Lords Sitting of 6 November 1906

Preamble
Several Lords took the Oath.
PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against. 1. Of inhabitants, parishioners, ratepayers, or parents of children attending schools in the following towns or parishes, viz.—Llandaff; Barnack-cum-Southorpe; Ipswich (St. Clement's); Blackburn (St. Paul's); Stoke-on-Trent; Marsworth; Hamer; Long-grove; Canterbury (St. Gregory); Streat; Frampton Cotterell; Teston; Teston; Radlett; Bullington; Lydd; Knares-borough; Idle; Berwick; Shipley; South Leverton; Boughwood; Bishopstowe; Offley; Stoke Row; Bilsington; Mere; Birkenshaw; Bispham; Ganton; Bettws; Belchamp Olten; Birstall; Batley; Dacre and Soulby; Newbiggin; Stainton; Wedlebury; Deene-cum-Deenethorpe; Sulham; Sulham; Swin-don; Chapel Allerton; North Cray; Llowes; Moor Monkton and Kersey; Moor Monkton; Burham; Scarborough; St. Arvans; St. Enedor; Wake-field (Holy Trinity); Hackforth; Mount Pellon; Wakefield (Holy Trinity); Dulwich (St. Barnabas); Bradwell; Friern Barnet; Aycliffe; Old Brentford (St. Georges) (2); Scarborough (St. Martins); Chatteris; Esdon or Exton; Nettlebed; Llanrhystyd; Pea Kirk; Thursby; Aikton (2); Waverton-cum-D undraw; Laxton; Corston; Southampton (All Saints); Sherfield English; Hunslet: Aberavon; Morden, Merton, and Wimbledon; Lampeter Velfrey; Lowick and Slipton; Paddington (St. James); Lend-field; Gosforth - on - Tyne; Wasing; Wereham; Little Wittenham (2); Wraxall; Stedham; Liversedge; Brace-borough; Hope Mausel; Belton; Or-lestone; Royston; Stogumber (2); Nun Monkton; South Cadbury; Aldington; Chelford; Kirkbride; St. Pauls, Silloth; Longville, Orton; Malpas; Barrington (2); Darwen; Rustington; Failsworth; Pennington; Bromberrow; Holborn (St. John's) (2); Islington (All
  238
  Saints); Barnsley; Harlow; Walcot; Fakenham; Clelwood; Slaithwaite; Heathkeld; Alderley; Messing; Vern-ham Dean (3); Grafton Underwood; Balderstone; Elland; Holme; Long Crendon (2); Shudy Camps; Great Orton; Holme Cultram; Wigton; Chi-Chester and District (2); Preston-on-Stour; St. Mary Stoke (Ipswich); Wimlish (Saffron Wallden); Petersham; South Raynham; Helhoughton; York (St. Lawrence); Swan bourne; Hinton; Seer Green; Monkton and Herrington; Clunbury; Drayton; Hindringharn; Bournemouth (St. John's); Bournemouth; Branksome; Stinchcombe; Hinton-on-the-Green; Llancarfan; Mog-gerhanger; Arrnloy and Wortley; Prestbury (2); Eaton; Cannington; Dowdes-well; Hampnett and Stowell; Martin-dele; Thursby; Rosley-with-Woodside; Hampnett and Stowell; Sambrook; Upton; Newark - on - Trent; Arnold; Bleasby; Newark; Shelton; Codnor and Loscoe (2); Breedon-on-the-Hill; Sparkenhoe; Brighouse; Canterbury (St Martin's); Redenhall (2); White Colne; Llandon; Culmington; Edgcott; Acton Turville; Stocklancl; Sibthorpe; Cud-desdon; Gonalston; Wingerworth; Lullington; Doverage; Ossington; East Bridgford; Sunninghill; Tideswell; Carsington (2); Llangattock; Torquay (St. Lukes); Laxton; Llanvihangel; Bramley; Barrow Gurney; Newbury; St. Erth; Caterham Valley; Westonbirt (2); Llandewi; Shaw; Cofton Hackett; Waterhead; Stone; Nether Stowey (2); Crick; Wentbridge (2); Eltham; Llangattock; Little Horwood (2); Burchetts Green; Stubbings; Little Billing; Shaw; Cranborne; Long Wittenham; Kirk Fenton; Darrington; Hull (St. James'); Darrington; Normanton; Cranborne; Bettws Penport; Brassaleg; Hull; Bath; Llanetltlyd; Kelmseote; Icomb; Bolton-le-Moors; West Grin-stead; Norton; Rockfield (3); Enfield Forty Hill (2); Hurley and Stubbings; Llanwrim; Norton; New Brompton; Saintbury (St.Nicholas); Bolton Percy; Leigh; Sudeley Manor (2); Speen; Perraton (South Featherstone); Wart-ling; Axbridge (2); Norwich; Middle-ton; Hoyland Nether; Whitwood Mere; Oxford (St. Mary Magdalene); Coveley; Bicton; Fiddington; Harringworth: Horsley Wood-house; Harringworth;

  239
  Allestree; Newbottle and Charlton; Eakring; Ballingham; Llan-rothall; Whitbourne; Middleton-on-the-Hill; Kingstone and Thruxton; Yarkhill; Lingen; Hereford (St. Martin's); Ackworth, Yorks; Leominster; Canterbury (St. Mary Magdalene); Goodrich and Marston; Yarkhill; Spelsbury; Llanwarne; Kimbolton; Islip; Aston Ingham; Openshaw; Hessle; South Dalton; Wolvercote; Ashton-under-Lyme; Little Moss (Manchester); Lees-field; Waterloo Ashton; Park Bridge (Leesfield); Gatefield; Leesfield, Knolls Lane (Manchester); Welton; Probus; Newsan-cum-Plush; Ashton (Manchester); Weeley; Berry Pomeroy; Fritwell; Leeds (St. Johns); Graveley; Hawkesbury and Tresham; Hallaton (2); Winchcombe (2); Michaelston-le-Pet; Fakenham; Highbury; Ashford; Nottingham; Westcote; Norton-sub-Hamdon; Fyfield; Biggin; Puttenham; Hucclecote; Weekley; Clandown; Whitminster (2); Whatley; King's Lynn (St. Margaret's); Brookthorpe and Whaddon; Blackburn (St. Michael's); Pen-zance (St. Mary's); Truro; Dunnington; South Petherton; Ashleworth; Hinck-ley; Bray; Langford; Holmes (Asking-ton) Mareham and Garford; Penzance (St. Mary's); Bonvilston; Glodwick (St. Mark's); Sleaford and District; Walton-le-Dale; Pontenewydd; Hors-ley (2); Frankby; Coleford; Blackburn (St. Silas); Holcombe; Cheltenham (St. John's and St. Mark's); Boston; Childrey; Llanarth; Goodby Marwood; Hanging Heaton; Garnsley; Whitbourne; Kilmington; Black Notley; Brimscombe; Staplehill; Gedling; Broadwell; Bournemouth (Saint Paul's) (2); Leafield; Raynham, East; Raynham, West; Woolston (Gloucester); Tredington; Norton; Llanvair Kil-geddin; South Cerney; Haughton (Saint Mary's); Chedworth, Clevedon; Trull; Cawthorne; Princes Risborough; Tick-encote; Bishopsworth; Marbury; Cul-ham; Lydney; Worksop; Dyflryn; Kilburn (St. Augustine's); Farnsfield; Leicester; Scarborough; Kingswinsford (St. Mary's); Lyminster; Westham; Pevensey; Westmeston; Isfield; Brighton; Amberley; Stonegate; Sed-lescombe; Danehill; Slindon; Wool-beding; Brighton (St. Stephens); South-over; Eastbourne (All Saints); Mayfield;
  240
  Clapham and Patching; Hastings (All Saints); East Chiltington; Compton and Upmarden; Bepton; Eastbourne (Holy Trinity); Brighton; Fittleworth; Eastbourne (Christ Church and St. John's) Clayton-with-Frickley; Penrith, West; Charlton and Newbottle; Norwich (St. Giles); Morley St. Botolph; East Dean; Staplefield (St. Mark's); Nuthurst; Poling; and Brighton (St. Margaret's); 2. Of Norwich Rural Deanery; Manchester Diocesan Conference; Roman Catholic Residents in the Borough of Preston; Aikton Habitation of the Primrose League; Chapter of Clergy of the Rural Deanery of Wigton; Teachers and children of the parishes of Bowness-on-Solway and Aikton; Managers of Aikton Church of England School; Managers of Bigland's School; Governors and Managers of Wiggonby Endowed School; Delegates of Managers of Affiliated Schools (Northern Division of Cumberland); and Parish Council of Aikton and Clergy and Laity of the Rural Deanery of Wigton.
  Read and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS. ETC.

  COLONIES (MISCELLANEOUS): No. 37. CEYLON.
  Report on the results of the Mineral Survey in 1904–1905 by Professor W. R. Dunstan, M.A., LL.D.. F.R.S., Director of the Imperial Institute.
  Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (LEYTON URBAN DISTRICT).
  Order made by the council of the urban district of Leyton, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for chemists and druggists' shops within the urban district.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF LANCASTER).
  Order made by the council of the county of Lancaster re-dividing the Accrington Parliamentary Division into polling districts.

  LUNACY ACTS, 1890 AND 1891.
  Rules made by the Commissioners in Lunacy under the above Acts, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, 1906.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  House again in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 4:—
  LORD KENYON,in the absence of Viscount Ridley, moved to omit the words "after holding a public inquiry with reference to the application "in the first sub-section, in order to insert" or, in a case of dispute with the applicants for the facilities, if the Board of Education are satisfied." He said that the subsection, as he proposed to amend it, would read —
  "(1) A local education authority shall afford extended facilities for religious instruction of some special character not permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and in accordance with the trust deed, i f any of the school, in any transferred voluntary school, by permitting the religious instruction given in the school to be instruction of that special character, notwithstanding anything in that section, if an application is made to them for those extended facilities, and if they are satisfied, or, in case of dispute with the applicants for the facilities, if the Board of Education are satisfied,—"
  This Amendment was largely consequential on the substitution of the word "shall" for "may" in the opening line of the clause. The clause as amended provided that the local education authority should, subject to certain conditions, grant extended facilities. Those conditions were largely matters of fact, and it did not seem necessary that a local inquiry should be compulsorily held. Such inquiries necessarily created a good deal of local disturbance, and it seemed to him that it would be better if the matters in dispute went to the Board of Education in the first instance.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 28, to leave out from the word ' satisfied ' to the end of line 29, and to
  242
  insert the words ' or in case of dispute with the applicants for the facilities, if the Board of Education are satisfied.' "—(Lord Kenyon.)
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, it is no doubt perfectly true that the situation as regards Clause 5 is materially modified by the decision to which your Lordships, as I think very unfortunately, arrived yesterday. So far as the appeal to the Board of Education is concerned, it may not appear to matter very greatly whether that appeal is mentioned in this clause or in the other. But if, as I understand, the noble Lord proposes to abolish the inquiry to be held by the local authority, that is not an arrangement to which we are disposed to agree, and if the noble Lord presses that point I am afraid we shall have to oppose him.
  LORD KENYONsaid it was the provision with regard to the compulsory inquiry that he was trying to amend. He was prepared, if the noble Lord wished it, to insert after the words "public inquiry" the words "if they think fit."
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, we have no desire whatever to get rid of the local inquiry. In many cases it may be most necessary that a local inquiry should take place, but I understand that what my noble friend has in his mind is that there might be cases where a local inquiry would be superfluous, and that in those cases it is not necessary to put the locality to the expense and inconvenience of holding one. That seems a reasonable proposal. But I could not agree to the proposal that the whole reference to the local inquiry should be taken out of this clause at this point.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Perhaps the matter might stand over on that understanding.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF JERSEYmoved to omit the paragraphs (a) and (b), of the first sub-section, and to substitute the following—
  "(a) That a majority of the parents of the children attending the school desire such

  243
  facilities; and (b) that satisfactory arrangements in respect of religious instruction can be made for the other children attending the school."
  He said that he did not think the ballot was a very good way of finding out the wishes of people in rural districts. It would be quite possible for the local authority to arrive at the wishes of the district in the first instance by means of petitions presented to them, and, after the parish had approached the local authority and asked for these extended facilities, the local authority could hold a public inquiry and all sides could be heard. He admitted that there were differences of opinion as to the word "majority." It was thought by some that a bare majority would be enough and by others that there should be a two-thirds majority. He would leave that point to be decided by the Committee. As to the proposed new sub-section (b), he thought it would be possible for arrangements to be made in a building close by for the children who wished to avail themselves of the conscience clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 28, to leave out from the word ' satisfied ' to the end of line 42, and to insert,' (a) that a majority of the parents of the children attending the school desire such facilities; and (b) that satisfactory arrangements in respect of religious instruction can be made for the other children attending the school."—(The Earl of Jersey.)
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, it occurs to me that the noble Earl has perhaps covered a rather unnecessarily wide field in the form which his Amendment has taken. He deals with three entirely different points—the number necessary before one of these schools can be constituted, the ballot, and the provision for the religious instruction for the minority elsewhere. I should like to ask your Lordships whether it would not be more agreeable and convenient, as we are in opposition to him on each of these points, that they should be taken separately rather than together, and with that purpose in view I suggest that an Amendment standing in the name of Earl Cawdor, moving to omit the provision for a ballot, should be considered first. It certainly does seem
  244
  to me rather to confuse the issue if we have to take all three questions at once.
  EARL CAWDORsaid it was difficult to fall in with the view of the noble Earl, as all these questions were linked up together. His Amendment on the Paper was to leave out the words—
  "As the result of a ballot taken previously to the inquiry as to the wishes of the parents in accordance with this section, it appears that."
  He did not think he could be excluded, in speaking on that Amendment, from dealing with the other matters referred to by the noble Earl, as they were all part and parcel of the machinery by which the Government proposed to establish efficient facilities under this clause. He proposed at this stage to say what he had to say upon his Amendment. Under this clause he assumed that the Government were absolutely pledged, not alone to putting facilities into the Bill, but to making those facilities absolutely and truly efficient. Before the Bill was introduced pious opinions were expressed by members of His Majesty's Government as to what ought to be done, but they had time after time looked at the clauses of the Bill without finding any provisions carrying out those views. He was perfectly ready to accept the statement that noble Lords opposite and His Majesty's Government were in earnest in endeavouring to make these extended facilities absolute realities.
  He asked their Lordships to consider for a few moments how this proposal was to be carried out. The Bill as it was introduced merely provided that extended facilities should be granted, or might be granted if four-fifths of the parents desired them. Then in Committee in the other House an Amendment was carried by the Government providing that the ballot should be brought into force in order to ascertain the wishes of the parents. The ballot was to be absolutely secret. Their Lordships had before them the draft ballot regulations which had been issued in connection with this Bill, and to them he proposed to refer in a few moments. He thought it was most desirable that they should ascertain the views of the parents in favour or against extended

  245
  facilities by the very best method in order that those opinions might be expressed freely and fully without being hampered or biassed by undue influence. He cared not whether this was done by means of the ballot or in any other way; he wished the parents to be able freely to record their opinions. But how was this clause going to work?
  He had been surprised at the want of effort on the part of His Majesty's Government to make the Bill a workable Bill. For the first time that day they had Amendments placed on the Paper by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. Some of them would no doubt have looked with curiosity to see what those Amendments were, but they proved to be merely trivial drafting Amendments. Did noble Lords opposite mean to assert that the Bill was so well drafted and so carefully considered that it was going to be an easily worked Bill? If so, they were the only people in the world who thought so. If they wished to make the Bill a workable one, why did not the Government come down to their Lordships' House and point out how the clauses, one after another, could be turned into workable clauses in place of the inextricable confusion in which they now were?
  Let them consider for a moment what it was that was required under this clause in order that facilities might be obtained. First of all, four-fifths of the parents must desire to have the facilities; and, in the second place, it must be shown at a public inquiry that there was sufficient public school accommodation in the schools not affected. The draft ballot regulations provided two things. They first of all provided that the parents who wished for extended facilities should vote in one column, and those who did not wish for extended facilities were to vote in another column. Both classes, those in favour and those against, were clearly by the ballot regulations intended to vote, and provision was made accordingly. Let them assume that four-fifths of those who voted asked for extended facilities. They came then to the second consideration. Before I a case could be established at the local; inquiry it must be shown that for the children other than the children of the
  246
  parents who had asked for the facilities there was sufficient suitable school accommodation in the district. How were they going to ascertain this? How could they possibly tell whether there was accommodation for these children unless in the first instance they knew who the children were, what kind of accommodation they wanted and whether it was in the infants' school or in the higher standard schools? It was necessary further, to know where they lived and whether they could get to the schools proposed for them.
  The ballot was secret. If they were going to maintain the secrecy of the ballot, he contended that it was absolutely impossible to prove a case for extended facilities under this clause. He asked the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to explain step by step the method by which proof could be given, at the same time maintaining the absolute secrecy of the ballot. Some parents, of course, would have voted for extra facilities, and a good many might not have voted at all, and. therefore, he held that before they could come to any definite conclusion it was absolutely essential that they should ascertain who the children were. In this case there was an attempt made in the clause to combine two things that were really quite incompatible first, the secrecy of the ballot, and secondly, the necessity before a public inquiry to establish a case in favour of extended facilities by showing that there was accommodation in other available schools for certain definite children.
  He wished to say one word with regard to a note it the draft ballot regulations. There was laid down in these draft regulations the form in which the vote was to be taken and a sample of the counterfoil, and then followed what appeared to him a very peculiar note. It appeared three times and was to this effect—
  "If a person votes in favour of the affording of extended facilities, the child ill respect of which he so votes cannot be reckoned in the number of those for whom accommodation is to be required in other schools under Section IV., (l),sub-section (b) of the Education Act of 1906."
  But if the secrecy of the ballot was maintained, how could they possibly identify any child or any parent as coming under this note? He adhered

  247
  to the view that it was of the essence of the clause that they should find out, in the best possible way, exactly what the free and independent opinion of the parents was, but they must not, while posing before the country as giving extended facilities in this clause, kill those facilities by the machinery put into the Bill. He asked the noble Earl how he thought it possible to maintain the secrecy of the ballot, and at the same time enable anyone coming before the public inquiry to establish a case in favour of extended facilities by showing that there was accommodation for certain definite children.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, before I reply to the observations of the noble Earl who has just sat down, perhaps I may be permitted to ask where we stand. I appealed to your Lordships just now to take these matters separately. The noble Earl opposite objected, stating that he desired to deal with a number of other matters in this clause, without which he considered he was unable to make his speech. As a matter of fact, he did not deal with any of them, and I should be very glad if one of your Lordships on the Front Bench opposite could inform me whether we are taking these matters together or one by one. Are we going to deal first with the question of the ballot and divide upon that—and then deal with the question of numbers and divide upon that? Or is it the intention of your Lordships to take these perfectly distinct and different matters together and have one division upon them?
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNagreed with the noble Earl that it was difficult to discuss these several matters at once. He suggested that they should discuss the ballot first, and then, if the ballot was rejected, they could come to the consideration of the Amendment moved by Lord Jersey; the question of the majority could next be discussed, and the other questions to which the noble Earl referred could be dealt with later.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: That seems to me a most reasonable suggestion, and it entirely meets my views. It would be obviously unfair, I think, to discuss all
  248
  these questions at once, because some noble Lords might approve of one and disapprove of another. Consequently if the course suggested by the noble Viscount is taken it will entirely meet our wishes on this side of the House.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not think my noble friend Lord Cawdor in any way suggested to the Committee that we should decide upon all these questions by a simultaneous vote. He argued, I think with very great force, that these points are overlapping points, and that it was not possible to discuss the question of facilities without referring to the whole of these matters.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsuggested that the Committee might consider the omission of all the words from "application" to "section" inclusive. That would enable their Lordships to decide the question of whether there was or was not to be a ballot, and it would then be equally competent for Lord Jersey to move his Amendment as to the majority of parents.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I will now proceed to say a few words in reply to the noble Earl opposite. The noble Earl's speech did not appear to me to stand in any particular relation to his Amendment. His Amendment is to abolish the ballot altogether, but he did not adduce a single argument in favour of that course. What he did was to endeavour to show that our ballot regulations were inconvenient, and did not carry out their purpose, but, on the question whether a ballot was the proper form of deciding the question as to how many parents were in favour of these particular facilities, I understood the noble Earl to have something of an open mind. If so, he was undoubtedly following the example of the Leader of his Party in the other House, because when the matter was before the House of Commons, Mr. Balfour, while, I think, making the same criticisms as those made by the noble Earl, certainly did not express himself as being altogether against the ballot. I confess, therefore, that I am somewhat at a loss to know whether I ought to argue the question as to the necessity of the ballot as against

  249
  a system of open voting, or whether I am merely expected to say something in reply to the special points in relation to the ballot regulations issued by the Board of Education, to which the noble Earl objects. Perhaps I had better say a word on the question of the holding of the ballot as the Motion is to exclude the ballot.
  I must remind your Lordships that yesterday you extended these facilities to rural districts, and I got into a little trouble, I am afraid, with some of your Lordships opposite through venturing to hint that there might be parts of rural England in which the action of individuals was not so perfectly free as it is in others. The noble Marquess Lord Lansdowne said I had drawn a somewhat lurid picture of rural life in England. I thought my picture was drawn in very sober colours indeed, and I cannot help thinking that the noble Marquess attached perhaps too much weight to his own experience, to the state of things which, as I know, exists on his own estate, and, I hope, on many other estates, and did not make allowance for what might obtain in other parts of the country. However, I will take it as being the opinion of the majority of the Committee that there is no part of England in which the fact that a man is a very ardent Dissenter or a very active Radical can operate in any way to his material disadvantage.
  Not only is it the fact that the noble Earl opposite agreed that the vote of these parents ought to be given everywhere without fear or favour; it is also the fact that we wish to get a perfectly definite opinion from these parents, and we desire, I frankly admit, to put them to a certain degree of trouble to express that opinion. If a mere list of names were enough, such a list, I have no doubt, could be easily obtained in many places. There is nothing simpler than to add one's name to a list when no liability whatever is involved. I remember once being on a body who had to administer a charitable fund for the benefit of old and sick people engaged formerly in a particular employment. Those people were appointed to the benefits of the charity largely on the recommendation of the many employers of that particular kind
  250
  of labour in the neighbourhood. We found discrimination difficult owing to the fact that all the employers of labour in every case wrote their names at the, bottom of the lists in favour of all the candidates. And for a very obvious reason. When a man comes to your house to ask you to put your name to a paper, your object is to get him out of the house as rapidly as you can, and where no liability is concerned the probability is that the simplest way to do that is to comply with his request. Consequently, in a case of this kind we do not desire to rely on indiscriminate signatures, but we mean that there shall be a definite expression of preference on the part of the particular parents who desire these special facilities.
  I am quite; aware of the difference which exists between noble Lords opposite and ourselves in this matter, it is true, as the noble Marquess Lord Lansdowne yesterday pointed out, that we look on this matter from a different point of view. Noble Lords opposite wish to have the denominational system as the rule and the undenominational system as the exception. As the Bill now stands noble Lords opposite have only left somewhere about 5,000 schools or less, out of the whole number in England, in which no denominational teaching can be given. We are quite aware of what their point of view is. Our point of view is the opposite one— that the undenominational system should be the rule and the denominational the exception. That sets a great gulf between us and your Lordships opposite. Whether in the course of these discussions that gulf can be bridged, I cannot say; but, unless it can, there can be no question of arriving at a settlement of this matter.
  Now, my Lords, I come to the point raised by the noble Earl opposite. He first of all complained that we had not put a number of Amendments on the Paper. I must once more repeat that the Bill as it comes up from the other House represents the views of His Majesty's Government, and, as regards minor Amendments relating to improvements in form, I can only say that we do not desire to put down

  251
  Amendments on such points as those until we have had the benefit of receiving the valuable advice of noble Lords opposite. After all, there are several stages in a matter of this kind, and Amendments which have to do with form and not with substance are always, I think, more fitly dealt with in quite the later stages of the Bill. I am bound to say that if symmetry is what is aimed at, the Bill as it has been amended by noble Lords opposite leaves a great deal more to be desired than when it arrived in your Lordships' House. On the question of the ballot the noble Earl drew attention to the draft regulations. Those regulations, it must be remembered, are only draft regulations; they are not regulations finally agreed upon to be issued in this form. I understand that the point to which the noble Earl particularly addressed himself was as to how it was possible, at the inquiry to be held after the ballot, that, a parent should be able to say he had not voted without the identity of all the parents who had voted becoming—
  EARL CAWDOR: I did not say that the fact of a parent stating that he had not voted would disclose how someone else had voted. What I said was that there were to be two categories of voters, and that if you disclosed either of these you would be violating the secrecy of the ballot.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I apprehend the noble Earl's point. What happens is this. The ballot is held, and four-fifths of the votes are in favour of extended facilities. The next proceeding is to fulfil the second condition in the Bill, as to whether sufficient accommodation exists. The same number of places would have to be found in other schools as there were minority voters. I can assure the noble Earl that he overrates the difficulty of finding places for a given number of children. It is perfectly easy to strike an average in that matter. It is not necessary to know who the individual child is.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What does the noble Earl mean by striking an average?
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: An average of age. I understood the noble Earl's point was that a certain number might be children of the higher standards and a certain number infants. I think the noble Earl made that point.
  EARL CAWDOR: That is so. I said that you would require to know how many were infants and how many required accommodation in the higher standards. They might all be children requiring accommodation in infant schools. You surely could not average those children. You must know who they are, and without that information you cannot put them in their right places.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl seems to assume that the number of vacant places must inevitably be so limited that it is necessary to find, so to speak, a square hole to put every child in. In practice it will be found that in. one or two neighbouring schools there are a considerable number of places over. That would happen in nineteen cases out of twenty, and to suppose that it is necessary that every child's age, height, and weight must be discovered before you could find accommodation for it in another school is the most fanciful suggestion I have ever heard made in this House. I do not know whether the noble Earl desires me to dwell on the point as to what would happen in the event of a parent not voting. If a parent is indifferent to obtaining accommodation elsewhere and desires to continue in the four-fifths school, it is competent for him to go before the inquiry and, by a very very simple and ingenious contrivance, make it clear that he has not voted, and, therefore, his child or children need not be taken into account when it comes to be a question of finding accommodation.
  EARL CAWDOR: I never suggested that you disclosed the ballot on finding out that some one had not voted. It is an argument which the noble Earl is producing for his own purposes.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I did not hint that the noble Earl had used that argument. It is an extremely good argument from our point of view, because it docs add considerably to the chance of

  253
  those who have fulfilled the four-fifths condition not losing the benefit of that through the possibility of there not being accommodation enough elsewhere. We consider this provision for a ballot to be of the first importance, and we are therefore quite unable to accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I understand that it is the general opinion of the House that it would be convenient as far as possible to confine the present discussion to the question whether there should be a ballot in any case, reserving further discussion as to what the numbers in the clause should be or how the ballot should be conducted. I venture to submit to your Lordships that, although it is quite possible that recourse to the ballot may be a part of the necessary proceedings in certain cases, it does not follow that it is necessary that there should be a ballot in every case. It is quite possible that there may be cases in which the claim for extended facilites is of so clear a character that there is no necessity for a preliminary resort to the ballot.
  The noble Earl who had just spoken said that he attached very little importance to any expression of opinion on the part of the parents which did not involve some trouble on their part. I presume that his attention has been called, as mine has been, to certain cases in which the parents of children attending voluntary schools have already in the only way they could, by attaching their signatures to a memorial, expressed a desire that the denominational character of the schools should be maintained. I admit that those signatures are not proof that there is any very strong or active desire on the part i of those parents, but at all events they are proof that they entertain no objection to the continuance of the school as a voluntary school; and I do not see why the evidence furnished by such memorials should not be taken into consideration and given effect to without having recourse to a perfectly unnecessary ballot.
  I am acquainted with a town of considerable importance in Yorkshire where Nonconformist opinions are very strong.
  254
  The largest and the most numerous schools in that town are council schools, but there are two small voluntary schools, the parents of the children attending which have almost unanimously signed a memorial in favour of the retention of denominational instruction in those schools. Now, my Lords, I want to ask what conceivable harm can be done to anyone in such cases as those if, on application being made to the local education authority, those schools are permitted to continue as they are? There is ample accommodation in the council schools for all the children who do not want to make use of the voluntary schools; and the voluntary schools are actually attended by a considerable number of Nonconformist children, who might perfectly well, if their parents desired it, make use of the council schools. I fail to see that in that case the preliminary resort to the ballot required by this clause should be thought necessary. It is quite possible that the result of the ballot might not be to continue the denominational character of school, for, as I have said, a very considerable number of those attending the school are the children of Nonconformists. An agitation might be got up against the continuance of those schools, and the parents who have signed this memorial might be induced to vote in the ballot against their retention as denominational schools.
  I ask, who can possibly be injured by the retention of the denominational character of those schools in such circumstances? There can in this Cease be no question that the parents of the children attending them have objection to the religious instruction which is given in them; there can be no question that there is ample accommodation for the children who desire religious instruction; and who is damaged by allowing the authority in that case, if they think fit, to sanction the granting of special facilities in those schools without going through the preliminary process of ballot, which possibly might result in a different conclusion? I admit there may be cases of a less obvious character. There may be cases in which it is doubtful whether the majority of the parents do

  255
  or do not desire that these facilities should be given, and it may be desirable that in a subsequent stage of the proceedings resort should be had to the ballot or some other means of ascertaining the facts; but I submit that it is an unnecessary proceeding to require that a ballot should in all cases be taken before the authority is even permitted to extend these facilities to existing voluntary schools.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE)said the point raised by Earl Cawdor as to the difficulty of identifying the children was a good but an ingenious point, and one of those points which were too small to be really taken into consideration in a matter of this kind. De minimis non curat lex was a very sound maxim in this matter. The Board of Education and the local authorities had constantly to deal by the law of averages with questions relating to accommodation in the schools and he saw no difficulty in applying that rough and ready rule to this case. In that way the difficulty raised by the noble Earl would be got over. Any suggestion from the noble Duke opposite was bound to receive the most careful and earnest attention of His Majesty's Government. As to the case of the town in Yorkshire quoted by the noble Duke, he would repeat that it would have been unjust if, in cases where the wishes of the majority were met, there was not also protection for the teaching desired by the minority. Therefore the noble Duke and His Majesty's Government in regard to this matter were, so to speak, animated by a common desire. The view of His Majesty's Government was that it would be better on the whole to have uniform machinery to deal with all the cases. Though the Government could not accept this Amendment, they were, nevertheless, inclined to admit that the matter was one in regard to which a good deal might be said, and on further consideration means might be discovered for] meeting the cases described.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My*Lords, after the statement to which we have just listened we shall certainly not suggest to my noble
  256
  friend behind me to press his Amendment. I desire, however, to make it perfectly plain that when he placed it on the Paper he did so, not because of any objection entertained on these benches to the ballot as such, but because we believed that the ballot clause in the Bill would be unworkable. The sole object of the ballot is to give protection to those who are about to vote, and though some of us may not consider that that protection is so necessary as noble Lords opposite appear to think, I freely admit that, after hearing the statement which the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council made to us last night with regard of the pressure to which he believed voters in such a case were liable, I should be reluctant to resist any proposal made by him for the purpose of rendering such pressure impossible.
  But, my Lords, as I said just now, the clause as it stands seems to us unworkable. That, I think, was demonstrated by my noble friend behind me, and it has scarcely been denied on the benches opposite that he was successful in making his point. I am afraid I must add that the explanation offered by the Lord President left my mind in a greater state of bewilderment than it was at the outset as to how it can be possible to ascertain whether sufficient places had been provided for the minority without some steps being taken to find out how the minority was constituted, the ages of the children, the standards at which they had arrived, and their places of residence. I, however, will not labour that point. I merely wish to take note, and I do so with satisfaction, that the point is one upon which His Majesty's Government desire to reserve their opinion. That being so, we shall certainly not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that before their Lordships left this subject he would like to ask a question as to the way in which sub-section (a) would work. The noble Earl the Lord President, when appealed to with reference to the draft ballot regulations, stated that it did not follow that the ballot would be worked under those draft regulations. What was the good of laying draft regulations on the Table

  257
  if it did not follow that they would be used? To adopt the expression used on the previous night by Lord Grimthorpe, it was "pulling the leg" of the House. It had to appear, as the result of the ballot, that the parents of at least four-fifths of the children attending the school desired the facilities. How were they to get that by this Bill? Supposing there were 100 parents, and of sixty who voted fifty recorded their vote in favour of extended facilities and ten against. How were they to obtain by means of the ballot the opinion of the other forty, and in what position would they be?
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: In reply to the noble Earl I have to say that, under such circumstances as those to which he has alluded, the conditions of sub-section (a) of Section 1 of Clause 4 would not be satisfied, and the school would not have the chance of becoming a four-fifths school.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Are the absent parents counted either way?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The parents of four-fifths of the children have to vote.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid the Duke of Devonshire had made a suggestion which he understood from the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs His Majesty's Government were quite prepared to consider. Might he ask whether they would object to the insertion of words in the clause in order to carry out the suggestion that the ballot should be at the option of the local anthority? If those words were inserted the ballot would not be held unless there was real reason for it in the view of the local education authority. That could be effected by the insertion, after the word "ballot," of the words "which may be directed by the local education authority to be taker."
  EARL CAWDOR: Will the noble Earl also reply to my point in regard to the Note?
  * THE EARL OF CREWE: I hope the noble Viscount will allow us to consider the point and give him an answer at a later stage. I cannot reply at the
  258
  moment. The noble Earl (Lord Cawdor) called attention to the Note appended to the Schedule, and his point was, I think, that the Note was open to some objection on the ground that it would infringe the secrecy of the ballot. I think I can reassure the noble Earl on that point. It is simply a warning to a parent that, if he votes in favour, the number of places which are required, or possibly might be required, elsewhere for accommodation is reduced by one.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: By the number of his children, I suppose.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: He had a ballot paper for each child. Therefore if he had six children it would be reduced by six. Supposing there was a school with 150 children. In order to warn the parent what the effect would be he is told that if he gives his one vote, or six votes, whatever the case may be, in favour of facilities he must not then go and ask for accommodation elsewhere.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not know that the noble Earl has explained what further opportunity will be given of considering the question of the preliminary ballot. I understand that the Amendment before the Committee is the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Jersey, and if the words which he proposes to omit are left in the clause the question of a preliminary ballot will be thereby concluded.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwas convinced that nothing but mischievous results would follow from allowing local authorities an option in regard to the ballot. The Government had undertaken to consider the question and see what could be done between now and the Report stage, and he hoped that no hasty pledge would be given across the Table.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid he would like to know, if his noble friend Lord Cawdor withdrew his Amendment, what further opportunity there would be of discussing the matter, and whether fresh draft regulations would be prepared before the next stage, so that noble Lords

  259
  would have an opportunity of fully and fairly discussing the matter.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: The ballot regulations are in substance what we propose to issue, but we do not wish to pledge ourselves to the precise words and terms in every instance, and therefore they were laid as draft regulations. Great pressure was put on my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education to give the substance of the regulations as early as possible, and therefore he brought them out in this form, which he could not say was absolutely final. But they are in the form in which, speaking generally, they will be issued. In respect to the point raised by the noble Duke, I assume that if there is any question of reconsidering any part of this matter all the Amendments which would cause the complete abandonment of the ballot are withdrawn. I imagine that is understood. As regards the possibility mentioned by my noble friend behind me of some modification after consideration, I must, of course, remind the Committee that any modification of that kind would be almost necessarily contingent on the whole of the rest of the clause remaining in that form in which it was when it came up to this House.
  EARL CAWDORsaid that, before consenting to withdraw his Amendment, he would like to know whether they were going to receive at a later stage a statement of the views of His Majesty's Government on this clause, which was at present unworkable. He thought they were entitled to an answer to that question.
  LORD FITZMAURICEheld that he had shown that the clause in itself was perfectly workable. There might possibly be a case where a decision could be come to without the necessity for a ballot, and that case would be considered.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwas sure the enormous majority of their Lordships were satisfied that the Lord President had made no answer to the difficulties which had been pointed out, and, seeing it had been shown that the
  260
  clause was unworkable, the Government should bring up new words.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I think we are entitled to ask for some suggestion from noble Lords opposite. We are perfectly prepared to carry the clause as it stands, and have not the slightest desire to make any alteration in it whatever. The noble Earl opposite drew attention to one point, and I explained that, although it might have a certain plausibility, I did not think that in practice anything would arise out of it. The point raised by the noble Duke is an entirely different one, and it requires no redrafting of the clause. If any concession of that kind were made, as to which I can say nothing whatever, it could be done by the insertion of a very few words. If noble Lords do not like this clause I hope they will draw up one and put it on the Paper. If. however, noble Lords dislike the clause and wish to see it out of the Bill I should advise them to divide against it on the present occasion.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid the Opposition had no objection to the principle of the clause. They desired as strongly as noble Lords opposite that the wishes of the parents should be ascertained without the smallest external pressure whatever. If the Government thought that in ordinary cases the best way was the ballot, then the Opposition had not the smallest objection to the principle of the ballot. All they asked was that the Government should deal fairly with the practical difficulty which had been pointed out.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I repeat that we will certainly consider the whole matter before Report in the light of the speech of the noble Earl and the suggestion of the noble Duke.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXreferred to the statement of the noble Earl the Lord President to the effect that the question which divided the Committee was whether denominational teaching should be the rule and undenominational teaching the exception, or vice versa. He denied that that was the question which divided the Committee. The question which divided

  261
  them was whether or not parents who sent their children to school should have the kind of teaching they preferred for their children. He supported the Amendment, and, having quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer as saying that if the parent of a single child objected, the extended facilities would not be allowed unless there was another school to which this single child could go, ridiculed the idea of calling this impartial treatment of the 99 per cent. of children whose parents wanted the extended facilities. He insisted that if a majority of the parents in a transferred Church school desired the extended facilities they were entitled to have them.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESpointed out that the first part of the Amendment, in the form in which it was before the Committee, scarcely read with the clause. He suggested it should run "If it appears that the parents of a majority of the children attending the school desire such facilities."
  THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid he accepted the Amendment in that form.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFregretted that they could not get a decision upon the question of the ballot now while this clause was before them in Committee. He had an Amendment on the Paper, which would involve the question of the ballot as well as that of the four-fifths majority. To his mind Earl Cawdor had clearly established that the secrecy of the ballot and the ascertaining of the alternative accommodation were incompatible. The explanation of the noble Earl was that it was enough to have regard to the vacant places in the locality. But, supposing a minority of forty who objected to facilities were all Baptists and that the fifty vacant places were in a Roman Catholic school, how could it be said that those fifty places constituted alternative accommodation? If alternative accommodation existed in provided schools in a district the minority in the voluntary schools had no grievance at all. They were there by their own choice. What right, therefore, had they to vote on a question affecting the future management of the voluntary school? He thought it was most unreasonable
  262
  to insist that the parents of four-fifths of the children of a transferred school should decide the religious character of the school. It must not be forgotten that the voluntary school was established for the purpose of giving instruction in a particular religion, and surely it was enough for a majority of the parents of the children attending it to decide that its special religious atmosphere should continue under the new conditions. Could it be contended, on any principle of justice, that the minority should be allowed to overrule the wishes of the majority, and take possession of a school which, from its foundation, had had a particular character and atmosphere about it? The case seemed to him to be very strong in favour of the Amendment moved by Lord Jersey. The proposition that alternative accommodation must be afforded for the minority, however small, was monstrous. They might have one Baptist child in a Church of England school of 300, and yet the existence of that child, if alternative accommodation could not be found, would deprive the 299 Anglicans of the privilege they at present enjoyed. This was so exorbitant a proposal that he did not know how to deal with it more effectively than simply to state it. He appealed to their Lordships to adopt the Amendment,
  LORD HENEAGEasked whether his noble friend Lord Jersey would not accept the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper, to leave out the words "of at least four-fifths" and insert the words "majority of the."
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: That is exactly the question before the Committee.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid the extended facilities were intended to meet the case of perfectly homogeneous schools, which practically consisted of children all of the same denomination, and if the provision as to four-fifths of the parents of the children attending such a school was changed, it would alter the whole character of the clause. He thought it was an unreasonable demand. Some noble Lords supported it because they desired an atmosphere, as if the children could not

  263
  breathe freely in another atmosphere. The extended facilities should be confined to those schools which were practically homogeneous, and only contained by accident a few children of a different denomination.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid he knew of several Catholic schools which contained a considerable number of non-Catholic children. These children attended the schools for their own convenience, and it would be intolerable if the doctrine of the right rev. Prelate were accepted and the schools were to lose their Catholic atmosphere. The noble Earl the Lord President of the Council had told them that three were only two logical alternatives that could be put forward—one was secularism, and the other the granting of universal facilities. But the alternative of secularism had been rejected by an overwhelming majority of the House of Commons, and the other alternative had been rejected by His Majesty's Government. Therefore their Lordships had to make the best of a bad job. He quite agreed that there were only two logical alternatives, but they had now to take the least illogical of the various illogical propositions that had been put forward and the one which would cause the least grievance. There never was a more illogical Bill than this. They had the Minister for Education telling the country that minorities must suffer, apropos of a Bill, whose main provision, as far as they could see, was that majorities should suffer. And the Bishop of Hereford now spoke of the great injustice to the minorities, and took no account whatever of the injustice to the majority for whom the schools were built. Their great grievance was that the Government seemed to deny any rights whatever to parents. At a meeting, last April, of the Education Committee of the National Council of the Evangelical Free Churches it was stated that one of their objections to this clause was that it—
  "Introduces into legislation the false principle of giving the parent, as a parent, an additional direct control beyond that which he exercises as a citizen."
  He protested strongly against that doctrine. The net result of it was that the
  264
  well-to-do parent, who was able to afford tutors and governesses was to be allowed to exercise the rights of a parent, but the poor man, who could only send his child to the elementary school, was to be given only that control to which he was entitled as a citizen. He did not know whether that was the voice of the advance guard of the new Socialism, one of whose doctrines, he believed, denied the rights of home life, but a statement of that sort was an outrage.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Hereford was, in my opinion, perfectly correct in the description he gave of the object of His Majesty's Government in the fourth clause of the Bill—namely, that where it could be shown that there is a distinct predominance in a particular school of one particular kind of religious opinion, every effort should be made to preserve the denominational character of that school. But further than that we do not go, and we are utterly unable to tamper with the figure four-fifths, or to accept the Amendment which has been moved by Lord Jersey. My noble friend opposite, Lord Halifax, misunderstood what I said the other night with regard to denominational and undenominational education. He and I, I think, meant, in fact, the same thing. He starts from the idea that the parent has a right to demand any kind of religious education he likes, and that, therefore, as a consequence of that, denominational schools should have the preference wherever they are to be found. We, on the contrary, say that the national rule and system should be undenominational education, and that where distinct bodies of persons can be found demanding a special type of religious education, means should be provided for enabling them to carry on that education for themselves.
  The noble Viscount on the cross benches, Lord Llandaff, dealt with the question of the ballot as well as with the question immediately before your Lordships. I do not complain of that. I return to the subject of the ballot for the purpose of correcting one misunderstanding into which the noble Viscount fell. We have not reserved the question of the ballot. On the contrary, I do not think

  265
  any word which fell from any of us on this side of the House could properly give colour to that opinion. All that I said was that we were prepared to give a respectful consideration to the suggestion made by the noble Duke, and, I also added, to consider if on further thought there was more in the objection raised by Earl Cawdor than appeared to me at the time he made it. The noble Viscount on the cross benches assumed, I think, something which ought not to be assumed, and that is, that the minority in these four-fifths schools are necessarily hostile, or even likely to be hostile. I should have thought that the fact that a number of children, not perhaps of the particular denomination, had been in the habit for some time past of attending those schools was a reasonable warrant to suppose that they would wish to go on attending them, and that in that case they would vote for religious education being continued as before. It is inconceivable to suppose that in the case of an urban area to which we confined the operation of this clause, the case of one Baptist child could be used to stop the machinery of the clause. Therefore, if it should happen elsewhere the noble Viscount (Lord Llanda ff) must not blame us.
  The noble Lord opposite, Lord Denbigh, stated that this was not a logical Bill. Whatever defence has been made of it, I do not think anybody has ever said it was logical. If we had meant to make it logical we should have stopped at Clause 1. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite would have liked it any better for that. I am of the same opinion that I have always been, that the secular system and the system of universal facilities are the only two which can be described as logical. The secular system, at any rate for the present, is rejected by the country; the all-round facilities system was not pressed by noble Lords opposite; and, if it had been pressed and carried, I should very much like to know what the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, and his co-religionists would have said about a system of universal facilities which must inevitably be destructive of what they value, namely, the special atmosphere of their schools.
  Then the noble Earl asked, How is it that you cannot provide the same
  266
  facilities for the poor that the rich are enabled to find for their children? Obviously it is impossible. If you have people of five and six religious denominations in one neighbourhood, you cannot find five or six schools for them. All that you can secure is that as little hardship as possible is inflicted on individuals, and that is what we have attempted in this Bill. The parent as an argumentative instrument is, I must admit, rather a modern invention; four years ago we did not hear much of it; it was the sanctity of the trusts more than the rights of the parent that was then dwelt on. Yet the two things stand in no real relation to each other. All that we can say is that in this clause we believe that we have met the case of the vast majority of schools which can be described as predominatingly denominational; the case of the others we do not pretend to meet. We do not profess or desire to meet the case of the continuance as denominational schools of schools in which one faith is not predominant. That fact alone, simply stated, is enough, I think, to justify us in the absolutely uncompromising opposition we are compelled to offer to this proposal to reduce the figure from four-fifths.
  These Amendments moved by noble Lords opposite do place us in a difficulty, and to show the difficulty in which we are placed I will quote a few words from a speech delivered in the other House on 25th June last by Mr. Chamberlain. I hope I may be allowed to say, in passing, how deeply we regret Mr. Chamberlain's illness, and how his political opponents share with his political friends the hope that he may very soon be resored to complete health and to his old activity. Mr. Chamberlain on that occasion was in full agreement with the noble Lords opposite as to the imperfect and anomalous character of Clause 4. He considered that the Government could only do away with what he termed the absurd distinctions of place and number. Your Lordships have done away with distinctions of place, and are now, I conceive, engaged in doing away with distinctions of number. But Mr. Chamberlain went on to say that if those conditions were satisfied—
  "They (the Government) would have introduced a Bill in which they would have altogether

  267
  neglected their great principle of freedom of teachers from tests,… introduced a system in which they would not have given the public the control of the denominational schools." †
  Your Lordships will see how difficult it is for us even to consider, much less to accept, the Amendments of noble Lords on the other side of the House, and noble Lords themselves, I imagine, must be in a certain difficulty on that point if they agree with Mr. Chamberlain that these Amendments which they propose are destructive of the two great principles of no tests for teachers and public control. Noble Lords opposite profess to be in entire accord with these two principles, and they are driven to the alternative either of disavowing Mr. Chamberlain and saying that he was mistaken or of admitting that they are engaged in destroying these two ruling principles.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLKsaid the speech of the noble Earl emphasised the fact that voluntary schools were going to fare very badly indeed unless those who believed in their necessity came to their assistance with all the force they could command. There was a special hardship in the case of Roman Catholic schools, because in many parts of the country they had been built, in view of the fluctuations of population, far larger than was actually necessary, and children of other denominations had in large numbers sought and obtained hospitality in them. The ratepayers had, therefore, been freed to a great extent from the cost of building schools by reason of the accommodation which had been provided in the Catholic schools. And now they were told that such a school was not to be regarded as a school belonging to, or supported by, a denomination unless four-fifths of the children actually in the school belonged to that denomination.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: No, unless the parents of four-fifths of the children were willing for the teaching to go on as before.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLKsaid they were encouraged to believe that that would be the same thing. If that were
  † See (4) Debates, clix, 705.
  268
  so, why make such a point of the four-fifths, and why not accept a majority? The Government were forcing through a Bill which would bring religious strife into every municipal contest and into public life in a way in which it had never been brought before. It was surely a gross injustice that a minority should have power to change the whole character of a school, simply to carry forward the policy of His Majesty's Government to curtail the number of voluntary schools in the country. They knew of many bodies and societies in which the status quo was not allowed to be altered unless two-thirds of those connected with them passed the modifying rule. But here the Government were requiring a four-fifths majority. They had. had no defence of that provision at all. All they had been told was that the voluntary schools had to go. He was sorry his noble friend, Viscount Ridley, was not in his place. His noble friend had an Amendment on the Paper to substitute two-thirds for four-fifths, but the noble Viscount had informed him that he was perfectly prepared to accept the words "a majority."
  LORD KENYON: I have Viscount Ridley's authority to withdraw that Amendment in view of this one.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLKwas glad to hear that statement. To the Catholics this was a very vital question indeed, and he sincerely trusted their Lordships would see not only the logic but the justice and fairness of their claim and support Lord Jersey's Amendment.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid he quite understood the value that persons might attach to the "atmosphere" pervading the whole life of the school, but he would point out that the claim for the atmosphere pervading the whole life of the school during the secular hours was an absolute invasion and infringement of the principles which had animated the administration of elementary education ever since the passing of the Act of 1870.
  The Roman Catholic Church had deliberately built schools, quite apart from any expectation of fluctuation of

  269
  population, vastly in excess of the needs of the Roman Catholic population, and they had almost invariably sided with the Church of England in opposing the provision of places by means of board schools when there was an insufficiency of accommodation. When the Free Education Act was passed the Board of Education habitually, when a demand was made for free education by Protestant children, preferred vacant places in Roman Catholic schools as suitable and satisfactory, and he had never seen any active protest from the Roman Catholic body claiming that they only wanted their schools for their own community.
  He had always recognised that in a national system there ought to be a large interpretation of the word "suitability" in regard to school accommodation, but that liberal construction was to be used on both sides, so as to give facilities for board school accommodation when that was demanded as well as recognition of denominational schools. Many of these schools had been built in districts in which nearly the whole of the population was Protestant. He mentioned the case of Costessey, in Norfolk, where the only school in the parish was a Catholic school, and another case in Flintshire where the Roman Catholic school, on the admission of the managers, contained 95 per cent. of children of Protestant Nonconformists.
  Therefore they should not let it be put to the Committee that this was a claim on the part of a peaceful, patient minority, suffering for conscience' sake, merely to educate their own children. That was a claim which was absolutely forgotten in the days of their alliance with the Church of England to keep down, if they could, the spread of the popular system and the popular management of the school boards. If this Bill in the form in which the Government had put it on the Paper were accepted fairly and candidly it would establish a thoroughly national system for the people of the country as a whole, under national management, and even in places like Wales it would be recognised that side by side with the national system for the great majority there ought to be a liberal application of
  270
  consideration for exceptional minorities. It was obvious that the object of this and other Amendments was to take the whole life out of the Bill and not frankly to recognise national management and freedom from tests.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAMsaid there was a great difference between a willingness on the part of parents to accept for their children teaching which was not exactly according to their own conviction and a readiness to vote for the continuance of such teaching. There was a Roman Catholic school in his diocese which was very considerably attended by children of parents who were not Roman Catholics. These parents, he believed, were perfectly ready to allow the teaching to go on, but he felt quite sure that if it came to a matter of voting they would be very far from being prepared to cast a vote in favour of the continuance of such teaching. This was a point of the greatest importance, and one which their Lordships should have in view.
  A reference had been made by the noble Earl the Lord President to the opinion held by Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Chamberlain's view was that if they really wanted to carry out a system of State control over all schools and a total abolition of any regard on the part of the State for the religious opinions of the teachers, there was only one way by which that could be effected, namely, by taking away altogether from the State any control or regulation of religious teaching and giving it to the religious denominations. Then, and then only, could the State really decline to have any regard to the religious opinions of the teachers.
  Churchmen and the maintainers of voluntary schools were being asked to make a tremendous surrender, namely, the surrender of the management of their schools so that their children could be brought up with definite religious convictions. He agreed with Mr. Birrell that if there was to be so great a sacrifice there was only one boon that could be regarded as fair compensation, and that was equal facilities all round in all schools. If that was not to be granted, then Churchmen could not be expected to be

  271
  ready to make that sacrifice. Let them see to it that even small minorities were provided for with perfect justice, and that religious teaching was not forced upon children against the wishes of their parents in any school whatever. If all the schools were to be brought under public control, let them see to it that some fair equivalent was given to Churchmen for so great a sacrifice.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I need not detain your Lordships for more than a moment. The point which we have reached is a very narrow one, and I shall confine myself strictly to it. It is a very narrow point, but it is one of immense importance, upon which we on this side of the House feel very strongly indeed.
  Let me say, in half a dozen words, what I understand the proposal of His Majesty's Government upon this particular question to be. I understand it to be suggested to your Lordships that a school, the whole character of which has been denominational, which has been encouraged and supported for years past as a denominational school, which has met the requirements of the locality in which it is situated, and which has been unimpeachably conducted, may have its character entirely transformed in order to meet the views of a minority of parents. That seems to us to involve a great injustice. In our view the desire of the majority should be allowed to prevail. And when I say the majority I am not aware at this moment of any form of words which would define what that majority should be, except the simple expression "the majority" itself.
  We have had upon the Paper references to "sufficient majorities" and "reasonable majorities"—expressions which appear to me to be dangerously vague and to be contrived with a desire to elude the real difficulty before the Committee. In our view it would be utterly unreasonable that in a school such as I have described a minority of, say, 21 per cent. of the whole number of parents should be able to transform the character of the school, and to make it conform to the model they would prefer. It seems to us that a proposal of that kind is contrary to
  272
  common sense. It seems to us also opposed to the pledges which have been again and again given by His Majesty's Ministers. If the thing is wrong in theory we believe that in practice it would work disastrously, and that it would exclude a very great number of schools—Roman Catholic and Church of England—which, if the policy proclaimed by His Majesty's Government is to prevail, should be admitted to the benefits of this clause.
  There is only one qualification which I wish to add to that statement, and it is this, that if we are to allow the views of the majority to prevail, it seems to me to follow logically that we should go almost any length in order to protect the rights and feelings of the minority. We on this side of the House mean what we say upon that point. I am glad to notice that my noble friend Lord Cadogan has an Amendment upon the Paper, to which we shall presently come, which is evidently framed for the purpose of safeguarding minorities whether small or large, and I, for one, shall gladly vote with him if he takes the sense of the Committee upon it. Meanwhile, on this particular Amendment, I gladly record my vote with my noble friend Lord Jersey.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend who has just sat down that we have reached a question of the greatest importance, and I cannot but regret the moving of an Amendment which, if carried, would render the intentions of the clause altogether nugatory. His Majesty's Government desired by this clause to give special facilities, in addition to others already given, to those schools which could show that they were substantially of a denominational character, and I believe that to go beyond that, and to propose to give those special facilities to a school in which there was a majority of one of a certain religious opinion, would be to risk the whole of the body of this clause, and it would be absolutely fatal to its working.
  I desire to take a practical view of this question. We have had in relation to this matter of education a great deal too much disregard of what is practical and

  273
  possible. The Committee for this reason stands in the position in which it finds itself, and if a clause of this description is now necessary it is because four years ago you utterly disregarded practical considerations. In one sense of the word I might desire to make this clause universal, but my object, both as a member of His Majesty's Government and as a Roman Catholic, is to place this clause on a basis upon which it is likely to stand. I do not believe that if this Amendment is passed and if you ask the other House of Parliament, with the views which the vast majority of the Members of that House are known to entertain, to pass the clause in the shape in which you desire to place it, you will have any chance whatever of their acceding to the demand, and you run the greatest possible danger of losing all that which under this clause you might obtain.
  The speech of my noble friend behind me, Lord Stanley of Alderley, will show your Lordships what can be said upon this subject; it will show your Lordships what are the opinions entertained by a small number of persons in this House but by a vast majority in the House below. As your Lordships listened to that speech you surely could not doubt that the demand which you are now making is dangerous and excessive. I quite admit that the proposal of His Majesty's Government in this respect—aye, and the proposal of noble Lords much more so—is not logical in regard to the general scheme of this Bill. But the Government have brought forward this proposal, and the other House of Parliament has accepted it, granting it to be illogical, because they believe it will do substantial justice to a large section of their fellow subjects. Such is the object which we have in view, but we cannot consent to adopt a system which is not only illogical, but which would be inconsistent with the fundamental nature and character of the Bill, and which would, I firmly believe, simply have the effect of altogether preventing this measure of justice, to which I. for one attach vast importance, from being passed into law.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONdesired to have from the Government some
  274
  answer to the objections that had been raised that a small number of Nonconformist parents could break up the character of a denominational school. The reply would help them in forming a judgment upon the Amendment now before the Committee.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that, though he should vote for omitting four-fifths, he preferred two-thirds to a mere majority.
  * THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, in reply to the right rev. Prelate I am afraid I can give him but very little comfort of the kind which he desires. It is impossible for us to consider individual cases of hardship that may arise under a clause of this kind. I can hardly conceive any regulation that might be made on this or, indeed, on most subjects, in connection with which it would not be possible to produce an instance of hardship and injustice. If noble Lords carry their majority Amendment somebody might possibly produce an instance where a great hardship was inflicted by the fact that the number of the denominationalist body fell just short of half. I am afraid it is impossible for us to depart from the general principle which we have laid down in this matter—namely, that the school must show a very substantial denominational character before the question can be considered at all. We start, I know, from a very different point in that matter from noble Lords opposite. I can only regret it. But I do believe that, in a very great number of instances, where there is a considerable minority of children whose parents do not ostensibly hold the Church view, there will be many parents of those children who, liking the teaching and the whole character of the school, will vote for its being continued as at present. The other point was as to one child preventing the machinery of the clause from working. I treat that in the manner in which one treats a proposition which one regards as extravagantly improbable, and therefore really hardly worthy of detailed examination.
  On Question, whether the words 'at least four-fifths' stand part of the clause,
  their Lordships divided:—Contents, 48 Not-Contents, 196.

  CONTENTS.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Aberdare, L.

  Joicey, L.

  Boston, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Brassey, L.

  Loch, L.

  Northampton, M.

  Burghclere, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Nunburnholme, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Courtney, of Penwith, L.

  Overtoun, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Davey, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Reay, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Elgin L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Craven, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Russell, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Temple, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Glantawe, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Hamilton, of Dalzell, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Haversham, L.

  Welby, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  York, L. Abp.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Ilchester, E.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Jersey, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Bedford, D.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Devonshire, D.

  Lathom, E.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Grafton, D.

  Lindsey, E.

  St. David's L. Bp.

  Leeds, D.

  Londesborough, E.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Newcastle, D.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Southwark, L. Bp.

  Northumberland, D.

  Lucan, E.

  Wakefield, L. Bp.

  Rutland, D.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Northbrook, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Northesk, E.

  Addington, L.

  Bute, M.

  Onslow, E.

  Alington, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Plymouth, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Powis, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Scarbrough, E.

  Armstrong, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Stamford, E.

  Atkinson, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Avebury, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Balfour, L.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Westmeath, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Westmorland, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  Bateman, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Belhaven, and Stenton, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Belper, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Colville, of Culross V.

  Biddulph, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Falkland, V.

  Blythswood, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Falmouth, V.

  Bolton, L.

  Darnley, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Borthwick, L.

  Dartrey E.

  Halifax, V.

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

  De La Warr, E.

  Hill, V.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Denbigh, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Braye, L.

  Derby, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Devon, E.

  Iveagh,V.

  Burton, L.

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

  Knutsford, V.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Llandaff, V.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Egerton,E.

  Ridley, V.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Feversham, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Guildford, E.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Halsbury, E.

  Birmingham, L. Bp.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Bristol, L. Bp.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Kelvin, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  De Freyne, L.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and

  Ravensworth, L.

  de Ros, L.

  Mount-Earl.)

  Redesdale, L.

  Deramore, L.

  Kenyon, Earl

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Digby, L.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Robertson, L.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Sackville, L.

  Dunalley, L.

  Knaresborough, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Ebury, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Estcourt, L.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Fairlie, L. [E. Glasgow.)

  Lovat, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Masham, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Forester, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Stalbridge, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Methuen, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Monk, Bretton, L.

  Harlech, L,

  Mostyn, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Harris, L.

  Mowbray, L.

  Tennyson, L.

  Hastings, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Heneage, L.

  Napier, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Herries, L.

  North, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Hothfield, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  On the Question, "whether the words 'the majority' be there inserted," being put—
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he desired to insert "two-thirds" instead of "the majority," but he was advised by the authorities of the House that the proper course for him was to vote against the insertion of "the majority." If it were carried it would, of course, dispose of the question, but if it were rejected the way would be open to him to move to insert "two-thirds." He was conscious of the injustice of insisting on "four-fifths "; but, on the other hand, it was unreasonable to provide that by a bare majority every denominational
  school should be enabled to insist upon having the extended facilities.
  LORD BELPERagreed with his noble friend, but perhaps, in order to avoid another division, the Government would give some expression of a hope that at a later stage of the Bill they might be able to accept an Amendment which would make the required numbers neither four-fifths nor a bare majority, but something between.
  No reply was given.
  On Question, that the words 'the majority' be here inserted, their Lordships divided: — Contents, 133; Not-Contents, 83.

  CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Clarendon, E.

  Pembroke and Montgomery E.

  Grafton, D.

  Denbigh, E.

  Leeds, D.

  Derby, E.

  Plymouth, E.

  Newcastle, D.

  Devon, E.

  Powis, E.

  Northumberland, D.

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

  Saint Germans, E.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Eldon, E.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Feversham, E.

  Stamford, E.

  Bute, M.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Exeter, M.

  Guilford, E.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Hertford, M.

  Halsbury, E.

  Westmeath, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Westmorland, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Ilchester, E.

  Winchester, M.

  Jersey, E.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Lathom, E.

  Falkland, V.

  Abingdon, E.

  Lindsey, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Amherst, E.

  Londesborough, E.

  Hill, V.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Cadogan, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Carnwath, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Iveagh, V.

  Cawdor, E.

  Northesk, E.

  Llandaff, V.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Birmingham, L. Bp.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  London, L. Bp.

  Lawrence, L.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Lovat, L.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Colchester, L.

  Masham, L.

  Wakefield, L. Bp.

  De Freyne, L.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.

  de Ross, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Abinger, L.

  Deramore, L.

  Mowbray, L.

  Addington, L.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Napier, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Dunalley, L.

  North, L.

  Alverstone, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Armstrong, L.

  Estcourt, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Ravensworth, L.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Redesdale, L.

  Atkinson, L.

  Forester, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Sandys, L.

  Barrymore, L.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Seaton, L.

  Bateman, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Belhaven and Stenton, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Biddulph, L.

  Harris, L.

  Blythswood, L.

  Hastings, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Heneage, L.

  Tennyson, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery)

  Herries, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Braye, L.

  Kelvin, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  York, L. Abp.

  Ridley, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Haversham, L.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Headley, L.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Joicey, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Hereford, L. Bp.

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

  Rutland, D.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Northampton, M.

  Aberdare, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Ampthill, L. [Teller.]

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Nunburnholme, L.

  Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

  Barnard, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Borthwick, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Boston, L.

  Overtoun, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Brassey, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough)

  Craven, E.

  Burton, L.

  Reay, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Davey, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Kilmorey, E.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Denman, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Digby, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Russell, E.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Scarbrough, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Temple, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Welby, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Glantawe, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Grimthorpe, L.

  THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid that, as he had already moved this new sub-section earlier in the evening, it was hardly necessary for him to say many words on the Amendment he now proposed. The difference between the sub-section he proposed and that of the Government
  280
  Bill was that, whereas in the Government Bill one of the conditions of the clause was that there must be a public elementary school to which the children who did not come under the facilities clause would have to go, the sub-section he proposed would enable the local authority

  281
  to decide whether sufficient accommodation could be found for the children either in a class-room or close by.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 35, to leave out sub-section (b) and to insert the words" (b) that satisfactory arrangements in respect of religious instruction can be made for the other children attending the school.'"—(The Earl of Jersey.)
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Earl, for the very simple reason which I have already stated in reference to several of these Amendments, namely, that it destroys the intended character of the school. What we propose is that there must be in schools not affected by a permission given under the section public school accommodation for the other children attending the school. We desire these schools to retain their special character, and we do not think it is a desirable arrangement that the children should merely be removed elsewhere for religious instruction. I am afraid, therefore, that we cannot accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid he felt very great difficulty in dealing with the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper. If it were adopted it would cover the case of the ballot, and he understood that the whole subject of the ballot was reserved to some future time, when their Lordships would know the intentions of His Majesty's Government with regard to any modifications they thought fit to propose in the scheme of the ballot as it now stood. Therefore he supposed he must alter his Amendment to the extent of leaving out everything to the word "that" in line 32. That would leave the words relating to the ballot untouched, reserving that question for a future occasion.
  LORD FITZMAURICE, on a point of order, inquired whether they had not already passed that part of the section. They had passed sub-section (b), to which the noble Lord the Earl of Jersey had moved an Amendment. He supposed that any Amendment to that sub-section would now be too late.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The Amendment of the noble Viscount arises under that sub-section (b).
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: It begins in line 30 from the word "that."
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: That we have passed, but there is a part of the noble Viscount's Amendment which has not been dealt with, that is that the time allotted to such religious instruction shall not be less than thirty clear minutes, or whatever time is proposed, on each day the school is open. If the noble Viscount confines himself to that he will be in order.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsubmitted that it would be in order to omit everything that followed the Amendment just adopted, providing that" a majority" was to be put in in place of the "parents of at least four-fifths of the children attending the school." The clause as amended ran—
  "The parents of a majority of the children attending the school desire those facilities."
  His Amendment was to omit everything after the word "facilities" down to the end of the section. He did not think it was necessary to ask for the insertion of the words "the owners of the schoolhouse." They deserved re-cognition, because they denoted the character of the school more than anything else. Their Lordships had heard of many schools founded by one denomination and attended perhaps by a majority of another denomination. It seemed to him that the owners of the schoolhouse, the people who founded and built it, indicated its character, denominational or otherwise, more than any other person they could select. It was a pity that the Amendment already carried did not include owners of the schoolhouse as well as the parents of a majority of the children attending the school. He did not move the insertion of the words "owners of the schoolhouse," but he did move to omit everything that followed the word "facilities" down to "in respect of the child," and to substitute the words—
  "The time allotted to such religious instruction shall not be less than thirty clear minutes on each day the school is open."
  Upon that point it struck him that the plan suggested in the Bill, namely, that

  283
  the deciding point should be whether there was alternative accommodation in other schools, was not the best plan to adopt. He had other Amendments on the Paper by which he met more fully the grievance of the minority in the school applying for these facilities. He proposed that those children who were in a minority and disliked the facilities should be entitled to receive such religious instruction as they liked in the schoolhouse, if the dimensions of the schoolhouse made that practicable, but if they did not, then arrangements were to be made for them elsewhere by the owners of the school-house, the local authority, and all the parties concerned. If the children were sufficient in number, they should be entitled to call upon the local authority to supply them with a school for themselves. That would relieve them of the grievance of finding themselves in a school where facilities were granted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 34, to leave out the words after the word 'facilities' to the end of line 42, and to insert the words, 'the time allotted to such religious instruction shall be not less than thirty clear minutes on each day the school is open.'"—(The Viscount Llandaff.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought that the Amendment could hardly be acceptable even to noble Lords opposite. Their Lordships had voted that special facilities should be given anywhere in town or country, and that those facilities should be given if a bare majority of the children attending the school desired them. What was the position? In a village where the only school was, say, a Church of England school, if out of seventy children attending there were thirty-six who labelled themselves as Churchmen and thirty-four as Dissenters, then those thirty-six were to have the whole of the school all the week for their own definite religious teaching, and the other scholars were to be found a classroom in the parish room which did not generally belong to Dissenters but to the Church. The local authority were to keep the schoolhouse in repair, and the bare minority in the school was to be turned out to get what they could. That was the effect of this
  284
  Amendment. He considered the proposal too grotesque.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid the noble Lord had totally misrepresented the object of the Amendment. It was to give facilities to minorities in Church of England schools or Roman Catholic schools in the schoolhouse, and to give them the same facilities as he claimed for himself in the schoolhouse, Nothing could be more just or more liberal.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I am not concerned with the object of the Amendment, but with its effect.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I venture to say that is the effect.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I need hardly inform the Committee that His Majesty's Government cannot possibly accept this Amendment. The principle on which we have acted, as the noble Viscount correctly stated, is that there must be alternative accommodation in other schools not affected by a permission given under this section, that is to say, in another school without a Church atmosphere. To that principle we undoubtedly adhere. I do not want to argue on this occasion the whole question of facilities and right of entry in these schools, because that would be more appropriately done on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cadogan, which is on the Paper, and which I understand from what fell from the, noble Lord the Marquess of Lansdowne, may be regarded as the official Amendment of the Opposition on this subject. When that is moved I will deal with it. It is perfectly true that the plan which the noble Viscount on the cross benches has put down in a number of special Amendments is a perfectly possible plan, but it is entirely different from and utterly destructive of the plan of His Majesty's Government, and I can only say we do not see our way to accept it, because it would mean the entire remodelling of this part of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid their Lordships on that side of the House

  285
  had, of course, great sympathy with the Motion of his noble friend the Viscount Llandaff, but for a reason which he was going to state they were rather inclined to think that his Amendment did not raise the point in the form in which they would prefer it to be raised if they prevailed with their Lordships to take that view. The reason was that they were so far in agreement with His Majesty's Government that, prima facie, they thought the minority in the atmosphere schools ought to be accommodated in another school suitable for them. For that purpose it would be necessary for them to retain the first two lines of paragraph (b). But when they were faced with the question "What is to happen supposing there is no other school accommodation?" they would venture respectfully to invite their Lordships to consider whether, subject to very careful provisions as to the rights of the minority, which it would not be convenient to discuss on this Amendment, they might not permit the atmosphere school to exist, even when there was no other school or another building in which the dissident children might be accommodated.
  Inasmuch as they thought that so far as the first two lines of paragraph (b) were suitable and appropriate to that purpose, they could hardly agree with his noble friend Viscount Llandaff in his wish to cut them out. As regarded the latter part of paragraph (b) the noble Lord Earl Cawdor had an Amendment, not, perhaps, of an important character, although it did change vitally the character of the paragraph. If the paragraph so amended should meet with the favour of the Committee then, as the Earl of Crewe had said, the i question as to the alternative accommodation within the same building, under strict restrictions as to the rights of the minority, would be probably more conveniently discussed on the Amendment of the noble Lord Earl Cadogan.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFpointed out that if there was alternative accommodation in other schools not affected] by the special permission given under the section, then of course the children could go there and there would be no
  286
  grievance. But the question they were dealing with was the case of the single school area, and the words the Marquess. of Salisbury was willing to retain would shut out the special facilities in each single school area. There not being another public school accommodating the minority the facilities could not be granted. His suggestion was that this was a very harsh, cruel, and unwise way of dealing with the difficulty. He felt that difficulty, and was anxious that the minority should have ample protection and facilities given to them for their conscience' sake; but the right way to deal with it was not to turn the denominational school into an undenominational school (which would be the effect of passing the first two lines of paragraph (b) not to twist round the compass and make the wind which was blowing north blow south, but to deal with the minority in the most liberal way they could by giving them facilities for religious instruction of their own sort in the only school in the area, ur in a preacher's house, or a church, or some other place. It should be left to the local authority to settle what place they should find for allowing the children to receive religious instruction; if they were in a sufficient number he certainly proposed that a school should be built for them. The noble Marquess had overlooked the fact that by keeping in the first words of paragraph (b) they would kill all the denominational schools in the single school areas. If there was no accommodation in the area for the children of the minority the facilities were gone, because that was made a condition of granting the facilities.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that if the noble Viscount would look at the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord Earl Cadogan he would see that the point was covered.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFconfessed that he had not yet mastered that Amendment. The clause as it stood made the existence of some other school in which accommodation could be found a necessary condition of granting facilities. If they left those words in, all denominational schools in the single school areas were gone.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid it was rather irregular to read an Amendment lower on the Paper, and if noble Lords opposite took objection he would not do so. He would indicate, however, to his noble friend Viscount Llandaff, with whom in substance they agreed, that if he would look at page 3 of the Amendment Paper he would see that under the words to be proposed by his noble friend Earl Cadogan they were substantially providing for the point to which their attention was called, although they were doing it in a different way.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid he must adhere to what he had already said. The Amendment of Earl Cadogan, which would come under discussion presently, did provide for the case of the minority children who would not get the instruction they wanted, but it did not do away with the effect of leaving in the words in paragraph (b), by which it was made a condition of obtaining extended facilities that there should be other public elementary school accommodation in the area. Consequently into single school districts they would not get that accommodation, and their right to the facilities would be gone.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXwished to support the view of the noble Viscount. The words in question affected the school in every single school area.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYagreed with what had fallen from the Marquess of Salisbury. If the noble Viscount would read the Amendment of Earl Cadogan, he would see that the objection he raised was entirely dealt with by the fact that the accommodation for such other children in other schools would be dispensed with. He hoped the noble Viscount would not go to a division, but would allow the question to be discussed on the later Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The Amendment so far as sub-section (a) is concerned has already been dealt with, and therefore it will be enough to leave out from sub-section (b) down to the word "child" in line 42.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYappealed to the noble Viscount to preserve the Amendment which stood in the name of Earl Cawdor, which came in at the end of line 36. He suggested that the question should be that the words down to the end of line 36 stand part.
  EARL CADOGAN: Do I understand that my noble friend (Viscount Llandaf E) objects to the Amendment of my noble friend Earl Cawdor or to mine?
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid he had not mastered the effect of either of the Amendments referred to. He only looked at the clause as it now appeared, and found that as it stood the passing of the first words of sub-section (b) would prove fatal. The Amendment of Earl Cawdor would leave in the first two lines of the sub-section, and that was what he objected to.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsaid that probably it would meet the views of the noble Viscount if he put the question that the lines 35 and 36 stand part of the clause.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  EARL CAWDORmoved the omission of the words "the other children attending the school" and the proviso that a child shall not be reckoned among the number of children for whom accommodation is required if the parent shows that he does not require the accommodation and has not voted. He said the proposal of the Government was not wisely drawn. It was that this accommodation should be provided for those children attending the school other than those whose parents had asked for extended facilities. That assumed that all children whose parents had not voted for facilities, or whose parents desired other facilities, or whose parents objected to any; denominational teaching whatever, were to be swept into one net, and without further inquiry were to be considered as "other children." Was it not rather straining a point? He was not going back on anything that had been said as to the ballot arrangement, but all that was

  289
  known first of all was that some parents had not voted at all. Why were they to assume that they wanted different accommodation from that provided in the schools? They had no means of ascertaining, and yet they were being swept by this clause straight into the net of those for whom extra accommodation had to be found. Then, secondly, there were some who had voted against the particular facilities asked for in this clause; they might object to those facilities, but what was there to show in any shape or form that they did not want anything else? What was wanted to be known was exactly what the parents required. The wishes of those who had not voted at all were absolutely unknown, as well as the wishes of those who had voted against the particular facilities. What was required was to find out what these parents really did want, and not to assume for a moment that they wanted something of which there was no proof that such was their desire. Some might be perfectly satisfied with what was going on in the school but had expressed no opinion; others would have voted against the particular facility that was to be given; others, again, might require something more definite. It seemed to him it only required some slight change in the clause in order to get at what he believed all desired to ascertain, viz., the wishes of the parents. The words in the clause as proposed by the Government did not make that provision. He did not claim for his Amendment that it would cover every child; he was only putting it forward as a tentative proposal—
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, to leave out lines 37 to 42 inclusive, and insert ' any child whose parent declares his desire for some other form of religious instruction than that for which the facilities are afforded.''"—(Earl Cawdor.)
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl has stated with great clearness the effect of his Amendment and the words as they stand in the Bill, and I think it must be clear to the Committee at large I that here again we are confronted with the fundamental difference in the point of view that separates us from noble Lords opposite. Noble Lords opposite, and the noble Earl among them, assume that
  290
  the normal school is the denominational school, and, therefore, holding that view, they would throw upon anybody who does not want that particular type of school the onus of coming forward and specifically objecting to it. That is not the principle on which we work. From our point of view these four-fifths schools are an exception to the Bill. They are not put in by any desire of ours except to meet the obvious necessities of the case. We quite see that these schools are in certain cases demanded, but we do not regard the school with the denominational atmosphere as the nor- mal type, in order to depart from which explicit objection must be made by a certain number of parents. We consider it as an abnormal type which can only be brought into being by the explicit declaration of a large number of parents. So long as we look on the matter from that point of view it is, of course, impossible for us to meet the noble Earl. He very properly, from his point of view, said, "The schools had been denomination-al in the past. We want to preserve the status quo, and anybody who objects to that ought to come forward and say so." We do not admit these schools as representing the status quo. In the first place we do not admit at all on this side of the House that the Act of 1902 can be regarded as the basis of the status quo. There is no evidence whatever that that measure has ever received the assent of j the country. It was never presented in any form to the country before the general election of 1900 and we do not consider it has any moral validity. That is an additional reason why we are not prepared to start from the point of view of noble Lords opposite that these schools must by hook or by crook be kept going in the manner they have been kept going for many years past. We say we are, by this Bill, instituting a national system of schools with exceptions, and those schools that want to join the rank of the exceptions must come forward and state explicitly that they want to do so. We are unable to take anything for granted in the matter.
  EARL CAWDORsaid the noble Earl did not seem to have realised in the slightest degree the point he endeavoured to raise. The point he was raising was

  291
  not the main issue from which they started. He was starting on this clause, and not the great broad principle on which he was opposing the noble Earl. He thought they were starting on much the same basis, namely, that these were to be atmosphere denominational schools. One of the noble Earl's colleagues had stated that those schools in which the conditions were carried out were to go on as before as atmosphere denominational schools. Did the noble Earl start on any different basis from that?
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: As I understand it this Amendment does not deal with what the school is going to do when started, but with the method of starting it.
  EARL CAWDOR: I was assuming for a moment you had started the school and you were considering one of the details.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I should have thought those details must be considered before starting the school.
  EARL CAWDORsaid the noble Earl was no doubt correct, but they had got to the point that there was no point of difference in this clause.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: As to the manner in which they are to be carried on I do not know that there is, but as to the manner in which they are to be started there is a great deal.
  EARL CAWDORsaid they were going first of all to start with a majority
  of the parents to ask for these facilities. Besides that it was necessary to show that all the children of the parents who did not come in under the conditions governing the majority would be provided for elsewhere. What he was pressing on the noble Earl was that he had rolled into one all the children outside the majority, and assumed that he knew exactly what they wanted, although there was no ground for the assumption. Why should they not find out what the different parents other than those who were asking for the facilities wanted?
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid I must have failed to make myself clear. The point we start at is this; that without any reference to the opinion of those parents of whom the noble Earl has just been speaking we say it is a precedent condition of these schools being started at all that the parents of the majority of the children must come forward and definitely say that they want them. It was on that that I entered into what I am afraid the noble Earl considers an abstract argument as to our question of principle. If I take the noble Earl's point of view that the supposition is that, other things being equal, these schools ought to go on, there would be much in what he says, but we do not take that view. What we say is that the parents of the majority of the children must say definitely they desire this particular teaching. I quite understand the point of difference, and I hope my point is now clear to the noble Earl.
  On Question, whether the words pro-proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause, their Lordships divided:— Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 152.

  CONTENTS.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Ripon, L. Bp.

  Glantawe, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Brassey, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Haversham, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Headley, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Joicey, L.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Digby, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Selby, V.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  O'Hagan, L.

  Overtoun, L.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Eversley, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Reay, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Wandsworth, L.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Welby, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Apb.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Stamford, E.

  De Freyne, L.

  Devonshire, D.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry,)

  Deramore, L.

  Grafton. D.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Leeds, D.

  Westmeath, E.

  Dunalley, L.

  Newcastle, D.

  Westmorland, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Yarborough. E.

  Estcourt, L.

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Bute, M.

  Cross, V.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Exeter, M.

  Falkland.

  Forester, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Halifax, V.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Hill, V.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Salisbury, M.

  Iveagh, V.

  Llandaff, V.

  Harris, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Ridley, V.

  Hastings, L.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Hothfield, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Bath and Wells, L.Bp.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven.)

  Carnwath, E.

  Birmingham, L. Bp.

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

  Cathcart, E.

  Bristol, L. Bp.

  Cawdor, E.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Enroll.)

  Clarendon, E.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Knaresborough, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Lawrence, L.

  Darnley, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Leigh, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Peterborough, L. Bp.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Masham, L.

  Derby, E.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Southwark, L. Bp.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Wakefield, L. Bp.

  Mostyn, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Mowbray, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Napier, L.

  Guilford, E.

  Abinger, L.

  North, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Alington, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Armstrong, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.

  Jersey, E.

  Atkinson, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Lathom, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Lindsey, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Londesborough, E.

  Belper, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Blythswood, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Harrington.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Borthwick, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.

  Nelson, E.

  Boyle,L. (E. Cork and Orrery)

  Stalbridge, L.

  North brook, E.

  Braye, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Burton, L.

  Teynham L.

  Onslow, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Wenlock, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, F.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Wolverton, L.

  Plymouth, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Proposed words inserted.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDmoved to insert after the words last agreed to, the words-
  "And that extended facilities shall not be given unless, in the opinion of the Board of Education, the number of children in the neighbourhood is sufficient to maintain two efficient schools
  294
  without unnecessary expenditure of public money."
  He said that, seeing that this clause related to rural as well as urban schools. and that many of those rural schools were, to begin with, small, there was really a considerable risk of wasting the taxpayers' money. As their Lordships had already amended the clause

  295
  there might be a demand in the case of one of these ordinary facilities schools for the atmosphere of an extended facilities school, and if there happened to be a neighbouring school which could take in the remainder of the children, this new extended facilities school might be so small that it could hardly, in any real sense, be kept efficient. Consequently, they would be laying upon the taxpayers and ratepayers a burden which would be altogether unnecessary. That being the case, he ventured to think some such provision should be inserted in the Bill.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH (who was now in the Chair)pointed out that the proviso to which it was proposed to add words by the Amendment would not read in the form the right rev. Prelate proposed, owing to the decision of the Committee on the former Amendment.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid he would alter his Amendment so that it would read "provided that extended facilities shall not be given unless," etc. He ventured to think it was a necessary safeguard against an undue multiplication of the very exceptional schools, and it was a safeguard all the more necessary because their Lordships had changed the four-fifths into a bare majority, the result of which would be that a bare majority in any of the rural schools might come forward and say they desired extended facilities schools, and the minority of the children could be accommodated in the school of the next parish perhaps a mile and a half away. He thought that would involve some hardship on the minority children, and prove a still greater hardship on the ratepayers, besides having the effect of setting up an indefinite number of little schools in which the children would have to be content with an inferior education. For all these reasons he did trust something might be done in the direction of this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, after the words last, inserted, to insert the words, Provided that extended facilities shall not be given unless, in the opinion of the Board of Education, the number of children in the neighbourhood is sufficient to
  296
  maintain two efficient schools without unnecessary expenditure of public money."—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: There is no doubt that if this Amendment were carried it would limit to a very great extent the operation of the clause as it now stands. A very considerable number of schools which under the clause as amended by your Lordships would be able to obtain the advantage of this provision would then be prevented from doing so. Consequently, if the right rev. Prelate were to press this clause, I should certainly be disposed to support him, because I should support any Amendment of any kind whatever which limited the clause in the way it now stands, but I am bound to tell the right rev. Prelate, quite apart from the fact that his Amendment would have no conceivable opportunity of being carried, that it would not be easy to work in the form in which it is placed on the Paper, and there are certain objections to it, which I need not trouble your Lordships about. Under these circumstances. I would be disposed to advise the right rev. Prelate not to press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *EARL CADOGANmoved to add the following words—
  "But if the applicants show to the satisfaction of the Board of Education that suitable arrangements can be made in the school for enabling children whose parents declare their desire for some other form of religious instruction than that for which the extended facilities are afforded to receive such other instruction, or failing that, instruction in accordance with Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, the condition in paragraph (b) of this section with respect to the existence of accommodation for such children in other schools shall be dispensed with, provided that—(1) if there are not less than twenty children whose parents declare their desire for such other religious instruction the Board of Education may, if they think fit, require that sufficient teachers shall be provided on the staff of the school qualified to teach the religious instruction contemplated in the arrangements; (2) the local education authority, in exercising their control over the school and their powers with respect to the appointment and dismissal of teachers, shall permit such arrangements and enable such requirements to be carried out."
  He said that during a previous discussion Lord Zouche had asked what were the various classes of facilities for

  297
  transferred voluntary schools, and he must say that, having listened to the debate during the last few days, he thought it was somewhat difficult to ascertain exactly what these facilities were and how far they would be restricted by paragraph (b). Undoubtedly the restrictions proposed by His Majesty's Government formed a new class of facilities which might be labelled as restricted facilities. He imagined that the object the Government had in view was the protection of minorities, and, as the Lord President of the Council once in the course of the discussion said, the protection of majorities. Inasmuch as the largest portion of these transferred schools were schools to which the Bill proposed to give facilities, it might be said to be a protection for majorities; but the Bill had also been designed for the protection of minorities. Were the facilities which were inserted in the sub - clause, or indeed in the Bill itself, real facilities or were they not? By sub-section (b) of Clause 4 the child of every parent dissenting from facilities must be provided for in some other school in the neighbourhood, and no Clause 4 schools could be established unless the child of every parent who had not petitioned for the establishment of such school could conveniently attend any school in the neighbourhood. The Bishop of London had alluded to this point, and shown that if the parent of one child refused, or did not desire, to have these facilities, it would be impossible to have any Clause 4 school. But Clause 4 schools were the schools for which this Bill was designed. If this obnoxious proviso were deleted he proposed, by his Amendment, to provide means so as to save the rights of Nonconformists and other minorities. He proposed that proper arrangements should be made in the Clause 4 school itself to afford adequate opportunities for giving the children of Nonconformists the religious teaching they desired. What he wanted to do was, if possible, to remove the simple objection of there not being alternative accommodation for the children of parents who were not anxious to have facilities. He wanted to provide accommodation for them in the school itself. He proposed that that should be done in two
  298
  ways. In the first place, if there were not less than twenty children whose parents declared their desire for such other religious instruction the Board of Education might, if they thought fit, require that sufficient teachers should be provided on the staff of the school qualified to teach the religious instruction contemplated in the arrangements. It had often been said in these discussions by the most rev. Primate and many others that all they asked for was justice. They did not ask for anything for the Church which they were not willing should be granted to other denominations. They simply desired that justice should be done to all. He believed that some provision of this sort was required if justice was to be done, and he hoped His Majesty's Government would agree that it was necessary to provide in some manner for those minorities other than that of merely obtaining alternative accommodation. He trusted the Committee would look carefully into this matter, because he believed it would provide a certain amount of justice in dealing with this Bill. The Amendment also showed a spirit of compromise and did not conflict with the principles of the Bill as the Lord President on several occasions had complained that other Amendments did. This Amendment embodied a concession to those on the opposite side of the House, who, like himself, were willing and anxious that whatever form the Bill took it should as far as possible be conciliatory and productive of a lasting settlement, and be one which every class and every sect in the country would, at all events, look upon with generous approval.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, after the words last agreed to, to insert ' But if the applicants show to the satisfaction of the Board of Education that suitable arrangements can be made in the school for enabling children whose parents declare their desire for some other form of religious instruction than that for which the extended facilities are afforded to receive such other instruction, or failing that, instruction in accordance with Section of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, the condition in paragraph (6) of this section with respect to the existence of accommodation for such children in other schools shall be dispensed with Provided that—(1) if there are not less than twenty children whose parents

  299
  declare their desire for such other religious instruction the Board of Education may, if they think fit, require that sufficient teachers shall be provided on the staff of the school qualified to teach the religious instruction contemplated in the arrangements; (2) the local education authority in exercising their control over the school and their powers with respect to the appointment and dismissal of teachers shall permit such arrangements and enable such requirements to be carried out." — (Earl Cadogan.)
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I am quite certain that the concluding words of the noble Earl who has just sat down convey very clearly everything that was in his mind when he put down his Amendment. We must all believe that this is a perfectly honest and ingenious attempt to meet a difficulty created not by the provisions of the Bill which the Government have introduced, but by the Amendments carried by noble Lords opposite. But my noble friend's Amendment is an old friend. It is our old friend "inside facilities all round" re-introduced in a somewhat different form. The proposition, as I understand it, is that, if the majority who apply for the four-fifths facilities show that they can make arrangements for inside facilities for the minority, instead of providing for that minority elsewhere in other schools the minority should be taken in and looked after inside the school itself with, if necessary, special teachers provided for them. That is our old friend the provision of facilities all round introduced in another form, and the question I wish to ask in reference to it is, what is there in the fact of having a majority of one kind of denomination and of having gone through certain processes to have the school put in a particular class, which makes it specially appropriate for the inception of these inside facilities? Why. if offered to schools of this kind, should they not be offered to all schools?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But these are "atmosphere" schools.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: Apparently they are going to lose the atmosphere by the Motion that has been made by the noble Earl. How it can be argued that they can remain atmosphere schools in the same sense as they are now, I am unable to understand. How it can be
  300
  supposed that these conditions are equally applied under the noble Earl's Amendment, I am quite at a loss to conceive. Take the case of an ordinary village school. There, for some reason or other, it will be necessary to go through the process of dividing the children, and perhaps out of 100 children fifty-one will belong to the Church of England. That having been done, my noble friend proceeds to see that careful provision is made, perhaps for one, two, or three different kinds of religious teaching for the minority of forty-nine children. Why is that more necessary than if, in the same school of 100, there were three denominations nearly equal, say, numbering thirty-three, thirty-three, and thirty-four? Why should the same conditions not obtain under those circumstances? What is there in this minority or even in a four-fifths arrangement that distinguishes these from all other schools? That is the point I have found difficulty in dealing with, and possibly some later speaker may throw some light upon the subject. I do not see any interdependence between the two things, all round facilities on the one hand, and the fact of a certain religion being predominant on the other. It is perfectly certain that the change effected in the Bill by making the majority the necessary figure for the provision of these schools might have a strange effect on the provisions of our Bill as it was introduced, but that, of course, was not our fault. I confess, therefore, that I do not see why the particular provision is brought in for these schools any more than for schools receiving ordinary facilities or for any other schools. It is quite possible that some subsequent speaker may enlighten us on that point. This proposal is a complete departure from our plan. Our plan was undoubtedly to leave a certain limited number of schools which should be very markedly and distinctly denominational. The noble Lord's Amendment is a reversion to the idea that it is possible within the one building to provide for all the different denominations. I am bound to point out what the general situation is as regards these schools. Voluntary schools which contain the majority of children of one set of opinion will, if the noble Lord's Amendment is accepted, obtain all the privileges which we gave to the four-fifths

  301
  schools, and it practically is to pass as far as I can understand out of the hands of the local authority altogether. Under these circumstances why should we go to the trouble to deal with these schools? Why any local authority should undertake to execute the repairs in those schools is more than I can conceive. The schools will be in a stronger position from a denominational point of view than they are at this moment, and why, under those circumstances, it is necessary to depart from the existing state of things by giving pretended local control over them, and by paying for all the repairs of the schools is more than I can conceive. Schools of this kind have been absolutely taken out of the Bill by the Amendments of noble Lords opposite, and they are to enjoy all their present advantages in addition to certain advantages which we propose to allow them in our Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that the reason why the Lord President of the Council did not understand the bearing of this Amendment was that he and his colleagues had never really appreciated what was meant by parents' rights. Those rights they were now urging, not only on behalf of the majority, but with equal force on behalf of the minority, The particular schools contemplated by Clause 4, with regard to which he had used the rather indefinite term "atmosphere schools," would, although the noble Earl did not seem to think so, differ in kind from all other schools, and that would have been so either under the Government proposals or under the Bill as it stood after their Lordships had amended it. They would differ because they would have this religious atmosphere, and that was portrayed in the Government proposals, because in those schools, and in those schools alone, they permitted the teachers to give religious instruction. He did not need to go into the question whether that provision was adequate or not, but it established the fact that in the opinion of the Government they differed and differed in kind from all other schools. That was done because the parents of the majority wished it. The Government only adopted that w the great reluctance in the first instance, and
  302
  they had never carried it out to its logical conclusion. They did not see that because they had provided these very special rights for the majority of the parents in Clause 4 schools, consequently they were bound in all those schools also to provide for the rights of the minority. Lord Cadogan had appreciated that omission on the part of His Majesty's Government and had proposed that in the case of the minority, equally with the majority, the parents' rights should be secured. He was very glad the noble Earl proposed this Amendment, which he (the Marquess of Salsbury) urged upon their Lordships' attention with all the earnestness in his power. They did not desire in any degree to oppress minorities. They were as anxious to secure the rights of Nonconformists as the rights of the members of the Church of England or of any other denomination. How did Lord Cadogan propose to protect and safeguard the rights of the minority? He said in the first instance that under very strict conditions these Clause 4 schools might be admitted even if there was not another building, provided they could give adequate protection to the minority in the same building.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I am unwilling to interrupt the noble Marquess, but if he will look at the noble Earl's Amendment, he will see that, if possible, the instruction is to be given inside the building and not outside. Therefore, the proposal is, if possible, that it is to be provided inside the schools.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that the Amendment provided that if suitable arrangements could be made in the school it was not necessary to show that there was another school. The Government proposed that these extended facilities should not take place at all unless there was room for all the minority children in other schools. Now they were proposing that these extended facilities should be given where the majority desired them, even f there was no other school accommodation to which the minority children could be sent, provided the rigid conditions of his noble friend's Amendment were complied with.
  *THE EARL OF CREWB: I do not think the noble Marquess has appreciated my point. My point was, as I read the Amendment, that the accommodation must be given in the school if possible, and if there is not room in the school it will have to be given outside.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that was not the intention of his noble friend, because prima facie the accommodation was to be given outside in another school.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: If the noble Marquess reads the clause in the light of this Amendment he will see my point.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that as he understood the case, if there was a single child, or however small the minority, some arrangement must be made for the protection of its rights of conscience. It did not say a substantial minority but a minority however small, and unless an arrangement were made to the satisfaction of the Board of Education, they did not ask for extended facilities. They went further in the case of a substantial minority, because then they were perfectly willing to see that proper teachers were provided for those children however denominational the school might be. He thought their Lordships would admit that in his noble friend's Amendment they had gone as far as they could to protect the rights of the minority, and if the noble Earl opposite or any other noble Lard could propose some better way of protecting the rights of the minority, provided it did not interfere with the rights of the majority, they would be willing to consider it. They were most anxious to study the rights of the minority, and this Amendment was drawn entirely with that object.
  LORD WENLOCKsaid he felt rather alarmed at the enormous amount of work which would be thrown upon the local education authority by this Amendment. A very large duty would be cast upon them if they had to provide all these facilities in the schools. If his interpretation of the proposal was correct, there might be 51 per cent, of children belonging to one denomination in one
  304
  school, and they would got their teachers all right, but the other forty-nine would get such teachers as the local authority would be called upon to provide. He was apprehensive that under this proposal a very large amount of money would be called for from the local ratepayers, because a very large stag of teachers would be required to give the religious instruction to the children of the minority as provided in this Amendment. He merely wished to know if his view was correct.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I would suggest that that part of my noble friend's Amendment which deals with the teachers should be postponed. At the request of the President of the Council we have already postponed matters kindred to this until we come to Clause 8. I would suggest that we should stop at the words "shall be dispensed with," and consider the other questions when we arrive at Clause 8; otherwise we shall he anticipating discussions under that clause.
  *LORD CADOGANsaid he agreed with the suggestion which had been made by the most rev. Primate. It had already occurred to him that it might have been better dealt with under Clause 8, and he was quite willing to postpone the last two paragraphs until Clause 8 was reached.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid it might be convenient as a matter of order and discussion to separate these two proposals as had been suggested by the most rev. Primate, but it was really impossible for the Government to consider the proposal up to the words "shall be dispensed with," without considering also what was proposed afterwards, because some machinery, he took it, would have to be proposed in order to carry out the proposition of the noble Lord. He could not help thinking that the proposition which had been made showed that noble Lords opposite were becoming a little alarmed at their own handiwork ["No!"]. It appeared to him that they were now shrinking back
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Amendment was drafted a long time ago.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid noble Lords opposite were now coming forward at the eleventh hour to show their excessive zeal and desire to protect the interests of minorities. Might he ask the noble Marquess opposite why he did not exhibit the same excessive zeal in 1902? Why did he not discover in that year the same zeal buried somewhere within the recesses of his mind to protect Nonconformist minorities in the single school districts.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that the noble Lord could not find a single word of his uttered at any time which was not sympathetic towards Nonconformists.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that sympathy would not butter any parsnips. He happened to be in the House of Commons during the discussions of 1902, and the noble Marquess opposite might have expressed a little barren sympathy here and there for the Nonconformists but certainly there was no overt proposition of any kind made at that time by the noble Marquess or his friends in the direction of sympathy with Nonconformists, and every proposal made by the then Opposition pointing out the excessive injustice which would be done in single school areas in the country districts was met with opposition and frequently with mockery. The noble Marquess had given them a treatise to show the excessive zeal of himself and his friends to do justice to Nonconformist minorities in the country districts, and he had spoken with such extraordinary zeal that he almost expected him to say that he was not only a Unionist but also a Unitarian.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid this Amendment would introduce an absolutely new principle into the Bill, and also into the history of English elementary education. It meant that for the residue of a school where they did not like the stereotyped form the promoters could provide religious instruction, if they could show to the Board of Education that suitable arrangements can be made in the school for enabling children whose parents declare their desire for some
  306
  other form of religious instruction." There was no obligation on the local authority even to provide Cowper-Temple instruction. There was the right to provide it, and by the Amendment which had been put into the first clause it would be the duty of the local authority to enable someone to provide it, but not necessarily to give it themselves, and it might depend upon the zeal of volunteers whether that opportunity was taken advantage of. It was not even Cowper-Temple teaching, and if Methodists, Presbyterians, Jews, or Catholics, were to say, "We want these facilities for special teaching," they would be provided if the promoters of the school could show the Board of Education that they were prepared to provide them. He would not deal with the subsequent machinery, because it was prospective, but he wished to say that the State had never undertaken to provide any definite religious teaching for anybody; it had always contented itself with requiring an adequate system of secular instruction, leaving religious instruction to the locality. The State had p id no grants for religious instruction. Now it was proposed to introduce a new obligation both on the State and on the locality to provide religious instruction according to the demands of the people. He wished to correct what he thought was a very glaring misstatement in regard to the operation of this Bill with respect to Clause 4 schools. With the confidence which their majority gave them, noble Lords opposite had spoken as if their Amendments had already become part of the Bill. He wished to point out that at the present moment there was no obligation whatever upon the local authority to provide teachers of any particular type; in fact, as far as the Bill went, there was a prohibition, because there was a general clause in the Bill prohibiting the local authority from imposing tests upon teachers. Further than that, there was no obligation upon the local authority to allow the teachers to give this definite teaching. And lastly, as the Bill stood, there was no obligation whatever upon any teacher to give any religious instruction. The most rev. Primate appeared to think that the local authority was at liberty to enter into these obliga-

  307
  tions subject to a conscience clause, but as the Bill stood, all that was granted in Clause 4 schools was the right to use the school for five mornings in the week for religious teaching, and that was a right which they now held in common with the ordinary school. He wished to protest against this attempt to put a new duty upon the State and upon the local authority, and he hoped the Committee would divide against this proposal.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I rise to make a suggestion. I do not know how late noble Lords opposite wish us to sit, but if there is a prospect of a considerable number of other speeches on this Amendment, to be followed as I imagine they would be by a division, I should like to know what the opinion of the majority of the Committee is with regard to adjourning the debate at this stage?
  *THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYappealed to Earl Cadogan to withdraw his Amendment. The principal objection was that it brought in the Board of Education as arbiter upon the religious question. Upon this point he agreed with Lord Stanley of Alderley. This was an entirely new question. They might, when they saw the Bill on the Report stage, consider it necessary to introduce some Amendment of this sort, but he did not think it necessary to deal with it in this part of the clause. As the noble Earl had already offered to withdraw two sub-sections, might he ask him to withdraw the other and bring it up again on Report? Those acquainted with local government would know that the clause would put upon the local authority a most onerous task, and they would be overridden in their jurisdiction in a most unnecessary way.
  LORD STANMOREasked whether the objection urged against this Amendment on the ground of the expense it would throw upon the rates was not met by the clause which provided that any part of the expense incurred in religious teaching was not to fall upon the local authority.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARKsaid his own position did not quite
  308
  accord either with that taken up by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment or with that taken up by the Government. Consequently, he felt the matter was one of some considerable importance with regard to the policy taken by the Committee, and perhaps it would be better it it had the advantage of a little more discussion. He was quite prepared to move the adjournment of the debate.
  *LORD HARRISsaid he desired to add a practical question, and it was, What provision did they propose to make in regard to the teachers? The first subsection of the Amendment declared that the Board of Education might, if they thought fit, require to be provided on the staff of the school sufficient teachers qualified to teach the religious instruction contemplated in the arrangements. If this clause were carried they would have to make provision for teachers of all denominations. This-was a question which he put not so much to the Government, because they objected to the Amendment, as to-his noble friends below him because they were promoting the proposal. He thought they were entitled to some explanation as to what were the arrangements which county authorities, for instance, would have to make in regard to providing all these teachers. It seemed to him to be throwing a very unfair and unnecessary expense on the counties to require anything of the kind.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I rise to answer the question which has been put to me by the noble Lord. As I understand the Amendment, it would not necessarily involve any additional charge upon the rates. What is proposed is that in certain cases where the dissentient minority is of substantial proportions, the Board of Education may, if they think fit, arrange that the staff of the school shall be adjusted with reference to the different religious denominations represented in the school. That does not mean that more teachers would be appointed, but that the teaching staff of the school will be selected with some reference to the views which they will have to teach.

  309
  That is my answer to the question put by Lord Harris.
  With regard to the continuance of the debate it has been suggested by the right rev. Prelate that the House should resume, and as I understand that a considerable number of noble Lords are interested in this matter, I do not suggest that this discussion should continue now.
  House resumed; to be again in Committee to-morrow.
  House adjourned at Five minutes past Eleven o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.