as a denominational school, it would become a maintained school. If, on the other hand, he preferred to hand it over entirely to the local authority, it would become a provided school, the equivalent of a board school. Both courses were open to owners.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I would suggest that noble Lords should read the Clauses of the Act of 1870 relating to transfers, and which are not repealed by this Bill.
Clause 6 agreed to.
House resumed; to be again in Committee Tomorrow.

ORDNANCE SURVEY IN IRELAND.
THE EARL OF BELMORE, in rising to ask "Whether anything can be done to hasten the progress of the Ordnance Survey in Ireland on the 25-inch scale," said he used to put the Question to Lord Cadogan ten or fifteen years ago, but recently, when he had occasion to apply to the head of the Ordnance Survey in Ireland for a particular map, he was told it would not be ready for seven or eight years more, or about twenty years from the time he first took an interest in the matter, when the survey had already been begun. Next year it was understood a Bill would be introduced by which land purchase in Ireland would be largely accelerated. The first essential of land purchase was a correct map, so that he thought both landlords and tenants had a strong case in asking Parliament to put it in the power of the Ordnance Survey Department to undertake at once the survey of the counties yet remaining to be surveyed, and to bring the matter to as speedy a conclusion as possible.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am informed that much has been done to accelerate the re-survey of Ireland during the last three years. The out-turn of the surveyors is fully 75 per cent, greater than it was three years ago, and the out-turn of publication, although it has not yet increased in proportion, will eventually keep pace with the survey unless kept back by want of buildings. The provisions made for the work of the Ordnance Survey in Ireland has been steadily increased in recent years, and amounts this year to as much as £84,000, or more than 37 per cent, of the whole Vote for the United Kingdom. It is expected that the re-survey of Ireland and the publication of the maps will be completed well before the appointed date, viz., the 31st December, 1915. five years earlier than was expected when the programme of the survey was originally arranged. Re-survey on the
434
25-inch scale is proceeding in Antrim, Cork, Donegal, Down, Limerick, Tipperary, and Waterford, and it is complete in Clare, Galway, Kerry, Kilkenny, Mayo, and the south half of Roscommon. The special revision of the 1-inch map of Ireland will also be completed during the present financial year. The President of the Board of Agriculture would be glad to see his way to further the progress of the survey both in Ireland and elsewhere, but the charge upon the Exchequer is a very heavy one, amounting in all to some £282,000, and there is no probability that an application to the Treasury for further funds would be successful.
House adjourned at a quarter past Twelve o'clock a.m. till Three o'clock p.m.