EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.

HL Deb 07 November 1906 vol 164 cc437-516

House again in Committee (according to Order).

[The Earl of Onslow in the Chair.]

Clause 4:—

Debate resumed on following Amendment— In page 3, line 42, after the word ' child' to insert the 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 tit, require that sufficient teachers shall be provided on the stall' of the school qualified to teach the religious instruction contemplate 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 LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH- WARK

said he had ventured the previous night to move the adjournment of the debate because it seemed to him that the matter which they were upon was of very considerable importance, and that they had hardly sufficiently considered all its bearings. The Amendment of the noble Earl made, on behalf of those who had Church schools at heart, a very large claim; but another point was that that claim followed upon several other claims which they had successively made, and which together came to a considerable amount. There- fore, he thought it ought to be freely considered.

The Under - Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, speaking upon this matter yesterday, had said what perhaps was fair in debate but was not altogether considerate to his opponents. The noble Lord declared that those who had voted against him were getting a little frightened by what they had done, and were beginning to see whether they could not modify it a little. If the noble Lord had looked at the Paper he would have seen that the Amendment had a place upon it a good while before the other Amendments were moved. But there was a more serious reason for referring to that point. The noble Lord the Under-Secretary, turning to the benches behind him for cordial approval and support, went on to criticise what he described as this new-born zeal on behalf of minorities, and he said he wished this had always been so. It was necessary upon that point to demur a little. He supposed that there was no Party of any kind which, if it looked back twenty years in its own history, would not wish that it had seen quite as clearly then as now. With that admission, he would like to say that for a considerable time past, in season and out of season, they had tried to urge the rights of parental minorities, which the noble Lord's Amendment was now defending.

He would go back, for example, to what they put before the country themselves in the year 1899, and among the suggestions then made was the suggestion that in all schools, including their own, there should be facilities for the teaching of children who were in the minority. They always regretted that that suggestion was not adopted in the Bill of 1902. He thought if noble Lords would ask their consciences they would admit that the blame for that, if blame there be, was to be shared by both sides of the House, In the debates of that year Lord Layton moved an Amendment precisely to that effect, and he ran the Government of the day very close upon it. The figures wore, he thought, seventy-eight for the Amendment and eighty-four against. But how was it that that Amendment was then thrown out t It was thrown out by noble Lords who now sat on the front Government bench, who came to the rescue of the Government of the day, and, though then perfectly free in Opposition, refused that which to him seemed the fairest treatment for minorities.

Coming more closely to the Amendment itself, he felt very grave doubt about the amount of claim which it embodied. This was very largely a Church of England question, because, although the fourth clause related to Church schools and to the schools of Roman Catholics, the places to which this Amendment referred would be, not exclusively but mainly, Church of England schools. When he reflected that a large extension of Clause 4 had been effected by former Amendments carried in their Lordships' House; that they had made the clause to a great extent cover country districts, or, at least, large portions of them; and that they retained for those districts what had been called the atmosphere of the school aided from the rates—when he reflected this he shrank from doing that which he knew, rightly or wrongly—wrongly he thought in part, but also quite reasonably in part—the great mass of Nonconformist opinion, at least in its controversial form, would feel to be a hardship and injury. He felt bound to draw the distinction involved in the words "in its controversial form," because he was aware how much many Nonconformists rejoiced in the existence of the Church schools, and how often Nonconformist parents sent their children there, because they valued the religious character of these schools as against the more mechanical character of the other schools.

Then he looked at the Amendments to Clause 3. There he found what was the alternative supposing they did not pass anything approaching to the noble Lord's Amendment. If schools in one school area could not remain Clause 4 schools, the alternative, of course, would be that they would become Clause 3 schools. Under the Bill as it was amended, at least in every area that came under their purview for this purpose, in those schools they had the opportunity of having teaching every day in the week, and they might, by a further Amendment, be able to have the assistance of one of the teachers. They had, then, it seemed to him, in respect of those schools, a fair share of such a facilities system as he would like to see on a larger scale. He did not know whether he had expressed himself clearly enough to justify the view which he was inclined to take, but he thought their Lordships would see that he was probably unable-to support the Amendment. He would explain why he used the word "probably," and why he hesitated in the matter. The first point was that if the noble Lord's Amendment were rejected, the proviso (b) of the clause would stand as the regulation for the transferred schools. He did not think he was speaking too strongly when he said that that proviso, in its present form, would be an open leak in the Bill, through which nearly all the virtue of Clause 4 would be drawn, leaving an empty cistern, where they thought they had their reserve of water. It was that which he desired to press upon the attention of the Government. They must, he thought, be aware that there was a very serious risk that Clause 4, which the Government told them they offered very deliberately and very seriously to meet what they considered fair conscientious demands, would prove illusory to a very large degree.

He was told that in innumerable cases it would be found that though, very probably, accommodation existed for the mass of the children, yet there would be a few cases for which it would be impossible to provide, and upon those few cases the application would break down. It was on these points that he ventured to think they were entitled to more attention from the Government than they had hitherto received.

They could not help feeling that this Amendment, coming where it did in the order of their debates, was not merely a single item, but part of a larger whole. They did not wish to ignore the impression which their debates might make. It was said that they were piling up claims. Certainly to him it was no satisfaction to feel that from clause to clause they were doggedly making one claim after another, going up possibly to the full edge of what they had a right to ask. But, on the other hand, with all respect to the Lord President, whose courtesy was unfailing, the Government sat sullenly declining all their Amendments. What made this situation more serious was that behind their division there was a division between two of the great bodies of religious opinion in the country. Such tension was fraught with the gravest anxiety, but as far as he could see it must largely be put down to the attitude which the Government felt themselves obliged to take. If no concessions were made they could not do otherwise than go on asking for each of the things which they felt they might fairly have, thus, perhaps, producing the impression of a formidable aggregate.

What made the Church representatives so stiff and unyielding in their claims was the Government's refusal to take for the main foundation of this measure the principle of equal dealing with different classes of children and parents and with different religious denominations. He could not sufficiently regret, for his part, the fate of Lord Balfour's Amendment. But why did that Amendment encounter the fate which befel it? What led the Government to refuse that Amendment? What, moved the noble Duke on the cross benches to say what he did against it, or the noble Viscount on the front bench to take a parallel line? What moved Lord Courtney to endeavour to draw the line where he did? Quite obviously it was not the reason of the, matter, not the equity of the matter; all these persons were moved by the consideration that it could not be done, that it would raise too great a storm, that the forces against it were so great that it was undesirable to go that way.

Who, he asked, was responsible for the present tension? For the present state of tension that Party was responsible which was determined to pass a steam-roller over minorities. The attempt to produce uniformity refusing that variety of treatment which was essential if they were to do justice to conscience, was not made by those for whom he spoke. It was made, he would not say by the Government, but by those who constrained and drove the Government, and it was they who were obstructing a settlement that might be made on broader and fairer lines.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

said the Amendment was based on very broad-minded principles, and it recognized that it was possible for unjust treatment to be meted out to minorities. In the other House of Parliament the Minister for Education had declared that minorities must suffer. No doubt that was so, but he thought their burden should be as light as possible, and it was with that intent that his noble friend had moved this Amendment. The proposal was to give a minority of children in a certain school advantages which they might not otherwise possess, but it had not been fully understood in their Lordships' House. The alternative school was a plausible expression which gave the idea of complete accessibility. If noble Lords looked at a map and saw schools dotted about a district near to one another they were liable to be misled on the point. The accessibility of a school was a different matter, as an alternative school might really be far from accessible to children, from whom it might be separated by a railway or a canal. He did not think their Lordships had grasped this difference, and the idea of his noble friend in introducing the Amendment was to meet this difference. To his mind the Amendment was an extremely practical one, and he did not think it would result in any additional expense being incurred.

LORD BELPER

said he was very reluctant to intervene in this discussion, as he so entirely sympathised with the object of the noble Earl in moving the Amendment and the tone and temper in which he had introduced it to their Lordships' notice. But there was one authority concerned in this matter which had been somewhat lost sight of in the course of the debate—he meant the local education authority. His noble friend Lord Wenlock had asked the previous night for some information as to how the clause could be carried out, but had received no answer, and the point had not been alluded to since by any speaker. He thought their Lordships would agree that local education authorities had always shown themselves willing to take up any burden that was put upon them, and to carry out the work of education to the best of their ability, but he felt that, if the Amendment were passed, those bodies would, with the best will in the world, find it impossible to carry it out satisfactorily.

What was lit that the Amendment proposed? It proposed that, in a school where the majority required and were to have special facilities, and whore the minority represented not less than twenty children, if the parents of the minority declared their desire for 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 give that religious instruction. The only ray of light he saw in that provision was in the words "the Board of Education may, if they see fit." He took it that the words in the clause required that the local education authority should provide, amongst the staff of the school, teachers who were qualified to give any denominational teaching where there were twenty children requiring it. It was a novel idea that the local education authority should be required to teach and to super- vise this education at all, but it became more anomalous still when they had to provide headmasters to teach the form of religious education required by the majority where these facilities were to be given, and other masters to teach whatever religion might be the religion of more than twenty children in that school. It was not only that they had to provide the teachers; they would also have to be responsible for the carrying out of the clause in a satisfactory manner. The words in the second sub-section of the Amendment were— 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 did not quite understand the reasons which had prompted the Amendment, but he ventured to suggest, not so much on the ground of expense, as on that of the practical working of the proposed scheme, that it would not be possible for a local education authority to carry it out in a satisfactory manner.

*LORD CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH

hoped the Amendment would eventually be acceded to, with the exception of the latter part. He said this, not from any objection entertained to the principle, but from the fact of the great administrative difficulties which lay in its way. The principles of the Amendment worked successfully in Scotland and Ireland, but if it was to have the slightest chance of success in this country it was absolutely necessary that it should be entirely free from any element of compulsion. It must be a matter of arrangement freely entered into by the local authority and the owners of the school, and for that reason he hoped the last part of the Amendment would not be pressed. An arrangement of this kind, entered into voluntarily, might provide the basis, in a great many instances, of a solution of a difficulty which was common to-day. He thought it would remove some objection on the score of practical difficulties if, after the first "school," the words "or elsewhere than in the school-house" were added, and he moved to amend the Amendment in that sense.

Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment— After the first 'school,' to insert the words 'or elsewhere than in the schoolliou.se."'— (Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

*THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE)

My Lords, the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark made a remarkable and weighty speech, couched, as we should have expected, in terms of moderation, and altogether, as we should also have expected, on a very high plane both of thought and expression. The right rev. Prelate shed one more tear, if I may say so, over the disappearance of facilities all round. He reminded us that in the debates on the Education Bill of 1902 an Amendment was moved in this House by Lord Lytton which was not accepted owing to the agreement of both front benches and of a majority of those then present in your Lordships' House that the scheme was not one which would work.

I think the right rev. Prelate was scarcely fair to that majority. He seemed to imply, both as regards that majority and as regards the majority of the House who found themselves unable to accept Lord Balfour's proposal the other day, that it was because some storm of public opinion would be aroused, before which we would be compelled to bow, that we and also such noble Lords as the Duke of Devonshire and Viscount St. Aldwyn felt compelled to oppose that proposal. It was not in the least on the ground of a possible storm from which we desired to shelter ourselves that we were unable to accede to that suggestion. We all admitted the great attraction of some such scheme; but it was simply on the practical grounds of every-day working, admitted and enforced by those who are entitled to speak with authority on the practice and daily work of education, that we were compelled to dismiss that proposal from our minds. That is an important consideration, because, if it was a mere matter of bowing to a gust of public opinion, not only would our position be a morally inferior one, but there would always be the chance that public opinion might change. But, if our objections were founded—and I think it was clear from the noble Duke's speech that his objections were founded—on the actual impossibility of carrying out such a scheme, then, although it was considered in 1902 and again the other day, we are compelled, as I fear, the conditions in this country being what they are, to dismiss it finally from our minds.

*TIIE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK

I was not thinking at all of any sudden or momentary gust of public opinion, but of a great body of opinion which was acting in 1902 and is acting now.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I entirely accept the rev. Prelate's explanation of what he said. The right rev. Prelate made one further complaint of our general attitude towards this Bill, and he seemed, I think, to regard it as a matter of which the Committee had a right to complain that we were not prepared to introduce Amendments of our own into our own Bill. I confess that it does seem to me scarcely reasonable to suppose that having brought a Bill into the House, and being in complete ignorance as to which were the Amendments on the Paper in regard to which noble Lords opposite would take an absolutely unbending attitude, and which were the Amendments in regard to which they might be disposed to take a less inflexible position, —it does seem to me unreasonable to ask that we should begin by stating the points, supposing them to exist, upon which it might be considered that some minor modifications in the Bill might be possible. Had we taken such a course, I do not think the passage of the Bill at its present stage would have been in the slightest degree facilitated. I have no reason to suppose that the number of extreme Amendments, not all compatible with each other, which have been carried by your Lordships, would in any way have been diminished, and I regret, therefore, that being in the minority, we are in this House obliged to hear what noble Lords opposite have to say and to accept the decisions at which they choose to arrive. There seems to be no other course open to us, and, although we may attempt to argue our points as best we can and to state the objections which we have to particular Amendments, we, of course, have to bow in the end to the force of the majority.

Turning for a moment to the clause itself, I think it is important that the House should be thoroughly aware of what the clause actually does. The expression "atmosphere" has been used in relation to this clause. It is one which, as the right rev. Prelate said, may be open to some exception, but I think it gives a general idea of what is meant. As we introduced this clause, we intended the four-fifths majority to apply to schools of a predominant type. On that the noble Marques stated yesterday that it was owing to the fact that these schools were of a predominant type that he thought protection ought to be afforded to the minority.

THE MARQUESS of SALISBURY

I think that protection ought to be afforded to the minority in any case.

THE EARL OF CREWE

On that I wish first to point out that the "atmosphere" of these schools is abolished by the action of your Lordships' House. The action of your Lordships' House in substituting "a majority" for a "four-fifths" majority, it must be admitted by all, destroyed the special position of those schools possessing a particular atmosphere. Nobody could say that a school with fifty-one Church of England children and forty-nine Wesleyan children had a predominant Church of England atmosphere. That is one manner in which the atmosphere has been destroyed. You now proceed to destroy it further, so far as these particular schools are concerned, by introducing a considerable variety of religious teaching into the schools. I am not for a moment saying that that may not be a desirable thing to do, but you are abolishing the particular character of these schools. If you mean to say there is to be no school in England in future into which any type of religious teaching may not be introduced at the demand of a certain number of parents, you are altering, I should have thought the character of a very considerable number of those schools.

I understand that the demand of the noble Duke opposite and his friends, as expressed in many Resolutions which have reached me and in many speeches, is for Catholic schools giving Catholic teaching through Catholic teachers. Catholic teaching may be given in the schools, and probably, and we hope most certainly, the teaching will be given by Catholics; but how or by what figure of speech, if my noble friend's Amendment is carried, those schools could be said to be Catholic schools I confess passes my comprehension. For that reason I was a little surprised at the general agreement with this Amendment expressed by Lord Clifford, who as I know, speaks on behalf of noble Lords in this House who are Roman Catholics. I turn to the noble Lord's Amendment on line 39.† How the provisions of that Amendment are in any way considered compatible with the provisions of this Amendment goes rather beyond me. I turn for a moment to what was said just now by Lord Salisbury when he most courteously and properly intervened. He said he was for the protection of the minority everywhere. Well, I hope we ell are.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I wish you were.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

My right hon. friend's observation in the House of Commons, which as he explained himself was not an epigram but a platitude, has again been evoked, and though I in my turn have to thank noble Lords opposite for the courtesy with which we have been treated in the course of this debate, I am not sure that to some extent the principle of the observation has not been forced on my mind during the last few days. The noble Marquess opposite says he is for minorities everywhere. Then why do you apply this particular provision to this particular kind of school more than to any other schools? What is the reason for giving a right of entry to all religious bodies in these schools where there may be a mere majority more than in all the other schools of the country where different religious persuasions may exist? If it is right to have special teaching for tifty-one Church children and forty-nine Wesleyans, is it not equally right to have the same teaching if there are thirty-three of each of those bodies and thirty-four of some other persuasion. Therefore, we are, it seems to me, working back very † See Col. 482. pleasantly, and, I hope, realising what we are doing, in the direction of all-round facilities. The schools in Germany, in which different kinds of religious instruction are carried on by teachers of each particular persuasion in the same school, have not, I believe, been found to answer very well, and their number has tended to diminish in favour of more purely denominational schools. We, by a curious paradox, are in favour in Clause 4 of the more denominational kind of school which is being abolished by the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite. I fear that we on this side cannot support the Amendment. I again admit that the right of entry has attractions, but it is alien to the general structure of the Bill, and on that ground alone, even if there were not others, we should be obliged, I am afraid, to decline to accept the Amendment.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, at one point I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl who has just sat down showed unusual audacity in his defence. He complained of us who j sit on this side of the House for the independent and inflexible attitude which we have assumed. I should have said that the independent and inflexible attitude was to be found on the Benches opposite and not on these Benches. I desire to associate myself with what was so well said earlier this evening by the right rev. Prelate when he called the attention of the Committee to the fact that if we were compelled to put forward Amendments of this kind one after another, perhaps not always with the strictest possible regard to their cohesion as part of a complete scheme, it was because we had received throughout no assistance whatever from His Majesty's Ministers in examining the details of this most complicated and curiously drafted measure. Surely it is remarkable that, after all the opportunities for consideration which His Majesty's Government have enjoyed, they have made no contribution to the literature of this Bill except the two drafting Amendments to Clause 5 standing in the name of the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council.

With regard to the clause before your Lordships, let me say how glad I was to hear my noble friend Lord Belper say that, although he was unable to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Cadogan as it stood, he entirely appreciated the objects with, which that Amendment had been put forward. The Amendment may be an imperfect Amendment; I think it quite possible that the principle for which we are contending might be better expressed; but what we do feel is that, if injustice is to be avoided, some means must be found of giving to what I may call the dissentient minority the religious instruction which they desire in the school itself and not in an outside school. We all know that nothing is so difficult as to establish the fact that what can be properly and really called alternative accommodation equally accessible and equally convenient is to be found in any particular area; and where that accommodation cannot be provided, there my noble friend's Amendment stipulates that the dissentient minority should, if possible, be provided for in the school itself.

An attempt has been made to show that the demand of my noble friend would impose an intolerable burden, either upon the Board of Education or upon the local education authority. I cannot help thinking, from things which have been said about this Amendment, that many noble Lords do not really appreciate either the intention or, indeed, the actual working of the Amendment. The whole thing depends upon the ability of the parties to satisfy the Board of Education that this accommodation can really be given without injustice or inconvenience to the parties. Some of my noble friends read this Amendment as a suggestion that these schools are to be filled with teachers representing every conceivable variety of denomination, but that is not to be found in the Amendment at all. I take it that the case my noble friend has in his mind is where there is a dissentient minority which is not only substantial but homogeneous. There would be no great difficulty, say, in a school with five teachers, in arranging that one member of the staff should give the religious instruction that the minority desired. Suppose, for example, a Church of England school with twenty-five Nonconformist children. Why should you not arrange with one member of the staff, under this proposed clause, to give to that minority Cowper-Temple teaching? Is there any material difficulty? I do not believe it for a moment.

LORD BELPER

In the case of a minority who required special teaching the Cowper-Temple teaching would not be what they required.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I think my noble friend will find it in the actual wording of the Amendment. Then I take the obligation which is imposed on the local education authority. All that the local education authority is called upon to do is to permit this teaching to be given in certain cases.

LORD HARRIS

To provide the teaching.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

They "may" do so.

LORD HARRIS

It says that sufficient teaching shall be provided.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

The words are "the Board may require" and the local authority "shall permit the arrangements" where the major facilities stipulated for under the clause have to be provided. It is a consequential permission. I cannot bring myself to believe that either in the case of the local education authority or in the case of the Board of Education is there any duty imposed which could not with ordinary common sense and ordinary goodwill be satisfactorily discharged. But, as I said before, this is a complicated Bill. The Amendments to it necessarily partake of the complicated character of the parent measure, and it is quite possible that the object which we have in view might be accomplished in a better way. If His Majesty's Government are ready to give the matter their consideration and to help us in bringing this desirable result about. I would recommend my noble friend Lord Cadogan not to insist on his form of WORDS. He has already intimated to the | Committee that he does not intend to press his proviso which deals with teachers. If he goes to a division on the earlier part of the Amendment I shall vote with him but it is by no means inconceivable that a simpler and better way of arriving at a satisfactory result might be discovered.

*LORD HARRIS

said the noble Marquess appeared to have an idea that his noble friend and himself were raising an objection to the Amendment which was largely fanciful. He did not think the noble Marquess quite appreciated the objection which they raised last night and were again raising to-day. They asked him to consider the difficulties which would arise under the Amendment. So far as the major part of the Amendment was concerned he, and he imagined his noble friend below him, would vote for it with the greatest pleasure, but he thought it would be wiser that the obligation of providing teachers should be with the denominations and not be thrown on the local education authorities. No doubt arrangements would have to be made to enable schoolmasters to maintain discipline and have control over any individuals brought in for the purpose of giving denominational education, but, if that were possible, he thought it would be the much wiser course. The objection they had was not to the major part of the Amendment, but to the two sub- sections which in effect threw upon the education authority of the county the obligation of providing denominational teachers. In carrying out the principle of co-ordination embodied in the Act of 1902 councils had incurred heavy expense in the training of teachers, and he regarded with dismay the prospect of an additional obligation to train teachers in various denominational creeds. That was a difficulty which he hoped would be considered. He ventured to suggest that there was another consideration apart altogether from the educational one —would it be tactically wise to ask ratepayers to pay for denominational teaching in training colleges? Would it not be raising up another host of difficulties in addition to those already existing. He was afraid that the number of those who declined to pay rates would be very largely increased if on the shoulders of the whole of the ratepayers of the county was thrown the obligation of paying for the religious training of those who were being educated at training colleges and possibly pupil teachers as well. He would ask his noble friend below him, Was that a tactically wise proposal to send down to the House of Commons, and possibly to ask the opinion of the country upon at some future time?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said his noble friend had stated most frankly that he entirely accepted the earlier part of the Amendment, but he had added some very interesting observations, founded upon expert knowledge and experience, with regard to the latter part of the Amendment. His noble friend Lord Cadogan had intimated that he would not press at the present moment the proviso at the end of his Amendment, and therefore perhaps he might all the more freely say a word or two about its wording with a view to its possible reappearance at a future date. He agreed with the noble Marquess the Leader of the House that improvements might be made in the wording of the Amendment, but the intention was that where a school asked for extended facilities and could offer accommodation to the dissentient minority the Board of Education might give consent. There would not be an obligation upon a local authority to appoint teachers, but unless they could be appointed the Amendment could not be availed of. His noble friend had spoken of a great variety of creeds. It was expressly stated in the Amendment that all it was necessary to provide, in order that the clause might have effect, was Cowper-Temple teaching.

THE EARL OF CEEWE

I beg the noble Marquess's pardon. The Amendment says— 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 MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said that if it was impracticable to give the minority children instruction according to their faith because there were no teachers able to give it, it would satisfy the conditions of the Amendment if Cowper-Temple religion was provided.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

My Lords, I am afraid I am unable to go so far as my noble friends Lord Belper and Lord Harris in giving assent to even the first portion of this proposed clause. I could not assent to that portion of the proposed Amendment because it certainly involves in some form or another an attempt to introduce the principle of facilities all round. I have not been convinced, and certainly nothing which I have heard in the course of this discussion has helped to convince me, that such a system can possibly be grafted on the organisation of our schools.

There are one or two details involved in the adoption of the first part of this Amendment to which I desire for a moment to call attention. In the first place, I would point out to my noble friend Lord Cadogan that if his Amendment could be inserted anywhere, this at all events is not the place in which it should be inserted. Under the clause there are certain applicants who apply that extended facilities may be given to a certain school. My noble friend proposes that these applicants are to show to the satisfaction of the Board of Education that suitable arrangements can be made, and so on. I desire to point out that, so far as we have gone, the Board of Education can know nothing whatever about the subject. The whole of the transaction dealt with in this clause is one between certain applicants who desire extended facilities to be given in the school and the local education authority; the matter has never come before the Board of Education at all. Under the structure of this and the succeeding clauses the question does not come before the Board of Education until an appeal is made to them against some decision given by the local education authority. Therefore, at this stage at all events, it is quite impossible for the Board of Education to interfere—in fact, they have no knowledge whatever of the matter.

There is another question, perhaps of detail, which I do not think has yet been referred to, but on which I desire to say a word or two. The words in the first part of the Amendment involve the necessity —I think the invidious necessity—of requiring a declaration from a certain number of parents. The schools we are considering are transferred schools. From the fact of their transference under the Bill Cowper-Temple teaching will be the normal religious education given in them, and the parent of every child attending the school will be entitled to claim for his child such Cowper-Temple teaching. If the extended facilities are applied for and granted by the local education authority, Cowper-Temple teaching will cease to be the normal religious instruction in the school. The Bill provides in that case that alternative accommodation shall be provided for the child elsewhere, but it is open to the parent, if he objects to the religious instruction which will hereafter be given in the school, without attracting public attention to his act, simply to transfer his child to another school. But under the Amendment of my noble friend in certain cases it will not be necessary to provide alternative accommodation, and unless he and a certain number of other parents make a declaration which may possibly involve very inconvenient consequences to them, a declaration opposed to the wishes of the majority of his neighbours, he will not secure the teaching he requires even in the school itself. I think that the necessity of any declaration on the part of the parent to obtain for his child the religious instruction, to which under the law as it at present stands he is entitled, is imposing upon him an invidious necessity which I do not think can very easily be justified.

My further and, perhaps, principal objection to the Amendment relates to the subsequent provisions which it is proposed at present to postpone. I see very little use in debating the general principle in the first part of the Amendment unless we have some conception of how we are to carry it out in practice. The method indicated in the latter part of the Amendment does appear to me to involve placing upon the local education authorities and the Board of Education responsibilities in respect of making arrangements and providing for religious teaching and religious teachers, for which I believe no precedent exists in our educational legislation, and which, in my opinion, may involve consequences very much wider than any which we can easily foresee at the present moment.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

asked whether, before going to a division, the noble Earl would not reconsider his Amendment with a view to bringing it up again at a later stage.

EARL CADOGAN

said he was placed in a position of some difficulty at that moment. He confessed that, notwithstanding the long discussion that had taken place upon his Amendment, he was not yet convinced that it could not be made useful and assist in the improvement of the Bill. He had already expressed his readiness to postpone the consideration of the two provisos, but if the general feeling of the Committee was that the Amendment should not be pressed he did not wish to put noble Lords to the trouble of a division. He would, however, be glad if the principle of the Amendment could be affirmed, so that at a later stage it might be made a useful addition to the Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

reminded their Lordships that an Amendment to the Amendment had beer proposed by Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.

*LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

said he was willing to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL CADOGAN

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

We are strongly of opinion that this Amendment should not be withdrawn but negatived. The discussion upon it has occupied us for a considerable part of last evening and for an hour and a half to-day, and I think the sense of the Committee] ought to be taken on the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK

Are we to divide on the question that leave be given to withdraw the Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

No. The Question is that this Committee do agree with the first part of the Amendment (the part preceding the two provisos).

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Ought we not to take a division on the question of whether or not the Amendment be withdrawn?

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

No; when a proposal to withdraw an Amendment is objected to, a division must be taken or else the Amendment negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I think the noble Marquess is correct.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD

moved to substitute "shall" for "may" in that part of the clause empowering the local authority to permit the teachers to give the desired religious instruction. He said the provision, as he proposed to amend it, would read— Where extended facilities are so afforded the local authority shall also, if they think lit, permit the teachers employed in the school to give the instruction desired, but not at the expense of the authority. He said he had a further Amendment lower down to make quite explicit the right of the teacher to refuse to give the religious instruction if he pleased.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 2, to leave out 'may' and to insert 'shall.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)

THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH

urged the inclusion subsequently of the words in the second Amendment "provided that they desire to give it." His sole reason was to make quite explicit that the right of the teacher remained. The course of this debate had shown that: it was necessary to make everything as explicit as possible.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I was under the impression that it had been suggested the other evening by the noble Earl opposite, and that the suggestion had received a considerable amount of support in the Committee, that all Amendments relating to teachers should be postponed until we got to Clause 8. This Amendment distinctly raises a question relating to teachers.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, there is no difference of opinion between noble Lords opposite and ourselves as to the practice of the teacher giving the teaching in schools of this particular kind. Therefore, that question does not arise. This Amendment is closely bound up with the whole question of the substitution of the word "shall" for "may;" it is really part of that scheme. Under our scheme as it was originally started, when the word "may" was in the Bill there was an appeal to the Board of Education as to the arrangements offered. If it was impossible to come to an arrangement, the Board might either make an order, or, in the last resort, allow the school to be turned into a State-aided school. The substitution of the word "shall" for "may" obviously sweeps away all that appeal; and consequently this Amendment, although we very strongly object to it, is in a sense a consequential Amendment upon the substitution of the word "shall" for "may."

When we come to Clause 5, I think it will probably be desired by the House not to proceed with the consideration of that clause at all, because it is rendered useless by the action of the House on the question of "may" and "shall." We, of course, do not consider it proper that a direct injunction should be placed upon the local authority to appoint a teacher of a particular religious complexion. Upon that point we are perfectly clear, and we in our Bill as it was introduced made it possible, as nearly as we could without infringing that principle, to arrange that the teacher in Clause 4 schools should be of the same faith as the great majority of the children in the school.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

Will the noble Earl kindly explain how that would be?

*THE EARL OF CREWE

In this way. It being within the competency of the local education authority to appoint a teacher of the special denomination, and an appeal lying to the Board of Education on the general arrangements, it was, of course, competent for the Board of Education to make any representations to the local authority; and, in the event of the local authority being unwilling to make such arrangements as were desired, the Board of Education would allow the school to be turned into a State-aided school, when, of course, it could have any teacher it pleased.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CAN TERBURY

Does the noble Earl say that under the Bill as introduced there is an appeal to the Board of Education against the action of the local authority because they do not appoint a teacher of a particular denomination?

*THE EARL OF CREWE

It can be done under sub-section (4) of Clause 5, which enables the Board of Education to turn a school into a State-aided school. The sub-section runs as follows— The parents of at least twenty children at tending a transferred voluntary school, if aggrieved by the mode in which extended facilities are afforded by a local education authority, may appeal to the Board of Education, and that Board, if satisfied, after considering the circumstances of the ease, that there are reasonable grounds for the appeal, may make an order allowing the school to continue as a State-aided school.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

asked whether he was to take it that there was an effective appeal against the action of the local authority. He did not quite understand the noble Earl.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I am afraid I do not quite follow the noble Marquess. If the parents of at least twenty children feel aggrieved by the mode in which ex tended facilities are afforded they may appeal. It would, undoubtedly, be a grievance if a Unitarian teacher was appointed in a Roman Catholic school, a thing which we hope is practically impossible and which could only happen as the outcome of a condition of complete exasperation between the two parties. If that were to happen then the remedy of the parents would be an appeal to the Board of Education, who could, if they chose, allow the school to continue as a State-aided school.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

Yes, but only as a State-aided school. The school does not remain as it was before. It would lose the position which it originally held.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

It would lose the rates, and it would become a self-controlled school not under the management of the local authority.

LORD HENEAGE

thought it would be better to allow the sub-section to stand without further discussion now, on the understanding that they were in no way prejudiced in discussing the whole question of teachers later.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

insisted that concurrently with the right of the local authority to give or withhold per mission for definite religious instruction, was the right of the local authority to appoint teachers without the imposition of tests. The Amendment of the right rev. Prelate was very much more serious now than it would have been if Clause 4 had been unamended, for their Lordships had altered the Bill so that now a bare majority of the Church of England could turn a school into a Clause 4 school. He could quite understand that in a rural parish influence might get the adhesion of a bare majority, though it might consist of many lukewarm Church men. There might be an excellent man belonging to the Methodist or the Presbyterian Church, who was thoroughly respected in the parish. in every way qualified for the position, and likely to become a good headmaster. Was it to be said that if, on a canvass, a vote was procured to make the school a special facility school, they were to compel the local authority to pass over the man who in their opinion was the best in favour of some man who bore an ecclesiastical label? He strongly contended that the liberty of the local authority should be kept as it came up from the House of Commons.

THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVIDS

asked how, in the circumstances, it was possible for them to have extended facilities at all. According to the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, if the parents of a certain number of children were aggrieved at the mode in which these extended facilities were being administered, and particularly if they were aggrieved at the appointment of a teacher not belonging to the faith for the teaching of the tenets of which facilities had been given, their only remedy was to appeal to the Board of Education, with the inevitable result that, if they proved their case, they would lose the extended facilities, and the school would become a State-aided school. He had been of opinion for some time that the course of this discussion was a reductio ad absurdum of the proposals of His Majesty's Government.

THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD

said he was perfectly ready to adopt the suggestion of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition and postpone the Amendment until Clause 8 was reached.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

said the question before the Committee was not the appointment of teachers, but whether the local authority should or should not permit the teachers in the school to give special religious instruction. Surely that ought not now to be left a matter of option to the local education authority.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I am so far in agreement with what has been said by the noble Viscount that I think I stated just now that in one respect this Amendment must be regarded as being of a consequential character. Your Lord ships have chosen to turn "may" into "shall" and therefore, from your point of view, I imagine you regard this further provision as indispensible. That was the reason why I thought it better to take the discussion now than to postpone it. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of St. Davids has asked me a conundrum, and it is one which is not capable of an answer "yes" or "no." What we do not admit is that local education authorities should have the power to restrict appointments to a particular school to persons of a particular faith by asking them before they receive their appointment whether they hold a particular religious view. But if the right rev. Prelate asks me whether I do not think it exceedingly likely that the local authority will know, as those things are known, to what faith a particular teacher may belong, I am bound to say that in my opinion it is exceedingly likely. But there is a very marked distinction between the recognition of that fact and encouraging the putting of a question to candidates before their appointment and allowing the appointment to depend on their answer.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Surely this question has nothing to do with the appointment of teachers.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

Absolutely nothing.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Then the greater part of the discussion has been entirely irrelevant. The question is whether the local education authority may permit or shall permit teachers to give certain instruction. That has nothing to do with the appointment of teachers, and therefore does not fall under Clause 8 and is much better decided now.

LORD ASHBOURNE

asked whether the Government proposed to drop Clause 5.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

It will be a question whether we continue more than one small part of it.

LORD ASHBOURNE

thought this was a very grave statement and advised their Lordships to read in advance Clause 5, which introduced for the first time the important element of State-aided schools. It was very necessary to consider every paragraph in that clause. It was there provided, that if twenty parents felt aggrieved by the mode in which extended facilities were afforded by the local education authority they might appeal to the Board of Education, and, if their com plaint was well founded, what happened? Why, the Board of Education had power to make an order allowing the school to continue as a State-aided school. He regarded that—

THE EARL OF CAHPERDOWN

Surely the question before the Committee is not Clause 5. Would it not be better to defer the discussion on that clause until we reach it?

LORD ASHBOURNE

maintained that he was entirely in order in view of the statement of the noble Earl the Lord President that when they came to Clause 5 he proposed to drop it.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I did not say that we proposed to drop Clause 5, but that when we came to it your Lord ships, in my opinion, viewing it in the light of the Amendments made to the present clause, would probably think it undesirable to proceed with it. There is one sub-section, however, to which I think that does not apply.

*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON)

My Lords, the question, at issue is, what amount of trust are you prepared to place in the local authorities. For myself, I think it wise that you should, it the interest of religious instruction, place a large amount of confidence in the action of local authority. I believe that there may be cases in which they will not act as was the obvious intention of this Bill as originally pro posed by the Government, but I believe that in the great majority of cases you will find that they will be inclined honestly to carry out the intentions of the law. I do think it is very greatly in the interests of the denominational schools dealt with that you should act, in the first instance, at all events, upon the principle that you do trust these local authorities to carry out the intentions of the clause, and not make compulsory upon them the course which you intend: them to pursue. The Bill as it was pro posed by His Majesty's Government does provide an appeal, as the noble and learned Lord has just said, under Clause 5 to the Board of Education if the local authority does not carry out the spirit of the Act; and it does provide a means, which I will not discuss at the present moment, by which the object of the denominational school may be attained. I cannot think that we should be precluded from discussing at all events a portion of Clause 5 when it comes for ward; but I am very anxious that you should understand that the proposal of the Government was this, that while they did not in this clause or in the previous clause imperatively order the local authority to take a certain course, they did provide a method of meeting the desires of the denominational schools upon that basis if the local authority did not carry out their view.

*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said he understood the noble Marquess to say that the Government had provided in the Bill such a mode of appeal as would maintain the rights acquired by the schools for extended facilities. It seemed to him that, as the Bill ran, when that appeal was made to the Board of Education by the aggrieved school, it would not be in the power of the Board to maintain the school in the rights it had already acquired. All that the Board could do would be to say, "You may go on if you can, without any aid from the rates, as a State-aided school." Therefore, it would not be in their power, on appeal, to retain the position that had been promised, and, per haps provisionally, afforded, of having the teacher who might be in consonance with the opinions of those who owned and cared for what was called by the noble Earl a frankly denominational school. He agreed that, in the case of a Roman Catholic or Jewish school, the probability of the appointment of a teacher who would not be in sympathy with the feelings of the owners or maintainers of that school was remote, but it was not at all improbable that a teacher might be appointed in a Church of England school about whom no further inquiry was thought necessary than that he called himself a member of the Church of England, and who might be of general grounds the very last man whom the people whose interests the Government said they desired to protect would have chosen as a teacher for their school. They were now told that the only remedy in that case, even where the rights had already been acquired, would be that the school might possibly be allowed to go on in the inferior position of a State-aided school. If that were the complete explanation of the way in which Clause 4 was meant to be a protection for what more than one member of the Government had called "the preservation of the denominational principle" in these particular schools, he must confess that it was most disappointing.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I only rise for the purpose of saying that if this discussion has wandered away from the Amendment before the Committee and into the region of the fifth clause we are not to blame for that digression. With regard to the Amendment itself, I, for one, accept the view of the noble Earl opposite that the Amendment is, strictly speaking, consequential upon the Amendment which the Committee has already carried. We have said, at the beginning of the clause, that the local education authority "shall" afford these extended facilities in certain cases, and it therefore appears to me to follow inevitably that the same local education authority "shall," in the same circumstances, give the necessary permission to teachers. We shall therefore vote for the Amendment.

THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD

reminded the Committee that the only question with which the Amendment dealt was that of permission; it did not deal at all with the question of appointment. What it provided was that in the special schools the teachers who had been appointed should not be prohibited from teaching. Having established a school of this character it was only a matter of common sense that they should leave the teachers in that school free to give this instruction if they wished to do so. He did not think the Amendment would make any actual difference in the administration of the clause, but the fact of its being in the Bill would give a great deal of confidence to all who were interested in this particular class of school.

On Question, "That the word 'may' stand part of the clause."

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 47; Not contents, 195.

CONTENTS.
Crewe, E. (L. President.)	Colebrooke, L.	Nunburnholme, L.
	Coleridge, L.	O'Hagan, L.
Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)	Courtney, of Pen with, L.	Overtoun, L.
	Denman, L. [Teller.]	Pirrie, L.
Northampton, M.	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and	Reay, L.
Beauchamp, E.	Kincardine.)	Rendel, L.
Carrington, E.	Eversley, L.	Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]
Chesterfield, E.	Farrer, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Craven, E.	Fitzmaurice, L.	Saye and Sele, L.
Kimberley, E.	Glantawe, L.	Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)
Russell. E.	Grimthorpe, L.	Shuttleworth. L.
Temple, E.	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
	Haversham, L.	Tweedmouth, L.
Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Hemphill, L.	Wandsworth, L.
	Joicey, L.	Weardale, L.
Boston, L.	Loch, L.	Welby, L.
Brassey, L.	Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)
Burghclere, L.	Monskwell, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Abp.	Bath, M.	Catheart, E.
York, L. Abp.	Bute, M.	Cawdor, E.
	Hertford, M.	Clarendon, E.
Norfold, D. (E. Marshal.)	Lansdowne,.M.	Darnley, E.
Bedford, D.	Salisbury, M.	Dartrey, E.
Devonshire, D.	Winchester, M	De La Warr, E.
Grafton, D.	Zetland, M.	Denbigh, E.
Leeds, D.		Devon, E.
Marlborough, D.	Abingdon, E.	Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch
Newcastle, D.	Albemarle, E.	and Queensberry.)
Northumberland, D.	Ashburnham, E.	Feversham, E.
Sutherland, D.	Bathurst, E.	Fortescue, E.
Wellington, D.	Bradford, E.	Gainsborough, E.
	Cadogan, E.	Halsbury, E.
Abergavenny, M.	Camperdown, E.	Huntingdon, E.
Ailesbury, M.	Carnwath, E.	Ilchester, E.
Kilmorey, E.	Ripon, L. Bp.	Forester, L.
Lathom, E.	St. Albans, L. Bp.	Gage, L. ( V. Gage.)
Lindsey, E	St. Asaph, L. Bp.	Gerard, L.
Londesborough, E.	St. David's, L. Bp.	Gormanston, L. (V. Gorman-
Lucan, E.	Southwark, L. Bp.	ston.)
Lytton, E.	Wakefield, L. Bp.	Harlech, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.	Winchester, L. Bp.	Harris, L.
Morton, E.		Heneage, L.
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Abinger, L.	Herries, L.
Nelson, E.	Addington, L.	Hothfield, L.
Northbrook, E.	Alington, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Northesk, E.	Allerton, L.	Kelvin, L.
Onslow, E.	Ampthill, L.	Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Pem broke and Montgomery, E.	Armstrong, L.	Kenyon, L.
Plymouth, E.	Ashbourne, L.	Kinnaird, L.
Powis, E.	Ashcombe, L.	Knaresborough, L.
Radnor, E.	Avebury, L.	Lawrence, L.
Saint Germans, E.	Balfour, L.	Leigh, L.
Scarbrough, E.	Barnard, L.	Leith of Fyvie, L.
Shaftesbury, E.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Lovat, L.
Shrewsbury, E.	Belper, L.	Macnaghten, L.
Stamford, E.	Blythswood, L.	Manners, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)	Bolton, L.	Masham, L.
Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]	Borthwick, L.	Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Westmeath, E.	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and	Middleton. L.
Yarborough, E.	Orrery.)	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
	Braye, L.	Mowbray, L.
Bridport, V.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)	North, L.
Churchill, V. [Tetter.]	Burton, L.	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Falkland, V.	Calthorpe, L.	Ormathwaite, L.
Falmouth, V.	Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)	Penrhyn. L.
Goschen, V.	Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)	Rathnore. L.
Halifax, V.	Cheylesmore, L.	Ravensworth, L.
Hill, V.	Clanwilliam, L. (E.	Redesdale. L.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-	Clanwilliam.)	Robertson, L.
more.)	Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)	Sackville, L.
Iveagh, V.	Clifford, of Chudleigh L.	Sanderson, L.
Knutsford, V.	Clonbrock, L.	Sandys, L.
Llandaff, V.	Colchester, L.	Seaton, L.
Ridley, V.	Crawshaw, L.	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
St. Aldwyn, V.	Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)	Silchester. L. (E. Longford.)
	De Freyne, L.	Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricade.)
Bath and Wells, L. Bp.	de Ros, L.	Somertor. L. (E. Normanton.)
Birmingham, L. Bp.	Digby. L.	Stalbridge, L.
Chester, L. Bp.	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)	Stanmore., L.
Chichester, L. Bp.	Ebury, L.	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E.
Hereford, L. Bp.	Ellenborough, L.	Galloway.)
Lichfield, L. Bp.	Emly, L.	Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Lincoln, L. Bp.	Estcourt, L.	Tennyson, L.
London, L. Bp.	Faber, L.	Teynham, L.
Norwich, L. Bp.	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)	Waleran, L.
Oxford, L. Bp.	Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)	Wenlock, L.
Peterborough, L. Bp.	Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)	Wolverton, L.

On Question, Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Word "shall" inserted.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

moved the omission of the words "also if they think fit."

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 2, to leave out the words 'also if they think fit' "—(Viscount Llandaff.)

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I have no objection to the Amendment.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

moved an Amendment to provide that the local education authority shall take into consideration any application made to them with respect to a school under this section if it is made by "the owners of the schoolhouse or" the parents of at least twenty children attending the school. He said this was not a very important Amendment, and he thought it was one which His Majesty's Government might accept, as they themselves had inserted it in Clause 5. In that clause the Government gave the same right to the owners as was given to the parents, and he did not see why, if the owners of the schoolhouse desired it, they should not have the same rights under this clause.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 7, after ' by ' to insert ' the owners of the schoolhouse or ' "—(Viscount Ridley.)

*THE EARL OF CREWE

The noble Viscount has quite clearly stated that in the first instance the offer would be made by the owners because there is no one else who could make it. Then if the noble Viscount looks at sub-section (4) of Clause 4 he will see that— An application may be made under this section as respects any existing voluntary school for a permission to take effect in the event of the school becoming a transferred voluntary school, and the provisions of this section shall apply in such a case as they apply in the case of a school which has actually become a transferred voluntary school. That is to say, the initiative does come from the owner. It certainly appeared to us that, as regards the future, when any application of this kind had to be made it would come with more reason and propriety from the parents than from the owners of the school. I do not, however, regard the Amendment as one of first-rate importance, and I do not seriously object to it if the noble Lord presses it.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I should like to press the Amendment if the noble Earl will allow me.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

moved the omission of the words requiring the trans for of schools free of rent as the condition of extended facilities being afforded. The question of rent, he argued, should be left open as a matter for agreement. These were the words which had been designated by Viscount Goschen as the shabby and mean part of the clause, and he thought that was an opinion their Lordships generally would entertain.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 13, to leave out from them to the end of the sub-section."— (Viscount Llandaff.)

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I hope noble Lords opposite will not support the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount. Surely it is obvious that the conditions in these cases are exceedingly different. These schools, as we intended, are to be denominational in character, and one feature of them is that the religious instruction which is provided in council schools under those restrictions will not be given. If rent is to be paid, in respect of what is it to be paid? The local authority confer a great benefit upon the denomination to whom the school belongs by executing all the repairs, and I confess I cannot see what the valuable consideration is in respect of which rent can be paid.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. It seemed to him that the argument of the noble Earl the Lord President was quite just. Those who built and maintained these schools did so for the purpose of giving in them secular education on a religious basis. That would still re main possible under the clause. To compel local authorities to pay rent for the schools would be practically imposing upon them the cost of the religious instruction, which he thought nobody wished to do.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

thought the noble Viscount had hardly understood the effect of the Amendment. They would not be forced to pay rent; it would be a matter of agreement. The noble Earl the Lord President of the Council had asked what consideration there would be for this rent. There would be the same consideration as under Clause 3, by which clause the local education authority had the use of the school as a public elementary school during five days in the week. The consideration given was exactly the same in this case.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said the Amendment was a distinct attempt to impose a charge on the rates which, as their Lordships knew, was not in the power of that House; but he did not know whether the noble Viscount who had moved the Amendment would take a leaf out of the episcopal book and move, as was done in 1902, the addition of the words "pro vided that no charge is imposed on the rates thereby."

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD HEREIES

rose to move the insertion of the words at the end of sub-section (2)— The rent being reserved by the local education authority as payment by the owners for the special religious instruction given in the school by teachers qualified to give it.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I should like to ask whether this Amendment is in order. I thought we had decided to retain the words to the effect that no rent should be paid. The noble Lord now moves an Amendment as to how the rent is to be allocated and spent. "We have agreed that extended facilities shall not be afforded except where the use of the schoolhouse is given, or the school house is transferred, to the local education authority free of any rent or other payment in respect of the use of the schoolhouse for the purposes of a public elementary school. As those words are left in I do of see how it is competent for us to discuss the uses to which the rent; is to be put.

LORD HERRIES

said the rent was not to be paid; it was reserved by the local education authority because the special religious instruction was being given in the school. Passive resisters and Non conformists generally maintained that they did not wish to pay for religious instruction with which they did not agree. He contended that they were not asked to pay. No rent was charged for the schools, so that the money could go towards the payment of the persons who were giving the special religious instruction. His Amendment was more of an explanation, and its object was to show that the local authorities would not be paying for religious instruction because they were not paying any rent; it was that rent, which would otherwise be due to the owners of the schools, which was being devoted to the payment of the cost of giving religious instruction.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 18, after ' school' to insert the rent being reserved by the local education authority as payment by the owners for the I special religious instruction given in the school by teachers qualified to give it.' "—(Lord Herries.)

*THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, it seems to me that this Amendment represents a sort of game, if I may say so, of make-believe. No rent is to be paid by the local authority but the local authority is to go through a sort of form of pretending that in every individual case the rent precisely pays for the religious instruction. Those things have no relation to each other. In one case the religious instruction might be very I expensive and no rent would be payable, whereas in another case the religious instruction might be very much cheaper, and if rent were charged at all a considerable rent might have to be paid Surely it is unreasonable to average those things together by making a sort of amiable pretence, in order to make things go smoothly, that in each case the rent would have been equal to the amount which religious instruction in that school would cost.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

was glad the question had been raised; it served to mark the injustice of taking over buildings upon which enormous sums had been expended without equivalent return. When they considered what the voluntary schools had done in the past all fair men would recognise that they had a right to expect justice at the hands of the Government. If they turned to the other side of the question they found that religious education was given in provided schools which was not the kind of education those who supported denominational schools desired, and yet the latter had to pay for Cowper-Temple teaching in those schools.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CAN TERBURY

interposed in order that it should not be supposed that because they took no action to reject this no-rent clause, they accepted the proposal in the Bill as a right and fair agreement. It was one of the cruellest hindrances placed in the way of the hardest pressed groups of schools in the kingdom. They, how ever, would take no steps against it, because they wished it to be clearly understood that they regarded the matter of rent as nothing in the balance compared with the principle for which they were contending. He was anxious that no word should be spoken that could be twisted into a desire on their part to have this sacred and momentous question treated as a financial one. They were fighting for a righteous principle, the principle of religious liberty, against what they felt to be an intolerable hard ship inflicted upon a great number of schools. They could not consent to be met by a promise, problematical or otherwise, of the payment of rent as if that could be a solatium for sacrifice of a principle they held dear and of rights for which they had sacrificed much, and which they desired to maintain

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

For the reasons which the most rev. Primate has given we much prefer not to take up the time of the Committee with the discussion of the question of rent. As for the Amendment of my noble friend behind me, I hope he will not press it. He has said with very great frankness that it was rather a statement of reasons than an endeavour to amend the language of the Bill, and I honestly must say I do not think the words as they stand on the Paper could appropriately be added to the text of an Act of Parliament.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHES TER

moved an Amendment requiring the local authority to give permission for the inspection of the special religious instruction under this section, no part of the expense thereof being paid by the authority. The noble Earl the Lord President, in the discussion on the previous clause, had given them kindly and sympathetic encouragement to suppose that the Government would look favourably upon the recognition of such inspection, and, if the noble Earl would renew the assurance that the question would be sympathetically considered before the Report stage, he would not persist in his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 18, after ' school' to insert ' a local education authority shall give per-mission that the religious instruction of a special character given under this section may be inspected, but no part of the expense of such inspection shall be paid by the local education authority.' "—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I shall be very happy to give the assurance asked for.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

moved to amend sub-section (2) by pro viding that a permission given under this section might be at any time "after the expiry of five years "withdrawn by the local education authority. It appeared to him desirable that there should be some period of revision, which he had fixed as the quinquennial period, and not a mere arbitrary one.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 20, after 'time' to insert 'after the expiry of five years.' "—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

*THE EARL OF CREWE

The suggestion of the noble Lord is that the term of five years should be allowed in every case for these schools. I should think it exceedingly probable that in most cases there is very little likelihood of any alteration being made within that period but still it is possible that there might. Therefore, we are unwilling to fetter the discretion of the local authority to the extent proposed. Our view is that, if the conditions change, the character of the school ought to change, and that it is not reasonable to say that because the facilities have been given once, they should, in spite of changed conditions, continue for any great length of time. I am afraid we could not agree to fetter the discretion of local authorities to the extend proposed.

*THE MARQUESS OF LADSDOWNE

I think there is some force in the arguments used by the noble Earl who has just sat down, and I am bound to say there is another consideration which weighs with me. We have altered this clause so that permission for these ex tended facilities may be obtained in con sequence of the action of a bare majority of the parents. It seems to me that it I would be scarcely reasonable, after that, to stipulate that there should be a five years period during which the facilities could not be withdrawn. For that reason I suggest that the Amendment should not be pressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

moved to insert, after the words "a permission given under this section may be at any time withdrawn by the local education authority "the words" if an application to withdraw the same is made to them by the parents of not less than twenty children attending the school." He held that as the Bill provided that the application for special facilities must come from the parents of at least twenty children, there was even stronger reason for not allowing the permission to be withdrawn without a similar number of parents desiring it. Otherwise a cantankerous person or persons might ask for the facilities to be withdrawn, whereas the bulk of the parents of the children might desire them to continue. Therefore he thought there should be the same requirement for the withdrawal of facilities as for the granting of them.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 20, after 'authority' to insert 'if an application to withdraw the same is made to them by the parents of not less than twenty children attending the school.' "— (Viscount Llandaff.)

*THE EARL OF OREWE

My Lords, I think somewhat similar arguments apply in this case also. I am sure that the noble Viscount's sole object is to ensure that the whole question shall not be reopened without reasonable cause. But supposing the matter were raised, as the noble Viscount suggests, by one or two busy-bodies, the local authority would not take any action. They are not obliged to take action in the matter. They may cause a ballot to be taken, and I certainly think they ought to hold the inquiry. I can quite imagine, in the case of some local quarrel, the parents of twenty children coming forward and objecting to the facilities being continued when in reality they ought to be continued. It does not by any means follow that the adoption of the noble Viscount's Amendment would necessarily tend to peace or prevent unreasonable applications on the part of minorities. I think it would be-much better to leave the matter to the discretion of the local education authority.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

did not think the Amendment a reason able one in the present state of the clause. The claim for special facilities had now been made applicable to village schools, many of which had only thirty or less children in them, and it would be-obviously unreasonable in such a case to require an application from the parents of twenty children. He knew of a Roman Catholic school in Dorsetshire with only seven children. Therefore the relation of twenty had no bearing to the present state of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

moved to amend sub-section (2) by adding, after the pro vision that "a permission given under this section may be at any time with drawn by the local education authority, if, after causing a ballot to be taken and holding a public local inquiry with reference to the matter, they think," the; words "or, in case of dispute with the owners, the Board of Education think." He explained that this Amendment was to a certain extent consequential upon an Amendment on which there was-some slight misunderstanding. He had desired to move earlier in the clause to leave out "after holding a public local inquiry with reference to the application, "and to insert the words "or, in case of dispute with the applicants for the facilities, if the Board of Education are satisfied; "that was to-say, to give an appeal on the facts. It was, however, decided to leave the; question of the public inquiry over. He; asked the noble Earl the Lord President-whether he did not think that the method he proposed was a better way of dealing with the question of appeals than that-in the Bill.

Amendment moved— After 'think,' to insert,' or, in case of dispute with the owners, the Board of Education think.' "—(Viscount Ridley.)

*THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, the noble Viscount is right in one sense in saying that his Amendment has a consequential flavour about it, and to a certain extent it follows, from his point of view, on the change in the words "may" and "shall." I see that at the end of this clause the noble Viscount proposes to insert a new sub-section, and I am not quite clear how far that may not cover the whole question of appeal owing to the introduction of the words "the owners of the schoolhouse." It appears to me that that is possible. What I wish the noble Viscount to understand is this. The only appeal to the Board of Education which we pro posed was that in Clause 5, and that, so far as the first part of that clause was concerned, applied only to the original application to be made in respect of the school. It would not have applied, so far as that is concerned, to a subsequent application. The appeal of the parent under sub-section (4) of Clause 5, as noble Lords will have seen who have taken the trouble to look at my Amendment, was intended to be preserved, and the mistake arose owing to a draughtsman's error; but the appeal under sub-section (1) was not intended to survive in the event of a further application. If I do not divide the Committee on the Amendment it is only because I consider the substitution of the word "shall "for" may" makes this Amendment in a sense consequential, but I wish to point out to the noble Viscount that we object both to his Amendment and to the substitution of the word "shall."

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

*LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

moved to add at the end of sub-section (4) the following words:—"Provided that a prior right of admission to any school in respect of which extended facilities have been granted under this section shall be secured to the children of any parent residing within the area for which the school is available, on a signed declaration to the local authority that he wishes the child to receive the benefit of the special religious instruction given in the school." He argued that, special facili- ties having been given in a particular school, the places in that school should not be allowed to be filled by those who did not want the particular facilities, to the exclusion of those who did and for whom the school was so constituted.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 39, after 'school' to insert ' provided that a prior right of admission to any school in respect of which extended facilities have been grafted under this section shall be secured to the children of any parent residing within the area for which the school is available, on a signed declaration to the local authority that he wishes the child to receive the benefit of the special religious instruction given in the school.'"—[Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

*THE EARL OF CEEWE

I can assure the noble Lord that we regard his point of view with considerable sympathy. The noble Lord is apparently afraid that in some cases artificial attempts may be made to fill up an extended-facilities school with children of a different faith, with a view ultimately of having the character of the school altered. I hope that is not likely to happen, although it might conceivably happen. Although the change would involve rather an important departure from existing practice, at the same time, holding as we do the view that these schools are to be specially denominational and to retain, if the parents of the children desire it, their specific denominational character, we are, as I have said, disposed to regard the noble Lord's Amendment with a good deal of sympathy. We would have no great objection to it if the proportion of children which was to decide the character of the school was allowed to stand at four-fifths; but we think it incompatible with the Amendment adopted last night changing the proportion to a bare majority.

THE EARL OF DENBIGH

thought the objection which had been raised by the noble Earl to this Amendment a some what unreasonable one. His noble friend Lord Clifford was not aiming at preventing artificial attempts to fill up a school of this kind with children of a different faith; his object was to protect schools which were avowedly denominational, and to which the Government had all along expressed their intention of affording facilities.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

The noble Lord is rather vexed with me without a reason. I did not at all argue against the proposal of the noble Lord. What I said was that it was incompatible with the Amendment adopted last night changing the proportion to a bare majority.

THE EARL OF DENBIGH

could not follow the noble Earl's objection. They held that it was only fair, if it was desired to preserve the denominational character of a school, that at all events those who wanted the religious facilities should be given a prior right of getting into the school. That was all they claimed. They asked that those for whose benefit the school remained a denominational school should have a prior right when vacancies occurred over those who did not require the facilities. There was no wish to turn out children who were now in the schools.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said that perhaps the Government would agree to the insertion of the words at this stage pending the ultimate decision of the question as to proportion. If the words were not inserted now it might be difficult to have them put in hereafter.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I was assuming when I said what I did that the Amendment would be carried, and then we should have a further opportunity of considering the matter.

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK

May I ask why the proportion of a bare majority makes this Amendment unworkable?

*THE EARL OF CREWE

We do not think it is reasonable to give a prior right to places in a school which may only have a majority of one child of a particular faith or creed.

*LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

said his view was that if places had to be found for the minority when a school was made an extended facilities school, it seemed only reasonable that those who were out and desired to come into the school should have the right to do so.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

thought there was a great deal of force in the argument of the noble Earl the Lord President that the Amendment depended on the majority required for securing extended facilities.

VISCOUNT CROSS

also agreed that it j all depended on the proportion.

*LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH,

in moving an additional proviso dealing with the granting of extended facilities under certain circumstances, and a new sub-section setting up a parents' committee, said the subject-matter of his proposal was dealt with by Amendments standing in the name of the most rev. Primate and others, and it would probably be most convenient to take the main discussion when those Amendments were reached. As, however, the point in the Bill at which the Committee had arrived was that where the Amendment as drafted by him would properly come, and as his remarks might at a later part of the Bill be objected to on the ground that they dealt with Clause 4, which would then have been passed, he proposed to give his reasons in support of I the Amendment, and then leave it to the Committee to say when the question could be most conveniently dealt with. The Amendment referred to what was j generally known as the parents' committee, and was restricted to the schools with special facilities under Clause 4. There was an obvious gap in that clause, inasmuch as while it provided for the granting of the special facilities and the preservation of the "atmosphere," there was no indication as to who should see that those special facilities were carried out in the spirit in which they were asked for and given. It was evidently not the local authority, their business being simply to give the permission. At first, he fancied it would be the duty of the owners, but unless some particular safe guard were inserted, the owners might be practically removed altogether, because if the majority, whatever it might be, decided that the special facilities should be of a different character, the owners might find themselves ousted. Evidently the people who were to see to this point must be the parents of the children. Their views would decide the whole question, and it was only natural that they should be consulted. Further, the carrying out of the facilities entailed the appointment of teachers competent to give the particular religious instruction required. What the Lord President of the Council conceived would happen was that the local authorities, while they were precluded from making any inquiries of their own, would, by some wireless telegraphy, or some other method not described, learn the nature of the teachers whom there were to appoint. It would be much easier and simpler, in his view, to adopt such a plan as that proposed in the Amendment, by which the representatives of the parents should convey a certain amount of information to the local authority, that they should nominate and present a teacher of the kind they thought necessary for the carrying out of the facilities, it then being for the local authority to decide whether on educational grounds they were prepared to appoint the person so recommended. The second part of the Amendment dealt with the case where the teacher did not give the facilities which he was expected to afford, the proposal being that the parents committee should be allowed to make representations to the local authority, who, acting thereon, could transfer the teacher to some other sphere where there would be less likelihood of his conflicting with those who desired the special instruction he was unable or unwilling to give. In regard to the last paragraph of the Amendment there would probably be a considerable gulf between his wishes and the desires of the Government. He held that some protection must be given to the owners of schools. What would happen if the majority of the parents decided so to change the complexion and nature of the facilities that the instruction should be entirely contrary to the trusts under which the owners held the school? It appeared to him that the facilities would have to be restricted in some way so as to accord with the provisions of the trusts. With regard to the composition of the committee, he had suggested four members elected by the parents and two by the owners, but a better arrangement would probably be that only one representative should be nominated by the owners, the other one being given to the local authority. As one of the objects of the Amendment was that the local authority should be in touch with the wishes of the parents and the owners, it seemed most desirable that if such a committee were formed there should be upon it at least one representative of the local authority. To carry out that idea the last paragraph of the Amendment would require to be altered, as it provided only for election by the parents, whereas the respective representatives of the local authority and of the owners would require to be nominated.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 39, after the word ' school' to insert ' provided that the local education authority shall not be debarred from granting a permission, if they are of opinion that a change in the composition of the school has been artificially brought about since the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and six, by the transfer of children formerly attending and for whom places are still available in schools not affected by such a permission; also to insert 'a prior right of admission to any school in respect of which extended facilities have been granted under this section shall be secured to the children of any parent residing within the area for which the school is available, on a signed declaration to the local authority that he wishes the child to receive the benefit of the special religious instruction given in the school; and also to insert the following new sub-section: — (5) In all schools affected by a permission under this section, the parents of the children attending the school shall elect, in accordance with regulations to be made for the purpose by the Board of Education, four persons, some of whom may be women, who, together with two other persons nominated by the owners, shall be known as the parents' committee. The parents" committee shall be responsible for, and have the control of the religious instruction given in the school. The appointment of teachers in the school shall be made by the local education authority, upon the nomination of the parents committee, whose nominees shall not be rejected except on educational grounds. If the parents' committee represent to the local education authority that the continued presence of any teacher in the school is objected to by the majority of the parents on grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the school, the local authority shall dismiss the said teacher, or, as soon as practicable, remove him to another school. The religious instruction given in the school shall, as regards its character, be in accordance with the provisions (if any) of the trust deed relating to the school; and nothing in this section shall affect any pro vision in a trust deed giving to any ecclesiastical or denominational authority the power of deciding whether the character of the religious instruction is, or is not, in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed. The parents' committee shall have access to the schoolhouse at all times. Vacancies in the parents' committee caused by death or resignation shall be filled up by election by the parents of the children attending the school, in the same manner as the original appointment was made.' —(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

*THE EARL OF CREWE

The question raised by the noble Lord in this Amendment is one of considerable interest and importance. The possibility of constituting parents' committees, either for some schools or for all, was under the consideration of His Majesty's Government from a very early stage in these proceedings, it being one of the points which was carefully considered when we were engaged in preparing the Bill. It is, of course, no new invention. There was a sort of conference held at Manchester last autumn, in which members of the Church of England and several distinguished Nonconformists took part. I do not recollect whether any representatives of the Roman Catholic Church were present, but I am rather inclined to think there were. In any case it is the fact that a parents' committee to act in relation to the religious teaching was one of the suggestions which that conference put forward. I am bound to say that I myself have always had considerable sympathy for this proposal, within limits, though certainly not up to the limits suggested by the noble Lord opposite. His parents' committee is a very formidable body indeed. For many purposes it replaces the managers and deposes the local authority. If anything can be done in the direction of constituting a statutory committee of this kind, it would only be possible, from our point of view, if its functions were simply of an advisory character, with a power perhaps of making representations to the local authority on various matters. I confess I do not entirely understand what is meant by the noble Lord when he says the parents' committee should have control of the religious instruction given in the school. I imagine that he uses the word "control" in a very limited sense, because he goes on to say that the religious instruction given in the school shall, as regards its character, be in accordance with the provisions (if any) of the trust deed relating to the school, even though the provisions of the trust place the power of deciding the character of the religious instruction—as very often happens in the case of the Roman Catholic Church—upon the bishop of the diocese. Therefore what the noble Lord calls "control" in this case would really not mean much more than the arrangement of the manner in which the instruction was to take place and how it was to be given.

*LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

said that that was precisely his argument —that there was no one at all to see that the arrangement which had been entered into with the local authority was being carried out by the teachers, and to that extent it would be necessary to have some control; he did not mean an interfering control.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I quite understand the noble Lord's point of view. It is, I need hardly repeat to the Committee, our view that the principle of popular control must depend upon the local authorities having the appointment of the teacher. As a matter of fact, popular control in any case, even under our proposal, is run pretty fine, if I may use the expression, in these four-fifths schools, and, as noble Lords opposite are aware, considerable objection has been taken by the straiter sect of those who support our views generally, on the ground that even these four-fifths schools are something of an abnegation of the principle of popular control. If the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted there would be not only an obvious abnegation of the principle of popular control, but a complete reversal of the principle of no tests for teachers. That the noble Lord frankly admits. He means that there should be a test for teachers in this instance, and on that point of course we are absolutely bound to join issue with him. The noble Lord concluded by drawing attention to the composition of this proposed parents' committee, in regard to which he suggested some changes from the scheme on the Paper. The noble Lord will, I think, agree that if we assert that a committee of this kind, supposing one to be formed, could only have advisory functions, its composition from our point of view becomes far less important than it would be if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted as it stands. Speaking generally, therefore, I may say that so far as the noble Lord's Amendment goes, down to the word "school" at the end of the second sentence, we should be disposed to regard it with consideration and sympathy; but as regards the latter part, from "The appointment of teachers" to the end, I am afraid we should have to give it our full opposition.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said that in the interesting speech just delivered the Lord President of the Council had communicated to their Lordships what had never been communicated to the public before, namely, that His Majesty's Government were well disposed to the establishment, under certain limitations, of a parents' committee. That was a very remarkable announcement, and one which would have greatly interested another place had it been made at an earlier stage of the proceedings on the Bill. He was not surprised that the Government should have considered the matter and hesitated in respect of it, because in Clause 4 they had made no arrangements whatever for determining in detail what the religious instruction was to be nor for seeing that it was carried out. Like everything else in the Bill, the words of the clause were studiously vague. It was merely stated that facilities for religious instruction of a special character should be afforded. What the facilities were, what the character of the religious instruction was to be, how the facilities were to be afforded, on these points nothing, until the noble Earl's last speech, had ever been revealed to Parliament; the matter had been kept a solemn secret. He gathered, however, from the attitude of the Government that at last it had become apparent to them that so vague a proposal could not possibly be put into an Act of Parliament with any hope of its working satisfactorily, with the result that they proposed to accept an advisory parents' committee. "Advisory" was one of the vague words in which the Government delighted, and he was not quite sure what it meant. Speaking from his own experience he was not certain that there was much value in an advisory committee unless its character was such that its advice was generally taken. The process of giving advice which was at once rejected was not very amusing or edifying. Therefore, so far as those for whom he spoke were concerned, they were not at all satisfied with the idea of a mere advisory committee. The truth was that the determination of the character of the religious instruction and the control of its operation was a matter of great importance and considerable detail requiring a vast amount of attention, and he was astonished that the Government should think that such a delicate function ought to be left in the hands of the local education authority.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

was understood to dissent.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

asked what the noble Earl meant by saying that the control was to be vested in the local education authority. No doubt in one sense it might be so—

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I beg the noble Marquess' pardon. I said that the general control of the school, in our opinion, can only be secured by leaving the appointment of the teacher to the local authority, but the arrangement of the facilities we propose to leave entirely in the hands of those who claim and enjoy those facilities.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

understood, then, that the noble Earl proposed that the parents' committee should have complete control over the nature of the religious instruction. That was a very important matter, and it ought to be quite clearly understood. The noble Earl had frankly admitted across the floor of the House that the parents' committee were to have complete control of the religious instruction.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

Under restrictions.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

He has met me most frankly.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I am speaking of the facilities instruction, not of the Cowper-Temple instruction.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said he quite understood; it was the denominational instruction of which they were speaking. They now knew who was to control the religious instruction. But there then arose the question of the teachers. Earlier in the evening, speaking of the Roman Catholic schools under Clause 4, the noble Earl had said that it was to be hoped—indeed, expected—that all the teachers would be Roman Catholics.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I do not think I said all the teachers; but I have no special objection to the phrase.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said he wished to carry the noble Earl with him in his interpretation of what he had said. The Lord President of the Council conceived that in Roman Catholic schools the teaching was to be definitely Roman Catholic, controlled by a committee of Roman Catholic parents, and he hoped and expected that all the teachers would be Roman Catholics. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) was very glad to hear that, because—if he might use such an expression in reference to these dignified bodies—what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, and what was true of the Roman Catholic Church would be true also of the Anglican Church. Therefore they might take it from the noble Earl that the nature of the Anglican instruction to be given in Church schools was to be controlled by a committee of Anglican parents, and that he hoped and expected that all the teachers would be members of the Church of England.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

The noble Marquess is, of course, talking of what I call the four-fifths schools?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am talking of Clause 4 schools.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

Yes.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

They are not four-fifths schools now.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I call them four-fifths schools.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said they had now gone a long way, and they only wanted the noble Earl to go one step further. If the teachers were to be members of the Church of England in the case he had put—

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I am sorry to interrupt, but I did not say they are to be. I said I should be very glad if the local authorities appointed them in most instances. I did not go beyond that.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

thought the noble Earl went so far as to say that he expected they would be. The noble Earl had gone a long way, he admitted, for a member of this Government who were not generally very precise in their assurances. Throughout this Bill, and especially on the present occasion, the noble Earl had been most courteous, and he was much obliged to him. If the teachers were to have a special character and to give a special kind of religious teaching, and the control of that special religious teaching was to be vested in a parents' committee, it really was not an extravagant claim to make that the parents' committee should have some voice in regard to the appointment of the teacher. Indeed, the logical conclusion was so plain that he thought the Government could hardly resist it, and that being so a large part of the contention of Lord Clifford had been conceded by the Government. He agreed that in some respects the terms of the Amendment went rather farther than he would recommend for acceptance, but when the Committee reached the point at which the matter might more properly be dealt with he hoped the Government would not only be as good as their word in regard to the assurances they had given across the Table, but that they would go one step further and allow the parents whose children were concerned to have some voice in the appointment of the teachers who were to give the religious instruction. He hoped that the absolute righteousness of this claim would be admitted. The children belonged to the parents; their religious training was the most sacred obligation the parents had to discharge; that religious instruction was in the hands of these teachers. Was there anything extravagant in asking that the parents' committee, to which the noble Earl and his friends were already willing to afford so much authority, should have at least a voice in regard to who those teachers should be?

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said he could not share the difficulty of the noble Marquess in understanding the machinery laid down in the Bill whereby the special instruction bargained for between the owners of a school and the public authority would be given and supervised. Both under Clause 3 and under the present clause the granting of facilities, either in the ordinary schools or in special schools, would be made in the first instance a matter of contract between the owners of the school and the local authority. As the Bill stood, failing agreement between these parties, the contract would be settled for them by the Commission.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Where does the noble Lord find the contract in Clause 4?

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said that Clause 2 provided that the local education authority should— make any arrangements they think fit by agreement with the owners of the schoolhouse for obtaining such use.… and the conditions were set forth. That clause dealt with the general taking over of schools, and he took it that it would govern the taking over whether the school was a general school under Clause 3, or a special school under Clause 4.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

dissented.

*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said that that at any rate was his interpretation, and he considered it a reasonable one. The fact was the noble Marquess ought to have been a Nonconformist. He brought to bear upon the discussions of this Bill an attitude of vigilant suspicion such as the late Mr. Winterbottam described as the character of Nonconformity. He would ask the noble Marquess to discard a little of that vigilant suspicion and acquire a little more "sweetness and light." To turn to the proposal made by the noble Lord, it was no doubt a very interesting Amendment. If they were to constitute a parents' committee, and he thought there was a great deal to be said for bringing in the parent, and if they could devise proper machinery, it was a proposition which might very fairly apply to all schools. There was an interesting Amendment earlier in the Bill standing in the name of Viscount Halifax which he had rather hoped would be moved, for although it went too far, he thought it was at least a step towards a possible solution of this question. He thought that these matters rather came within the scope of a different kind of Bill, the sort of Bill adumbrated by the Bishop of Birmingham and the Bishop of Southwark. With regard to the public management of schools, there was no doubt that they ought to render under Cæsar the things that were Caesar's and to God the things that were God's. The local authority could deal with the secular instruction, but they ought to leave it to the association of persons grouped together to deal with the other matter which concerned them. But that was not the framework of this Bill, which contemplated quite a different way of dealing with the matter. His sympathies went with the noble Viscount opposite, with certain reservations. As the Bill stood at present, the supervision, control, and regulation of special religious teaching under Clauses 3 and 4 was entrusted to the owners of the school. There was a good deal to be said in favour of getting away from this idea of associating with this matter ownership and property, which had no reference to any generation of parents, and getting straight to the parents. The difficulty he felt was in incorporating something in this Bill which would produce a different scheme for the settlement of national education. He noticed that in this Amendment the noble Earl had modified it by cutting down the representation of the owners to one instead of two. If they were going to include parents they had better do it frankly, and he did not see why the proprietors of schools should come in at all. The mistake of this Amendment— and he thought it was admitted—was that it assumed that as a matter of right and duty the teachers appointed by the local authority would be responsible for the religious teaching. The Bill contemplated that the private persons would select teachers who had their confidence. The Bill allowed them to select the teachers, but it neither pledged the local authority to appoint teachers who would prima facie be suitable, nor did it require the teachers so appointed to render those services, and at any moment a teacher might decline to do so. This Amendment seemed to be drafted upon the assumption that it was part of the duty of the teacher to render these definite services of religious instruction to the satisfaction of those by whom he was employed. No doubt some of the teachers would be employed by the denominational friends of the group who used the school, and if they were dissatisfied they could discontinue them; but it was an immense step further if they said that not only would they decline to use the services of a man or a woman in whom they had no confidence, but that they would turn such teachers out of the school. That would be going to the secular arm to enforce a religious test, and that was a thing which there was not an atom of a chance of getting into this or any other Bill. It was a great advantage in this Bill that those who desired special teaching were left absolutely free to choose those who should give it. No doubt it would be a convenience to have the services of the teachers who had given it hitherto, but they should not argue this clause only from the point of view of the Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics were a very distinctive body with very distinctive convictions, and there was a clear line of cleavage between them and the ordinary people of this country.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

asked whom the noble Lord meant by the ordinary people.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

thought the Committee knew what he meant, and he was not prepared to conduct a catechetical discussion with the noble Marquess opposite. He drew a distinction between Roman Catholics and the ordinary citizens of this country— the great mass of people who were not ashamed to call themselves Protestants. It was quite idle to suppose that they would ever persuade the public to think that there was that distinction amongst parents who were called Churchmen, and those who were not called Churchmen, and that they would consent that in the ordinary village school in which they might probably get a majority to label themselves Churchmen in order to have the schoolmaster fired out of the school because he did not go to the Church on Sunday, or did not sympathise with the Anglican teaching of the rector. A right rev. Prelate earlier in the debate had said it was not enough that a man should describe himself as a member of the Church of England, but there must be a further inquiry. That meant that if an extreme ritualist was the rector of the parish he might resent the spiritual influence of the schoolmaster who went to an evening Communion or did not believe in all the doctrines of the priesthood and of the Church teaching. It was no use avoiding this matter. They knew from the recent inquiries of the Royal Commission that the Church of England was far more divided, one section from the other, than the mass of the ordinary people in this country who called themselves Churchmen were from the mass of orthodox Dissenters. The Anglican Communion was established under Episcopal control, and to set up the ideas of the most Episcopalian section was preposterous. The more noble Lords opposite extended the operation of this clause and tried to make it cover a body whose ministers were out of sympathy with its laity, the more they would weaken what should be the reasonable wish of the Government to meet the needs of the ordinary citizens of the country.

VISCOUNT HALIFAX

said he was rather surprised to find that his noble friend was prepared to endorse the proposal that there should be a committee of parents appointed to work with the local authority under Clause 3, and he hoped the point would be dealt with on Report. Such a committee of parents was as much required under Clause 3 as under Clause 4. What he wished to say to his noble friend opposite and to draw the attention of the Committee to was that they had almost come back to the question which underlay the whole of the propositions of this Bill, namely, whether the parents of the children who attended the schools were to be allowed to have what they wanted, or only what His Majesty's Government wanted them to have, or what "the straiter sect" behind the Government desired them to have. They wanted a little more liberty in this matter, and they wanted the parents, to have what they wanted and not what other people thought was good for them. In regard to the parents' committee and the appointment of teachers, they had been told over and over again that it was really and honestly desired to make these schools denominational schools. If they were to be frankly denominational schools —and he was certain the President of the Council meant what he said—why were the parents who were compelled to send their children to those schools not to be allowed to have some voice in the appointment of the teacher? In their own private affairs their Lordships were able to decide what teachers should teach their children, and why were not their poorer brethren to have the same privilege? Upon any sound principle of justice there could be no answer to that question. This was a question of simple liberty and justice, and those parents who were obliged to send their children to certain schools certainly ought to have a voice in the appointment of the teachers in these frankly denominational schools. Nothing would induce him to send his child to any school in regard to which he had not some security that the teachers believed in the religious instruction they imparted.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS

said that they all recognised the great authority of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley). He was afraid, however, that he had misunderstood his right rev. brother when he said that it was not sufficient for a teacher simply to be a member of the Church of England. The statement was made not with reference to any sort of difference of opinion with regard to theological thought. It was rather on moral and spiritual grounds that the objection was taken. Their Lordships would feel, whatever religious faith they might belong to, that they would not care to have their sons entrusted for religious education to a man who was merely a nominal member of the religious body to which they belonged. They would desire to have a teacher who believed what he taught, and when his right rev. brother said that it was not sufficient to be a mere member of the denomination, he was making no allusion whatever to questions of ritual or to the questions that divide Churchmen, but was referring rather to those great and fundamental matters which so dearly concerned every Christian man, and meant that they would entrust their children to the education of the man who was not ashamed to say "I believe." There was another matter on which he should like to say a word or two. The noble Lord, in a previous speech this evening, had spoken very strongly upon the fact that this Bill allowed no tests for teachers, and his right rev. brother the Bishop of St. David's had drawn the attention of the noble Lord the President of the Council to the apparent contradiction between the tone taken and adopted by Lord Stanley of Alderley and that adopted by the President of the Council. If he understood rightly the reply of the noble Lord the-President of the Council it was that whilst there was no obligation on the part of the local education authority to appoint as a master or mistress a member of that particular denomination, nevertheless, he hoped that in some way it would be understood that the local authority would appoint someone belonging to that denomination. Now the noble Lord came down to the House and stated expressly and clearly that the local authority had no right whatever to impose a test or to ask for a test, or to have anything to do with a test. He found it just as difficult as his right rev. brother to understand how to reconcile those two statements. He found on the one side the noble Lord the President of the Council hoped for and expected a regard for denominational belief, and on the other side the noble Lord would not allow it, and between not allowing and accepting he was really puzzled to know what was going to happen He thought the parents' committee should have some voice in the appointment of teachers, and he hoped with all his heart that this point would be most carefully attended to. He trusted that some provision would be made whereby this advisory committee, or whatever they liked to call it, might have some real tangible power in reference to the appointment of the teachers of the schools.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

thanked the noble Lord for the sympathy he had expressed with this proposal. He thought it was right that the parents should have some voice in the religious training of their children. The words that fell from the noble Marquess who led the House were emphatic in the same direction. But how was that control to be exercised? The President of the Council thought it should be exercised by a committee that was simply advisory. That, like so many of the promises of His Majesty's Government, amounted to nothing at all. A merely advisory committee had no real control over the religious education given in the schools. The religious education in the schools could only be efficiently given by the regular teachers. The idea that they should import outside teachers to give the religious instruction seemed to him to be fantastical and totally impracticable. Suppose for instance they were dealing with a couple of schools each containing 500 children. If they imported teachers they would require one for every forty children and therefore they would require some twenty-five additional teachers to give religious instruction. And again, how were they to get competent teachers to come in simply for three-quarters of an hour every morning or on certain mornings of the week. His opinion was that religious education would come to- nothing unless it was given by the teachers in the schools. Who was to have the appointment of the teachers in the schools? This Amendment gave the parents' committee a voice in the matter, because it said that their nominees were only to be rejected on educational grounds, although the appointment was to be left in the hands of the local education authority. If they did not give this voice to the parents' committee in the nomination of the teachers, what security had they that the local education authority would not appoint teachers out of sympathy with the denominational creed of the school? What security had they that they would appoint teachers who would be willing or competent to give the religious instruction required? Lord Stanley of Alderley was very emphatic in a matter which was no doubt a domestic quarrel between himself and the right rev. Bench. He would not deal with the ordinary citizens as compared with the sacerdotal menial, but surely the parents' committee were ordinary citizens. They would be chosen from among the very body of the people who used the schools, and they would be ordinary citizens in the fullest sense of the term, and would not be subjected to any sacerdotal influence. If they did not give them that decisive voice in the choice of the teacher, what chance was there of the religious instruction which they granted ought to be given in Clause 4 denominational schools being given? What security had they that the right religious instruction would be given? Absolutely none. It had been said that if they chose the right men as teachers they would be violating the great principle that there were to be no tests for teachers. In the Cowper - Temple schools where simple Bible teaching was to be given, the local authority would take care that the men who gave the instruction were competent to give it. In the Cowper-Temple schools there would be no violation of the doctrine of tests by the selection of men competent to give the instruction required, and why was there any violation of the doctrine of no tests for teachers by choosing men competent to give the religious education permitted under Clause 4? Public control demanded that this should be under the control of the education authority; he understood public control to mean that wherever public money was given, the expenditure, its amount and the management, should be in the hands of the representatives of the people. But they did not spend sixpence on denominational teaching; why, therefore, was public control to interfere with denominational teaching for which no public money was given? The whole case steered clear of the doctrine of public control. The real interest of the school was the sacred interest of the parents, who were responsible for the welfare of the children; it was for them to say what men they would trust to give the religious instruction which by this Bill they had promised those schools under Clause 4, for they had promised that they should have denominational instruction. That instruction could only be given by the teachers and not by outsiders. Anybody who knew anything about the working and maintenance of discipline in schools knew that it was perfectly impractical that outside teachers should be brought in to give religious instruction. Therefore, it must be given by the teachers attached to the schools, and the parents ought to have the nomination of the persons who were to fill those positions. HE did not doubt for a moment that the parents would take care that the persons they recommended believed in the religion they were called upon to teach in the schools, but the educational qualifications of the teachers would be left to the local education authority, who would have to pay the teachers for giving secular instruction and nothing else. The local authority, would, of course, have control over the appointment of teachers, and they would have the liberty of saying to any nomination made by the parents' committee, "No, we object to this nomination because the man is not a sufficiently good teacher." He hated to draw distinctions between the religion which he belonged to and the Church of England, because they were all in the same boat and were fighting the same battle. He had put an Amendment to Clause 7 on the Paper extending the principle of the parents' committee to all schools including facility schools, simple facility schools, and provided schools. He did not see that the right of the parent was any less strong or any less sacred because he happened to prefer simple Bible teaching to any other form of religious instruction. No doubt that was a great step. He was aware that in the debate on Lord Balfour's Amendment the Committee seemed unwilling to grapple with the question more closely, and perhaps in view of that his Amendment might be injudicious. Personally he was prepared to create a parents' committee in every elementary school in the country. The right of the parents wherever they were was the same, and they ought to have the control and regulation of this matter, subject to the superior power of the local education authority in every elementary school in the country. In connection with his own religious body many of their schools were conducted by communities of nuns. Those nuns were ladies of culture and refinement, many of them of gentle birth and breeding, who had devoted themselves from the highest of all possible motives to the laborious task of educating the children of the poor. They had obtained what Government certificates were obtainable for the express purpose of ascertaining the qualifications of teachers, and their success in education was undoubted. If their Lordships only took the trouble to turn to the Reports of His Majesty's inspectors they would find that the highest tribute was paid to the schools conducted by these nuns. They had set before their pupils a living example of self-denial and self-control which were invaluable in a moral as well as a spiritual sense. What chance would those ladies have of being appointed as teachers in the girls' schools under the local authority? Only the other day a local education authority refused to pay the salary of a nun who was a teacher on the ground that she did not put her salary in her pocket, and spend it on bonnets and clothes, but handed it over to the community to which she belonged. Did noble Lords think that such schools as those which were so highly valued would have the slightest chance of continuing under local education authorities unless the voice of the parents were allowed to influence the choice of teachers? This seemed to him to be one of the most vital Amendments of the Bill. The religious education promised in Clause 4 the Government were bound in honour to see carried to a successful and practical conclusion, and he could not conceive that that promise would be fulfilled or that education could be given in that sense unless the parents, whose children attended the school were allowed to have a predominant voice in the choice of the teachers who were to give that instruction.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I cannot help hoping that, up to a certain point, we on this side of the House are in agreement upon this question with noble Lords opposite. We understand the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council to be prepared to accept in substance the first eight lines of the Amendment on the Paper in the name of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh—that is down to the word "school." I understand that the noble Lord intends slightly to alter the composition of the parents' committee. He proposes that one person should be nominated by the owners and one by the local education authority instead of two by the owners. That, no doubt, is a change which will not be inacceptable to noble Lords on the opposite side of the House. We understand that, subject to the discussion of such minor details, the proposal that there should be a parents' committee is acceptable to His Majesty's Government. We hold very strongly on this side of the House that unless a body of that kind be constituted, the machinery of the Bill will be unworkable in practice, and we therefore welcome the Amendment. With regard to the functions of the parents' committee, so far as the appointment of teachers is concerned, that I think is a matter which may well be reserved for further consideration when we come to the attributes of the teachers, their duties, and the manner in which they are to be appointed. I hope that if my noble friend moves the first eight lines of his Amendment with the alterations I have indicated, it may be carried without any dissentent voice.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, as regards the proposed insertion in the Bill of these words down to the word "school," I have to say that we raise no objection, on the understanding that it is the general principle of the appointment of a special committee of this kind with which we are in sympathy, and that we do not pledge ourselves to the words used by the noble Lord nor to the particular composition of the committee as proposed by him.

*LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

thanked the noble Earl for his expression of sympathy, and asked leave to withdraw his original Amendment and to move the words down to the word "school," as suggested by the noble Marquess.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 39, after the word 'school' to insert the words ' (5) In all schools affected by a permission under this section, the parents of the children attending the school shall elect, in accordance with regulations to be made for the purpose by the Board of Education, four persons, some of whom may be women, who, together with one other person nominated by the owners and one other person nominated by the local education authority, shall be known as the parents' committee. The parents' committee shall be responsible for, and have the control of, the religious instruction given. in the school.' "—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

THE LORD BISHOP or BIRMINGHAM

asked leave to move the insertion after the word "school" in the Amendment just accepted by the Committee the words "in accordance with the trust deeds, if any, of the school." It appeared to him that the words as moved by the noble Lord and at present added to the Bill, would allow any group of parents who might be converted to the Mohammedan religion, to cause religious teaching to be given in that religion.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 39, after the word 'school' to insert the words ' in accordance with the trust deed, if any, of the school.' "—(The Lord Bishop of Birmingham.)

*THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, if I remember rightly, an Amendment of the noble Lord, Viscount Llandaff, was provisionally inserted in the Bill to the effect that the religious instruction should be in accordance with the trust deed of the school.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

That related to another class of schools.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I think it referred to all schools.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

said he was not certain on the point, as they had had so many Amendments. The noble Earl the Lord President of the Council would find lower down in the Amendment of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh the words— Nothing in this section shall affect any provision in a trust deed giving to any ecclesiastical or denominational authority the power of deciding whether the character of the religious instruction is, or is not, in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed. He thought those words would cover the point raised by the right rev. Prelate.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said the last three lines of the Amendment of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh dealt with the very point. Those words were— The religious instruction given in the school shall, as regards its character, be in accordance with the provisions (if any) of the trust deed relating to the school; and nothing in this section shall affect any provision in a trust deed giving to any ecclesiastical or denominational authority the power of deciding whether the character of the religious instruction is, or is not, in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed. He understood that that part of the Amendment only stood over for further discussion for the present, and was not withdrawn.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

My impression is that in Clause 4, line 24, after the words "A. local authority may afford extended facilities for religious instruction of some special character not permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870," the noble Lord, Viscount Llandaff, moved the insertion of the words, "and in accordance with the trust deed, if any, of the school," and I raised no objection to their insertion at that point.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Do not the words which occur in Clause 2, at the end of sub-section (2), in the Bill as now printed with your Lordships' Amendments cover the question raised They are— Provided that such arrangement includes, as far as may be having regard to the altered circumstances of the case, adequate provisions for the preservation of such trusts, and for the protection of the endowment subject thereto.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

That was Lord Barnard's Amendment. I am not sure whether the words quoted by the noble Marquess would cover the point entirely, and my impression of the words inserted at the instance of the noble Lord Viscount Llandaff is that they cover this case.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said he understood that the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council thought that the necessary words were inserted after the word "1870" in Clause 4, line 24. If that should turn out not to be the case, no doubt the noble Earl would put them in on Report, so that there would be no difficulty really. *THE EARL OF CREWE: As there seems to be some dispute, perhaps the right rev. Prelate will permit the matter to remain over.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM

said that the words "in accord-ance with the trust deed "were supposed to determine only the character of the religious teaching and would not safe-guard, for example, an appeal to the bishop where that would be an element in the trust deed.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

asked the Lord Chairman of Committees whether the words of Viscount Llandaff's Amendment which had been alluded to were inserted earlier in Clause 4.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

said that if inserted at all, they were inserted after the word "1870" in Clause 4, line 24.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The words in Clause 4, as amended by your Lordships, run as follows— A local education authority shall afford extended facilities for religious instruction of some special character not permuted under Section l4of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and in accordance with the trust deed, if any, of the school in every transferred voluntary school. That is how the Bill stands at present.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF, in moving a new sub-section in place of sub-section (5), said the Amendment in his name was a humble attempt on his part to meet the Nonconformist grievance. He looked upon the Nonconformist grievance as being twofold. In the first place the Nonconformist objected to paying anything for the teaching of a religion in which he did not believe. That grievance had now gone, because the West Riding judgment had done away with it, and this Bill in every section of it said that the local authority was not to pay anything for religious instruction. Therefore the grievance, which he agreed was a very real one, of having to contribute to the teaching of a religion in which a person did not believe no longer existed. Neither His Majesty's Government nor the Nonconformists seemed to have any feeling for the religious objections of those who were not of the Cowper-Temple persuasion, inasmuch as they made them pay rates for the teaching of Cowper-Temple religion in all the provided schools of the country. They had done that for years without a murmur or complaint, although those schools were to those who thought with him absolutely useless and closed.

The second Nonconformist grievance was an equally serious one. Like the, noble Marquess and others who moved in that matter he would do his utmost to relieve it but he was afraid that the Amendment he had put on the Paper was not in order after what the Committee had already decided. He proposed that the Nonconformist in the Anglican school should have the religious instruction he desired given him, in the school if possible, and if the state of the premises admitted of it; if not, then the religious instruction was to be given outside the school. There were plenty of places where it might be given, the chapel, the house of the dissenting minister, or the house of any friend of the denomination. In all those places arrangements might be made for giving the instruction. Or it might be turned the other way, and the Dissenter might have his instruction in the school while the Anglicans or Roman Catholics were sent to their clergyman, to his house, or to his church.

Further, his Amendment provided that if the Dissenters were not few in number—he had put the number at thirty, but left it to the Committee to fix the number—if they were of a sensible number, they should be entitled to call upon the local authority to build them a school. While he felt it was hardly in order to move the Amendment now, he desired to put it upon the Paper as his contribution to the remedying of the Nonconformist grievance, with which he entirely sympathised and should be very glad if he could be met. He must add that in his Amendment he had given the same rights to denominationalists in provided schools. It seemed to him that although he was quite willing to assist the undenominationalists who were obliged in single school areas to send their children to a denominational school, to refuse the same right to denominationalists who found themselves in a Cowper-Temple school was so intolerably unjust that he could not include the one without including the other.

Amendment moved— In pages 4 and 5, to leave out the words in sub-section (5) and to insert the words, 'In every school in which facilities, or extended facilities are afforded under this Act, and in every school provided by the local education authority, if there are children attending the school whose parents object to their receiving the religious instruction afforded in the school, and there is no public school accommodation available in schools where those children can receive the religious instruction their parents desire, the owners of the school, the managers, and the local education authority shall make arrangements to enable those children to receive, during the time allotted to religious instruction, either secular instruction or such religious instruction as their parents desire, either in the schoolhouse if the accommodation of the school premises renders it practicable, or if that is impracticable then elsewhere, but this religious instruction is not to be given at the expense of the owners of the school. Provided also that if the parents of thirty children attending any school desire their children to receive religious instruction of a different character from that afforded or permitted in the school, and there is no available public school accommodation in schools where those children can receive the religious instruction they desire, they may apply to the local education authority, and that authority shall, if the Board of Education consent, provide another schoolhouse for those children, in which such different religious instruction shall be permitted to be given.

VISCOUNT HALIFAX

hoped that if it were at all possible the noble Viscount would press the Amendment, because—

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount. I should have interrupted the noble Lord, Viscount Llandaff, for I am in some sense responsible for the public time as regards this Bill. There is no doubt whatever that this Amendment is practically identical with that of the noble Lord, Earl Cadogan, which, after receiving an adequate and interesting discussion, was negatived. I really think that discussion ought to close.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

wished to move the second of the Amendments standing in the name of Viscount Ridley, but he did not desire to press it upon His Majesty's Government. It would be remembered that under the Amendment of the noble Lord which was accepted by His Majesty's Government, the Board of Education was inserted in sub-section (2) of the clause as a Court of appeal from the local education authority in case the owners of the school and the local education authority did not agree about the withdrawal of the permission for facilities. The Government would also remember that they themselves provided in an earlier part of the clause that the local authority should have the power to hold a local public inquiry. It was then suggested and he now suggested that the Board of Education ought to have the same power of holding a local public inquiry. The object of the Amendment was to provide for that, but if His Majesty's Government did not desire to accept the proposal he should not press it upon them.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 3, after the word 'thereof' to insert a new sub-section—'(7) The Board of Education may hold a public inquiry for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the fulfilment of any of the conditions requisite before extended facilities can be granted or withdrawn under this section, and shall do so if required either by the local education authority or the owners of the schoolhouse or the applicants for the facilities, and Section seventy-three of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, shall apply to any such inquiry."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

*THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, the noble Marquess is not quite accurate in saying that His Majesty's Government accepted the Amendment of the noble Lord, Viscount Ridley; I pointed out that after the action of your Lordships it was a rational course to move that Amendment. I hope the noble Marquess will not press this Amendment, as we think the original public inquiry is a matter for the local education authority and not one for the Board of Education. There is a marked distinction between giving power to the Board of Education in cases of dispute, and saying, as this Amendment says, that the initial step shall be taken by the Board of Education by their holding a public inquiry. That, we think, should be the work of the local education authority.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

did not desire to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question whether Clause 4 as amended should stand part of the Bill.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

My Lords, I am extremely sorry to intervene so soon again in this discussion, but before we part from this clause I should like to ask the Lord President, who is in charge of the Bill, whether it is possible for him to give us any explanation on a point on which I think a clear explanation may in some degree facilitate our discussion on the remaining clauses of the Bill. In the discussions which have taken place on this clause the noble Earl the Lord President has, in several speeches, especially those which he made yesterday, made it abundantly clear that he recognises that the questions raised by this clause were regarded by his Majesty's Government from a totally different point of view from that which is held by noble Lords sitting on this side of the House. I think he made it quite clear that in the view of His Majesty's Government this clause was intended to apply and ought to apply only to a certain class and a very limited class of schools, the character of which is distinctly and predominantly denominational; while on the other hand the noble Lords on this side of the House were of opinion that facilities provided by this clause might properly and ought in justice to be applied to a very considerable number of schools which are perhaps not so predominantly denominational as those to which the noble Earl the Lord President referred. I hope that is a clear statement of the point that was taken yesterday by the noble Earl. I do not think that the noble Earl ever explained or thought it necessary to explain the reasons why His Majesty's Government hold the view that the operation of this clause ought to be so strictly limited. I can perfectly understand the anxiety which is felt by the Government that what I may call the Noncomformist grievance should be effectually and substantially redressed, that grievance being that the parents might be compelled by law to send their children to a school where they were obliged to receive a certain form of denominational religious instruction or none at all. I can quite understand the anxiety of the Government on that point, although I have not observed that they are equally solicitous of taking into consideration the grievance of the Church parent who may be compelled by law to send his children to a school where they can receive only undenominational instruction or none at all. I do not desire to dwell on that point now; all I wish to point out is that the Nonconformist grievance has, as I have stated, already been effectually redressed by the previous clauses of this Bill, and is not in any way connected with the clause which we have been now discussing.

By proposing this clause in the Bill, His Majesty's Government have admitted that there is a certain class of schools which belong to certain religious bodies in which it is necessary to make some provision for the preservation of the distinctly denominational character which they have hitherto enjoyed. They have made that provision distinctly in the case of Roman Catholic and Jewish schools. From the point of view of His Majesty's Government I understand that it was not intended that this clause should apply to any large extent to that much larger class of Church schools where a moderate form of Church teaching, but a distinctive form of Church teaching has hitherto been given. For that much larger class of schools I gather that from the point of view of His Majesty's Government they do not think it necessary to make any provision whatever. I think this clause may, therefore, be not unfairly described as a clause for the purpose of endowing, or if not endowing, encouraging, the provision for the teaching in a public elementary school of extreme sectarian doctrines. Undenominational teaching is not only permitted, but it is also endowed, Roman Catholic or Jewish instruction is not endowed, but under this clause full facilities are given for its teaching. There are, I believe, in some of our large towns Church schools of an extremely ritualistic character. There may not be many of them, but there is a certain number of such schools. Now, if the managers of those schools have succeeded in imparting so extreme a character and so aggressive a character to their denominational instruction as effectually to scare away all Nonconformist or Church parents from making use of those schools, they, so far as I understand, will have a very fair chance, indeed a certainty, of obtaining the privileges conferred by this clause, because the parents who have made use of a school of this type will naturally be unanimous on the subject, and there is no minority which can interfere with their obtaining the privileges conferred by this clause.

But, my Lords, in the case of schools where a distinctive but moderate form of Church teaching has been given, which large numbers of Nonconformists have been content to accept, the probabilities of their obtaining the facilities of this clause will be very small indeed, because the parents of Nonconformist children in these schools may not feel any very intense anxiety that these facilities should be conferred, and it is extremely probable that the necessary majority, whether a four-fifths or a three-fourths or a fair majority, may not be obtained. The question on which I desire to obtain some information from His Majesty's Government is why, when the requirements of parents who desire undenominational instruction for their children have been, as I think they have been, fully met under this Bill, and the requirements of Roman Catholic and Jewish persuasions have been not so fully, but to a certain extent met, the requirements of those Churchmen who have desired and have hitherto obtained for their children a moderate but at the same time a distinctive form of Church teaching are to be entirely disregarded. I have never believed that the facilities provided by this clause can be largely taken advantage of in the rural districts, because I believe that in rural districts the necessity for the provision of alternative accommodation would be extremely difficult to meet. But in our large towns, in our great urban populations, where every variety and form of religious opinion exists, I cannot see that there should be any difficulty whatever in the provision of that alternative accommodation, and I do not see why in these cases His Majesty's Government, should insist, as they appear and are supposed to do, on recognising only the case of those schools of a distinctly extreme sectarian character and upon relegating the whole of the remainder of the schools to a uniform level of undenominationalism.

I hold that His Majesty's Government have never yet explained to us why they entertain, as it seems to me that they do entertain, so strong an objection to the inclusion under this clause of the Church of England schools which have hitherto in a very large number of cases provided a distinctive form of Church teaching, but a form of Church teaching which it has been perfectly possible for a very large number of Nonconformists, voluntarily and without any compulsion whatever being placed upon them to accept for their children. I should be very glad if in addition to the frank and perfectly clear recognition which the noble Earl, the Lord President of the Council, has given us of the entirely different standpoint from which the Government view this clause from that which is held by your Lordships on this side of the House, His Majesty's Government will give us some explana- tion of the reasons why they so strongly hold that different standpoint.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, I rise at once to give such reply as I can to the question asked by the noble Duke, and I can assure him that I will endeavour to make that reply as brief as possible. The noble Duke, recognising, as he says, the difference in the point of view from which we regard this question of special religious education from that which is held by many noble Lords opposite, asks why it is that we limit the operation of Clause 4 by such provisions as the four-fifths majority and the urban area. The noble Duke specially put in a plea for that more moderate type of Church schools which, as he says, will under our proposals suffer in comparison with the more aggressive type of Church schools. I think it cannot be disputed that to a certain extent it is probable that the more aggressive type of Church schools will find it easier to obtain what I will still call four-fifths facilities than a school which is of a more general type It is obvious that if the Church teaching in a school has been of a character which has attracted a large number of Nonconformist children it is less likely to be turned into a special facility school than is a school which, as the noble Duke said, might have frightened away people of moderate views. That we admit, and I frankly say that it is in itself no satisfaction to us, but we do consider it to be inherent in the facts of the case. All that we can put forward in reply is this, that on the hypothesis that the teaching of this school has been of an extremely moderate character, so far as the average Church of England parent is concerned, we believe that he or she will be satisfied with the two days of minor facilities and with the three days syllabus teaching which might be given. It is perfectly true that in our proposals a teacher would not be able to give that teaching. Noble Lords and right rev. Prelates may regard that as constituting an important difference, but on the other hand, taking the same hypothesis, it is not pretended that these schools have a special atmosphere so much as that they have been in the habit of giving Church teaching on every day in the week. I know I shall be pulled up by right rev. Prelates for saying that, but on the other hand I am taking the average view of the Protestant Church parent who, in our opinion, has been satisfied in the past, and is likely to be satisfied in the future, with the moderate kind of Church teaching which we maintain he will be able to secure in the minor facilities school. There is an important difference between not teaching a child something which his parents would like him to learn and teaching him something which his parents are very anxious he should not learn. A man may be disappointed and annoyed that his boy cannot learn astronomy at school, that being a subject which he considers indispensable to everybody's education. But his grievance is much less than that of a man who finds that his boy is being taught astrology and the casting of nativities at a school at which he is being educated.

The noble Duke asks why cannot we extend this clause so as to include schools of the kind to which he refers. Obviously, we cannot include these schools by any kind of name or description; we can only do it by including a great many other schools in the manner which noble Lords have done by their Amendments. The noble Duke said he did not think that this clause as regards rural areas would have very much effect. There I confess I do not agree with the noble Duke. If the Bill remains in the condition in which it has been placed by the inclusion of rural areas, to say nothing of the bare majority provision, although that of course is an important factor in these instances, it appears to me that a very large number of village Church schools will be able to take advantage of this clause and that is a contingency to which we could not look forward without great consternation. The noble Duke has not suggested how the case of the sort of schools that he mentions is to be met. He, like us, puts aside that provision for minorities which is intended by such Amendments as those of the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches and the noble Lord, Earl Cadogan. If these miscellaneous schools of a general Church tendency are included, and the teaching is thereby stamped as being specifically Church teaching, the noble Duke must surely see that it is very possible that the provisions under which the minority have to be provided for else where would come into play, and then the noble Duke's whole purpose would be defeated. What I cannot understand is the extent to which the noble Duke differs from us in our view that the ordinary two-day facilities and the three days undenominational syllabus teaching will satisfy the parents. I do not say that in all cases it would satisfy the owners and managers, but it would satisfy the parents of the children who attend these milder and less aggressive forms of denominational schools.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said that in the speech which the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council had just delivered, he had practically admitted the charges which the noble Lord, the Duke of Devonshire, had made against His Majesty's Government.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

What charges?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Well, the suggestions and criticisms which he made to His Majesty's Government. The noble Earl had nothing to say in reply to what his noble friend had alleged, namely, that the more moderate the Church teaching was in a particular school, the worse that school was to be treated. That was positively admitted by His Majesty's Government. Said the noble Earl: "We cannot help it; it is inherent in the nature of the case."

*THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, I do not in the least accept the construction which the noble Marquess has put upon my speech.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said he had a great difficulty in attributing any other meaning to the noble Earl's words. It appeared that the more extreme religious denominations and the more extreme forms of Church opinion were to have their schools with the atmosphere and with the services of the teachers to give the religious education, while the less extreme religious denominations and forms of Church opinion and the more moderate schools were not to have them. That to noble Lords on that side of the House appeared to be a crying injustice. They did not see why because men had moderate religious opinions their children should not be taught by trained teachers the religion which they desired, while people of extreme opinions were to be differently and better treated. The noble Earl had said that a man would have no grievance if he thought he could not have his children taught astronomy.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I said it would be a minor grievance.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said that if the man knew that his child was taught that there was no such thing as astronomy, or that astronomy was a very indifferent matter, or was not of much consequence, would the noble Earl say that the parent had no grievance? Noble Lords on that side of the House alleged that there was no guarantee, indeed, in certain cases there was still the danger that teachers who were not appointed with any reference to their religious opinions might convey to the children that religion was a matter of comparative indifference, or even, to take the extreme case quoted by the right rev. Primate, that the story of the New Testament was nothing but fable. They said that that was a very great grievance, and in what the noble Earl had said he had admitted the criticism levelled by the noble Duke against his Majesty's Government.

*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said he desired to say a single word only. He was quite sure that the whole House had been impressed by the weighty words which had fallen from the noble Duke on this subject. He had listened I with great anxiety to hear what answer the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council would give to those remarks. He owned that the answer given by the noble Earl did not present itself to his mind quite in the light which it did to the noble Marquess Lord Salisbury, who had said that the noble Earl had declared that the more moderate the school the worse its treatment would be. It seemed to him that the noble Earl admitted the grave difficulty, but did not see any mode of remedying it. The mode of remedying it in his view lay entirely in the hands of His Majesty's Government, who could permit the teacher belonging to the school to give the ''special'' teaching. The great difference between the two sets of schools would, according to the Government plan, be that in the four-fifths schools the teacher would be, the noble Earl hoped and believed, allowed to give the teaching, but in the other schools the teacher would not be allowed to give the teaching. There lay the real grievance and difficulty which would render the reasonably and moderately conducted schools practically incapable of giving Church teaching. This matter was so germane to what had just been said that it was necessary to refer to it now. That was where the real difficulty and impasse lay for those whom they particularly desired to further and support in their school teaching—the ordinary and reasonable type of Church school. He directed attention to the great Church schools in which, so far as he understood, it was intended to say that after a particular date the whole teaching staff of those schools should be silenced on the morning on which any distinctive teaching was to be given. Those schools would be left with the hopeless and impossible task of bringing in a great staff from the outside to give the teaching. The last thing he desired to see on any great scale was the systematic bringing in of outside teachers, because he believed the trained Church teachers inside were the proper people to give the teaching. There lay the real remedy for the grievance, and it was therefore impossible for them to accept the declaration that there were no means of meeting the difficulty. There lay the means if only the Government would have the courage to adopt them.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

asked the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council whether it was the intention of His Majesty's Government to move any Amendments to Clause a beyond those which already stood on the Notice Paper. If so, would those Amendments be placed on the Paper to-morrow?

*THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, the position in which Clause 5 finds itself is rather a peculiar one. A very considerable part of Clause 5, as noble Lords will find when they examine it, has been rendered useless and futile by the action that was taken by your Lordships opposite in changing the words at the beginning of Clause 4. I think probably it will be more convenient, because the points at issue are easy and simple, if no Amendments were placed on the Paper by His Majesty's Government, and if it were left to the Committee to decide one or two minor points which they might desire to discuss. His Majesty's Government, of course, adopts Clause 5 as it stands in relation to Clause 4 as it stands, but I think it is more for the Committee as a whole to decide whether any part of Clause 5 should now remain, and, if so, what part.

*LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

Why is it inadvisable to put Amendments down to Clause 5? I understand the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council to say that it would be so, and I should like to know the reason why.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I have not the slightest objection to anybody putting any Amendment they like down to Clause 5, but I do not think there would be any use in our doing so. I think it is for the Committee to consider what part of Clause 5 they wish to remain, if any.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

Has not the noble Earl made up his mind on the subject?

*THE EARL OF CREWE

Oh yes, I have made up my own mind.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

Would it not be better for the noble Earl to place his suggestions on the Paper for our information?

*THE EARL OF CREWE

No, because we have not altered Clause 4. It has been altered by noble Lords opposite, and I think it is for them to decide what action should be taken with regard to Clause 5.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

Might I ask the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, whether it would be possible to have the Bill reprinted so as to include Clause 4 as amended?

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I believe there has been some mistake in regard to this matter. The intention was that the Bill should be reprinted and circulated every evening, including the Amendments up to the point which we have reached. I think it has been arranged to reprint it in future, and it will be available for your Lordships tomorrow.

House resumed, and to be again in Committee to-morrow.

House adjourned at live minutes past Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Pour o'clock.