Lords Sitting of 15 November 1906

PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION BILL—PETITIONS AGAINST.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have a number of petitions to present against the Education Bill. One set of petitions is from parents, inhabitants, and ratepayers, with 53,684 signatures—the number of petitions being 251—asking your Lordships to amend the Education Bill. Another petition, which is now on your Lordships' Table, has a peculiar importance. This is not a petition from ordinary ratepayers or from the public at large, but it is a petition from the actual trustees of church schools, men who are at this moment in the responsible position of trustees, and who desire to be allowed to continue to discharge that trust. The petition is, I think, almost unique in its character. It comes from
  2
  2,516 schools, and is signed by 7,023 trustees. What they ask is that your Lordships will not consent to any legislation which violates the principle of religious liberty, and forbids the petitioners from discharging their responsibilities as trustees.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; 1. Of inhabitants, ratepayers, or parents of children attending schools in parishes of Broughton; Colton; Tidenham; Newnham-on-Severn; Sandhurst; Oxenton; Wonaston; High Ham; Northleach; Little Sodbury; Corfe; Bodmin; Colton; Charlcombe; Thurgoland; Little Peatling; Jevington; Great Bookham; Penistone (St. John the Baptist); Marylebone (Christ Church); Kemerton; Bourton-on-the-Hill (two); Monmouth (St. Mary's); Monmouth (St. Thomas); Monmouth; Eastbourne (Holy Trinity); Thorne (two); Blatherwycke; Caistor; Woodchester (two); Rendham; Wirksworth; Rodmaston; Compton; Woodeaton; Oldbury-on-Severn; Gloucester (Christ Church); Stanton;

  3
  Standish; Arthingworth; Gloucester (Christ Church); Alderton; Oldbury-on-Severn; Pauntley; Oxenhall; King Sterndale; Standish; Nidd; Panteg (St. Matthew's); Lopen; Hucknall Huth-waite; Edge; Twigworth and Longford; Cirencester; Buckland; Moreton; Twy ford; Hempsted; St. Mary Cray, Panteg; Huddersfield (St. Peters); Kirby Cane; Gloucester (St. Marks); Moreton-in-Marsh; Aston-cum-Aughton; Llanfrechfra, etc.; Wakefield (St. John's); Minchinhampton; Herbrandston; Kes-singland: Stoke-on-Trent; Buckland (St. Mary); Ferndale and Mardy; Warkton; Cleeve; Burnley (St. -Margaret's); Caldi-cot; Belvedere; North Curry; Hunslet; Nottingham; Nottingham (St. John the Baptist); Eaton Square (St. Peter's); Llanfrynach; Cranham (two); Colne (St. Aldwyn); Southrop; Shipbourne, Gloucester (St. Paul's); Sutton Boning ton; Beckingham; Kirk Langley; East Mailing (two); Stroud; Wyck Risington (two); Taynton; Southborne; Charlton-on-Otmoor (two); Snargate; Orwell (two); Shotley; Bourton-on-the-Water; St. Paul's (London); Foreseote; Newent; Cheltenham (St. Luke's); Orcheston (St. Mary); Much Hadham; Llanwonno; Stowting; Dulverton; Swarkestone; Stanton-by-Bridge; Broughton - in - Fur-ness; Codsall; Brockworth; Lower Heyford; Bednall; Gloucester (St. Luke's); Chipping Sodbury (three); Winthorpe; Narcross; Chalford; Little Lausden; Stonehouse; Trevethin; Llan-bradach; Cuckfield; Yazor (two); Mansel Lacey (two); Bedminster (St. Luke's); Winkfield; Thureaston; Beverston; Rod-borough; Mixbury; Hartwell and Stone; Croscombe; Huntley (two); Aberdovey; Newbury (St. John's); Wentworth; Wells; Darwen (Holy Trinity); Cardiff; Wotton-under-Edge; Canterbury (St. Mildred's); Wellow; Salford (St. Barnabas); Kentbury; Guilsborough; Buxton; Newark (Christ Church); Bawtry; Whorley; Nailsworth; Stow-on-the-Wold; Langlebury; Sevenhampton; Bishops Cleeve; Preston Capes; Long-hope (two); Llanvafley; Frampton (two); Hagbourne East (two); Hagbourne West (two); Meysey Hampton; Kendal; Manchester (Victoria Park); Fitzhead; Ebrington; Stoke Bruerne; Tuldgeley; Shirenewton; Lancaster (St. Agnes); Holdenby; Harleston; Fivehead; Leinthall Earles; Litchurch; Newnham; Harrogate; Paddington; Enderby; Ash-
  4
  well Thorpe; Wreningham; Stony Stanton; Cheltenham (St. Stephen's); Weston-in-Gordano; South Darley; Llansaint; Kilsby; Penrhos; Broad-hempston; Woodfeigh; Norton Canon; Upper Slaughter; Llandough; Ipswich (St. Margaret's); Southwell (St. Mary's); Lydd (St. Mary, Wisbech); Kenfig Hill; Radcliffe (St. Thomas); Bournemouth (St. Michael's); Upton, St. Leonard's; Carlton-on-Trent; Hull, St. Mary's; Llanmartin; Welton-le-Wold; Geldes-ton; Newport (St. John's); Trellech, &c.; Barby; Llangynwd: Leaden Roding; Dover; Stoke Golding; Silkstone; Scalford; Weavenham (All Saints' and St. Peter); Aberdare (St. Fagan); Cardiff (All Saints); Newcastle (Penyvai); Newcastle Higher; Laleston; Ynisawdre; Tythigston; Newcastle Lower (Bridgend); Heysham; Overtoil; Itchen Stoke; and parishes within the Archdeaconry of Worcester. Of Bedwellty Ruridecanal Council; South Lyncombe Church Council; Burford Ruridecanal Chapter; Chester-le-Street Ruridecanal Chapter; Deanery and Teachers of Weldon, Peterborough; Instruction Committee of Parish of St. Barnabas, Bristol; Conservative Association of Market Deeping; and Trustees of Church of England Schools in England and Wales; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for Amendment of; of inhabitants or parents of children attending schools in the parishes of Birmingham (St. Paul's); Kennington Park; Didmarton; Medbourne; Thistleton; Longney; Holborn (St. Albans); Sparsholt; South Normanton; Gordano; Morwenstowe; Gorton; Oldham (St. Mary's); Sidcup; Sidcup; Woodston; Bromfield; Preston (St. Matthew's); Priston; Cameley; Oake; Tixall; Hedenham; Folkestone (St. Mary and St. Eanswythe); Dunner; and Winslade; read and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3729. China (Trade of Chefoo for 1903–5).

  COLONIES (MISCELLANEOUS).
  No. 38. Reprint of a Report (written in 1884) upon the present position and prospects of the agricultural resources of the Island of St. Helena, by D. Morris, Esq., M.A., F.L.S., F.G.S., Director of Public Gardens and Plantations, Jamaica.
  Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ORDER OF BUSINESS.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, there is a Question standing in the name of the most rev. Primate which comes after the Education Bill on the Paper. It seems to me that the most convenient course, and that which would produce the most satisfactory discussion both upon the Education Bill and upon the question of the most rev. Primate, would be that we should take these Orders as they stand on the Paper—that is to say, that we should at once go into Committee on the Education Bill and continue that discussion up to the time when we adjourn for dinner, and that then we should leave the Education Bill for to-night and, on resuming our proceedings at 9 o'clock, proceed with the debate arising on the most rev. Primate's Question. If your Lordships approve of that, I propose to take that course.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 8:—
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved to insert the following after sub-section (2):—'' (3)—(a) In every public elementary school in which extended facilities are afforded under this Act, the consent of the parents' committee shall be required to the appointment of teachers, but that consent shall not be withheld except upon grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction." He was merely proposing an extension of the powers which, in Clause 4, had already been given to what was there called the parents' committee, and he
6
thought the additional power which, by this Amendment, he desired to give to that committee was in complete harmony with what had been already done, and he ventured to think that it was even in harmony with the expression of approval which had been given to it by His Majesty's Government. What he asked was that the parents' committee, on the existence of which the Committee had already decided, should have power to veto the appointment of a teacher on religious grounds. This was a point entirely confined to those schools which, under Clause 4, were already pronounced to have a frankly denominational character. There was an Amendment on the Paper until yesterday, standing in the name of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, but that Amendment had apparently been withdrawn.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHexplained that the disappearance of his Amendment from the Paper was merely a clerical error. He still intended moving it.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid he had supposed that the noble Lord had withdrawn the Amendment, as it was no longer on the Paper. He did not wish that the Amendment which he was now proposing should be regarded as in any way identical with the Amendment of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. He was not arguing in favour of giving any such right to the parents' committee as was suggested in the Amendment of his noble friend, which gave them the right to' nominate the teacher, subject to the approval of the local education authority. His Amendment fell very far short of that. It merely suggested that the parents' committee should have a power, on religious grounds, of expressing their objection, and effectively expressing their objection, to a teacher who had been nominated for appointment by the local education authority. The power to exercise that veto seemed to him to be eminently appropriate to the position which, with the approval of the Committee had been given to the parents' committee to deal with the religious side of the teaching in the frankly denominational schools. It seemed to him that, without some such proposal, it was hardly possible to give full effect to the wish which His

7
Majesty's Government had again and again expressed that these schools should be, in their full sense, denominational schools. The appointment he would still leave with the local education authority, but subject to some check on the part of those who could appropriately apply it as to whether the appointment thus made was one by means of which it would be possible to carry out the object for which the school held an exceptional position.
What he wanted to do was simply to make real and operative the denominational character which belonged to these schools, and to relieve the local education authority from a responsibility which he did not see how they could possibly exercise. He hoped they would hear from noble Lords who had had experience on local education authorities whether they desired to accept the responsibility of choosing teachers who, from the nature of the case, were denominational, and of discriminating among denominational teachers as to the person most suitable for a particular denominational school. That was a task which could hardly be laid satisfactorily on the local education authority, and it was almost as much for their sake as for the sake of the school that he desired to help them by giving a check elsewhere as to whether or not the teacher would be acceptable. He desired to secure the collateral interest of the parents and the local education authority in the religious teaching which was to go forward in this denominational and exceptional kind of school. He believed that by these means they would give life and force to the local interest which he was sadly afraid would wane under the Bill as it now stood. He believed that in any circumstances it would be almost impossible to centralise authority and management in the way the Kill suggested, without causing to languish or alienating a great deal of that local interest which was, in his judgment at least, quite vital to the healthy life of an elementary school. He specially felt that some such plan as this was necessary in the case of the schools which would come under Clause 4.
Then a further gain was that by this means they would enlist the interest of the parents, educationally, in the curriculum and management of the school. He felt that parents had—owing to the controversies on either side during the
8
last year or two—grown to care a great deal more than they did before about what happened in detail within the walls of the school, and he was quite sure that, whatever else their Lordships might differ upon, there was no difference of opinion as to the desire which they all had that the parents of children attending elementary schools should be keenly interested in. what went on within the school walls, bearing, as far as possible, some personal part in the general life of the school as a whole, and linking on the school days of the children to the life which would follow when their school days came to an end. He did not say that the parents generally throughout the country were ready to come forward and deal with this matter, but it was most desirable that they should help them so to do; and no single thing would stimulate their activity and interest in the matter as much as the sense that they had some responsibility.
Everything really depended on the selection of teachers in the frankly denominational schools. To say that they wanted the local education authority to have some help in making these appointments did not imply any mistrust whatever on their part of local education authorities generally. He ventured to protest with all friendliness against the imputation which had, not once or twice, been made in the course of this debate, that when they were guarding against something which might be a real wrong they were therefore showing distrust of local education authorities as a whole. He did not think that imputation was at all fair, and, if a retort were called for, he would be inclined to say that exactly the same kind of argument was used by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council when he said that certain restrictions were necessary to prevent the misuse of local power by landlords or prominent residents in a neighbourhood. The noble Karl stated that there was no imputation against these individuals generally, but he added that there were exceptional cases against which he must guard. That was exactly what they felt with regard to the local education authorities. A man must be blind who was not aware of the fact that there were certain local education authorities who had already told them that they did not mean that

9
Clause 4 should be an operative clause in the areas over which they had control, and that they did practically intend that it should become a dead letter. He believed those authorities to be very few, but he thought that if that risk existed they were bound, so far as possible, to guard against it.
In addition, therefore, to what he regarded as the main purpose of his sub-section — the helping of local authorities to discharge the task which they would otherwise find it most difficult to fulfil—he wanted also to protect those who had schools under Clause 4 from the occasional wrongdoing or interference of the local education authority, who might render Clause 4 almost ludicrous if they exercised to the full the power which was given them under the Bill. Let them suppose, for example, the case of a Catholic school to which some keen Nonconformist was appointed headmaster by the local education authority. That was possible under the Bill, though most unlikely. But, on the other hand, there were cases of hardship far less unlikely than that. It was not by any means impossible that in certain areas a master or mistress might be appointed to a Church of England school, although he or she was known to be in no way in sympathy with Church of England teaching. That would be a mode in which, in the last resort, a hostile educational authority might defeat the purpose of this Bill.
He would like to add that he hoped that some amalgamation might be found ultimately possible between the managing committee of the school and the parents' committee on a selection committee. It seemed to him that the multiplication of these committees was a most undesirable thing on every ground, and would complicate the administrative work and the whole condition of things. The difficulties might, in his view, be very readily met by giving some strong representation of the parents themselves upon the managing committee of the school. It was impossible to bring that in on this clause, but he hoped the Question would be considered when the Bill was reprinted, as to whether some such amalgamation would not be possible.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 8, after sub-section (2) to insert the words, ' (3) (a) In every public elementary school in which extended facilities are afforded under this Act, the consent of the parents' committee shall be required to the appointment of teachers, but that consent shall not be withheld except upon grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction.'"— (The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid he had put down an Amendment affecting the appointment of teachers, but differing materially from the Amendment of the most rev. Primate. He thought the plan suggested in his Amendment was preferable on several grounds to that contained in the Amendment just moved. It was obvious that the local education authority, being debarred from making any inquiries into the religious convictions of the teacher and his capability to give denominational teaching, was absolutely unfitted to make the Clause 4 schools the reality which the Government had, without any variation, said they were frankly intended to be.
It seemed to him that, instead of the teacher being first appointed by the local authority to a particular school and then being objected to on religious grounds by the parents' committee who had control of the denominational education to be given in the school, as the Primate proposed, it would be far better, as his own Amendment suggested, for the parents' committee to submit a teacher or teachers to the local education authority for appointment.
His second ground was, he thought, peculiar, or very nearly so, to the body he was representing—namely, the Roman Catholics. Out of about 7,000 teachers in their schools nearly one-sixth were women. He asked their Lordships to imagine for a moment how it could be possible for the local education authority to form any idea of the suitability of these candidates, because they would obviously not be on the general list of teachers, and would, and could, only go to the particular schools conducted by their respective orders. They were a body of women of very high attainments; they held very high certificates and were very carefully trained, and their life of self-denial and self-abnegation had a very

11
great effect on those entrusted to their care. He was convinced that unless it were arranged for these teachers to be presented and recommended to the local education authority, it would be almost impossible for that authority to staff and conduct these schools efficiently and properly. And he was sure that, were their services rendered impossible in these elementary schools, not only Catholics but the country at large would suffer a decided loss. The Catholics were very anxious to take their place in the educational system of the country. They conceived it to be their right to do so as citizens, taxpayers, and ratepayers and, above all, as parents of the children who attended these schools. What they wanted were Catholic schools with Catholic teachers for Catholic children, wherever that was reasonably possible, and he considered that his Amendment would serve to realise this more effectually than that of the most rev. Primate. If they failed to obtain this there would be left in the Catholic body a sense of wrong and of injustice, which would rankle until it was removed, and its removal would involve a struggle which would be carried on with pertinacity and faith in the justness of their cause, and with perfect confidence that the desire for right and justice which dwelt in the hearts of their fellow-citizens would in the end prevail.
Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment—
"To leave out all the words after the word 'Act' paragraph (a) to the end of the paragraph and to insert the words 'the appointment of teachers 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.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, the most rev. Primate in introducing his Amendment described it as an extension of the powers of the parents' committee, the creation of which has already been sanctioned by your Lordships' House. That, no doubt, is true, but of course the point we hare to consider is how far such an extension conflicts or agrees with the main objects and principles of the Bill. I frankly admit that it seems to me impossible. The change may be justified in the opinion of noble Lords, but it seems to me impos-
12
sible to deny that, to a certain extent, this change, if introduced into the Bill, would involve the imposition of a religious test—I do not see how it is possible to get out of that—to a modified extent in the proposal of the most rev. Primate and to a much greater extent in the proposal of the noble Lord who has just sat down.
The most rev. Primate's proposal is that the consent of the parents' committee should be required to the appointment of the teacher—that is to say, that a teacher's name is presented and the parents' committee would have to inquire into his religious views, and unless those views were satisfactory to them, the teacher could not be appointed. That appears to me to be a test. Still more is that the case in the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite, because in that case the appointment would be made on the nomination of the parents' committee, who clearly would make special inquiry into the views of the teacher before he or she was nominated. I was impressed— and I am sure your Lordships were—by the earnestness with which the noble Lord who has just sat down stated his views on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, and I fully appreciate what he said as to the existence of that very interesting body of lady teachers, belonging to religious orders, many of whom, as he said, are very highly trained and certificated, and whose services are greatly appreciated, not only by parents and children of their own Church, but in many cases, I know, by parents of children of the Church of England.
The noble Lord said that there ought to be some means of recommending these ladies as teachers to the local education authority because it was obvious that they would not appear on the general list" But what the noble Lord proposes is that the teacher should, in effect, be appointed, not recommended, by the parents' committee, and the only objection the local education authority could take would be on educational grounds, and that, of course, is an entirely different matter from any question of recommendation of the bringing of names before those with whom the appointment rests. The most rev. Primate has stated that, in his opinion, as a rule, local authorities would not be difficult to deal with in a matter

13
of this kind. He carefully guarded himself against any supposition that local authorities were, as a rule, unreasonable or inclined to be tyrannical; but he wished to guard against the possibility of such a thing occurring, even though only in rare instances.
Now, I ask the most rev. Primate to consider for a moment what would happen under his Amendment. Supposing a local authority were thoroughly hostile and vindictive and disposed to be unreasonable. They would recommend a teacher to the parents' committee whom that committee would be quite unable to accept. Negotiations would pass, the parents' committee would persist in their refusal and the local authority, being thoroughly exasperated, would recommend another similar teacher, and apparently would proceed to do so ad infinitum. In that case it might be possible that, under the Amendments which your Lordships have inserted to Clause 5, there would be an appeal to the Board of Education. If the owner of the school-house or twenty parents—and I suppose the parents' committee might put either in motion—are dissatisfied with the action of the local authority under Section 4, or as to the mode in which extended facilities are afforded, there is an appeal. That might possibly be intended to meet this case. In that event there would be an appeal to the Board of Education as to the religious views of this particular teacher, and how far the parents' committee were justified in saying that his religious views were such that they did not think him competent to give religious instruction even if he were prepared to do so. But it would be utterly impossible for the Board of Education to deal with these perfectly personal and delicate questions. And if they did, I ask the most rev. Primate to consider this. The real effect would be that the teacher, in the end, would have to be appointed by the Board of Education —a very novel thing to ask of that Department—and one which, like many of the duties sought to be imposed upon us by the Bill as amended, we are by no means disposed to undertake.
But there is a more general consideration than this on which I would desire to appeal to the most rev. Primate. He, I know, is not one of those who take an extremely hostile view of what I may call the main principle of the Bill—
14
namely, that public control and public money should go together. I therefore put this to him. Supposing his Amendment is added to the Bill, will not the local authority ask, "In respect of what is the school remaining on the rates? In what degree does any control of ours come in?" Would not a school run in this way be practically equivalent to a denominational school as run under the Act of 1902, or, as far as regards its management, to those State-aided schools which it is proposed to create, but which would not receive rates? It does seem to me exceedingly difficult to conceive any manner in which these schools could be said to be worked as provided schools, although they would be provided schools under the Act, and would get the benefit of rate aid and of having all their repairs carried out by the local authority. That is an exceedingly practical difficulty in this connection.
There is one more point to which I am bound to allude. Clause 4 has been very seriously altered in your Lordship's House. As you are well aware, when it came up from the House of Commons it was limited to schools in which four-fifths of the children were children of parents who desired this particular teaching, and very strict regulations were imposed for discovering that that proportion really existed. Your Lordships have turned that into a bare majority, and you are disposed to relax the restrictions. I quite admit that the most rev. Primate did not take part in that proceeding. I think he did not vote. The other most rev. Primate, the Archbishop of York, voted against the change which your Lordships opposite enforced. Your Lordships opposite were more episcopal on that occasion even than the Archbishops, but the fact remains that that is in the Bill as it now stands. I wish, therefore, to express the opinion that, even imagining that such a thing as this were possible, it only could, under any circumstances, be possible if it were applied to a class of school formed under very close restrictions such as those we inserted in our original Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that in the course of his interesting speech the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council had declared that if the Amendment wore accepted he could not

15
see in what way Clause 4 schools would differ from voluntary schools under the Act of 1902. They would differ profoundly. In the first place, the locality would have the advantage of the buildings for nothing. In respect of other schools rent was to be paid by the local authority for the use of the building, but in respect of Clause 4 schools there was to be no rent —that was to say, the denomination was to supply for nothing the building in which the school was carried on.
He contested the contention of the noble Earl that in respect of the teachers there would be any parallel between the condition of things which would exist if the most rev. Primate's Amendment were accepted and the condition of things under the Act of 1902. Under the Act of 1902 the voluntary managers appointed teachers subject to the veto of the local authority, whereas under the Amendment of the most rev. Primate the local authority would appoint subject to a veto by the parents' committee. There was all the difference in the world between the two proposals. He himself preferred the Amendment of his noble friend behind him. But, of course, the Bill was one for which they on that side could not take any degree of responsibility.
There was no greater delusion than to suppose that the Bill had been converted into a Bill approved by the Opposition. After all the Amendments which the Opposition had submitted were carried, the Bill would remain not only a thoroughly bad measure from the adminstrative standpoint, but one for which they on that side would not be responsible in any way from the religious standpoint either. He was unable to understand how the Government could decline to allow religious considerations to enter into the question of the appointment of the teacher. In Clause 11 the Government themselves laid down that the teacher was to be appointed subject to religious considerations.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: That is the transitional clause.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that might be, but the principle was admitted in it. The Lord President had admitted that it was impossible altogether
16
to exclude religious considerations, but to suggest that those considerations should only have effect after and not before the appointment of the teacher was an absolute sham. He was sick of these Parliamentary shams. That had reference, not merely to denominational instruction but to undenominational instruction; it had reference just as much to the proficiency of the teacher in Cowper-Temple instruction as in the teaching of Anglican or Roman Catholic formularies. The question was whether the local education authority were equally competent to decide upon a teacher's Cowper-Temple capacity and his Anglican and Roman Catholic capacity. Some local education authorities rather fancied themselves in Cowper-Temple religion. They thought that they were able, with the assistance, perhaps, of a sermon from Dr. Clifford, to decide some of the most difficult questions which had puzzled learned men in all ages. But when it came to appointing a teacher to what was admittedly an Anglican, Roman Catholic, or other denominational school, it was evident the local education authority was not completely to be trusted.
Why did not the noble Earl get up and frankly tell them, as he knew quite well, that the question of the religious position of the teachers must be an element in their appointment, and that, without that, public opinion in England would be profoundly shocked? He agreed that most of the local authorities were to be trusted, and that in most cases they would work the clause in a manner of which few would have any reason to complain. But there were some who could not be completely trusted, and he could not imagine anything more natural or reasonable than that they should say they would have the one check provided by the most rev. Primate's Amendment.
They did not propose to take the appointment out of the hands of the education authority, but, in the last resort, if it were found that the teacher was thoroughly unqualified or perhaps unwilling to give the religious instruction, the parents' committee would have the right of exercising their veto. The noble Earl the other night had seemed to pooh-pooh the possibility of occasions of difficulty of the kind to which he had alluded arising. He would ask their Lordships to conceive the

17
state of things in a small school with a single teacher, an enormous number of which existed in the rural parts of the country. If that teacher was appointed and was thoroughly disqualified from a religious point of view from giving the instruction, what a hopeless state of things would result! The children would require religious education, and yet the only teacher available would be unfit to give it, and would have to be forbidden by the authority from giving it.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Are these four-fifths schools to which the noble Marquess is referring? The most rev. Primate's Amendment applies to them solely.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYadmitted that his criticism was of general application and would apply to all schools, but it applied tenfold to denominational schools, and it was to protect those schools that they were asking their Lordships to agree to the Amendment of the most rev. Primate. To ask them to agree to a provision that, in a school which was to have a denominational atmosphere, and as to which a parents' committee had been appointed, with the consent of the Government, in order to secure that denominational atmosphere, the teacher should be appointed without any reference to that committee, seemed to him so absurd that he could not believe the Government would resist the Amendment.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that even in rural districts there were, as a general rule, at least two teachers in a school; the school with a single teacher would be almost invariably a very small school in a lonely rural district. The single-teacher school was an extreme rarity even in rural districts, and it was obvious that, even under Clause 4, as amended by their Lordships, the special facilities would not apply to these schools because there was still retained in the Bill the provision that other school accommodation must be available for the children of dissentient parents. Unless they assumed absolute unanimity in a hamlet, the case of granting Clause 4 facilities could not arise.
The noble Marquess had spoken of local authorities who were very pleased
18
with themselves, and thought that, with the help of a sermon from Dr. Clifford, they could settle difficult questions on theology. Such authorities might flourish in Hertfordshire, but he had not come across any. The only case of which he had had experience where an attempt was made to set up religion by authority was in the memorable controversies in the School Board for London, when the protagonist in favour of that movement was a gentleman, well known to the noble Marquess, who had lately been in controversy with the Archbishop on a hymnal which was held by the most rev. Primate to lean rather to the teaching of the Church of Rome than to that of the Church of England. That was his one experience of an attempt to establish religious teaching under a local authority. He would now come to the Amendment of the most rev. Primate and to the Amendment which, though not strictly before the Committee, had been indicated as an alternative by the noble Lord opposite.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHasked what the noble Lord meant by saying that his Amendment was not before the Committee. He thought he had clearly explained that it was owing to an inadvertence that the Amendment had been taken off the Paper, but that he moved it all the same.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My noble friend is quite right in saying that his Amendment to the Amendment of the most rev. Primate is before the Committee.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid he did not understand that the noble Lord had moved his Amendment. Continuing, the noble Lord reminded the Committee that in Clause 4 they had passed the words that teachers should, if they were willing to do so, give the religious instruction desired, and suggested that what the most rev. Primate evidently contemplated by his Amendment was that, if a teacher was not willing to do so, that should be a ground of incapacity and used, in the first instance, as a reason for rejecting him, or, if he changed his mind after a certain date, for turning him out. Under the most rev. Primate's Amendment, which would leave the teacher who

19
in the ordinary council school gave Cowper-Temple teaching in a free position, the strictest tests would be imposed on teachers in Clause 4 schools, and the strictest obligation to give that teaching which under the Bill he was free to give or to withhold. The Amendment would strike at the root of the principle of public management. The strong desire shown by denominationalists to minimise the obligation to find alternative accommodation, following upon many other demands, seemed to him to be evidence of the utter impossibility of reconciling the principles of public management and the abolition of tests with the inordinate demands the denominationalists continued to make.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he thought the noble Lord who had just sat down was a real enemy of Clause 4. He seemed to desire to render the exceptional facilities for religious instruction afforded by that clause absolutely unworkable. He suggested that something was being asked for denominational schools—for they were to be denominational schools—which had not been given in the case of council schools. The noble Lord had entirely forgotten the Amendment which was moved last night by the Government and accepted unanimously by their Lordships, which provided that nothing in this Act should prevent the local education authority from satisfying themselves as to the fitness of any person, who was willing to undertake to give religious instruction of the character permitted by Section 14 of the Act of 1870, to give that instruction. If the local education authority had that duty so strongly suggested to them with reference to council schools, a fortiori something of the same kind should be provided with reference to the schools which were to be purely denominational.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: They have full power not to appoint any teacher who does not satisfy them.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: That is not clear. If it had been your Lordships would not have thought it necessary to insert the words "council schools."
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: In Clause 4 schools, and even in ordinary-facilities schools, those who require the
20
facilities will themselves appoint the teacher to give that instruction.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: But they have not the power of appointing.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Yes, for religious instruction.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid if the noble Lord meant that those who were interested in the schools that came under Clause 4 would be satisfied with the power to appoint external teachers solely for the purpose of giving religious instruction, allowing the ordinary teacher to be an atheist or anything else, in spite of the school's having a denominational character, he thought that would not be accepted by anybody, not even by the Government. From everything that had been said with reference to this clause it had been admitted that it was the intention to make these schools denominational in their character, and how could that end be attained unless the teachers of the school were members of the denomination to which the school belonged? It was simply impossible. The persons who were concerned in this matter were the parents' committee who were to be responsible for and to have the control of the religious instruction in the school. He thought, however, that it would be very difficult practically to enforce the Amendment of the most rev. Primate except on appeal to the Board of Education. He sympathised with the object of the Amendment in combining the parents' committee with the local committees of management in Clause 15, and with the absolute necessity of maintaining local interest in these schools, for they could not be properly administered by one central authority alone. He suggested that the Amendment should be altered so as to provide that—
"In every public elementary school in which extended facilities are afforded under this Act the local education authority shall consult with the parents' committee as to the appointment of any persons to be teachers in the school, and shall satisfy themselves that the persons so appointed are qualified and willing to give the religious instruction for which extended facilities are afforded."
This declaration would show, with reference to the denominational schools, not only the will, but the capacity to give proper religious instruction, and that the views of the parents' committee

21
should be considered by the education authority who had to appoint the teacher.
Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment —
"After the word 'Act' in paragraph (a) to insert 'the local education authority shall consult with the parents' committee as to the appointment of any persons to be teachers in the schools, and shall satisfy themselves that the persons so appointed are qualified and willing to give the religious instruction for which the extended facilities are afforded.'"— (Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFenforced the view that the Clause 4 schools were to be denominational, that this was the intention of the Government, and that the teachers should be permitted to give denominational teaching. The noble Earl had stated that public control would be completely destroyed by the Amendment. He could hardly conceive that that argument was justifiable when they considered that under Clause 4 as it stood, not only would the local education authority have the use of the school, but they would have the nomination of the managers. The whole of the management of the school would be in the hands of the local education authority. In Clause 4, as the Government proposed it, public control through the managers was not held to be inconsistent with the giving of denominational religious instruction, and the public control of the local education authority was not diminished by the fact that denominational religious instruction was given in the school. The Government intended that that instruction should be given, and the only question was how could they make sure that it should be given, and given satisfactorily. Their Lordships had passed a provision in which it was laid down that the parents' committee were to be responsible for, and to have control of, religious instruction in the Clause 4 schools. How, he asked, could they control the religious instruction if they had no voice in the nomination of the teacher? The beginning of their control must be some voice in the selection of the person who was to give the instruction.
He supported the Amendment of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, between which and the Amendment moved by the most rev. Primate, the difference was one not of principle, but of form and method only. The most rev. Primate had argued with
22
great force that the interference of the parents' committee was really a help to the local education authority, and he Proposed to give that help by conferring upon the parents' committee a veto upon the suggested appointment by the local education authority. Surely that was putting a very heavy burden on the Parents' committee. They might be humble people in some out of the way village and they were to be empowered to veto the appointment of the local education authority comprised of men of importance and ability in the county. Surely it was rather a slap in the face, both to the local education authority and to the teacher appointed, to put a veto upon an appointment that had already been made. It seemed to him that in that way they were giving help to the local education authority, coupled with a slight both to them and their appointees.
What weighed more strongly with him was the argument that a number of their schools were provided, managed, and staffed by religious orders. What chance had they that a local education authority in Wales or in the West Riding would ever appoint a member of those religious orders to a teachership? It would be simply idle to expect that even a moderate much less a hostile, authority would ever dream of appointing a member of such a community to be a teacher. That was to Roman Catholics a most essential and vital matter. He earnestly appealed to the most rev. Primate to concede the Amendment of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. There was no difference in principle between the two proposals. What his noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh suggested was that names should be submitted to the local education authority, who should have the absolute power of vetoing those nominations if the nominees were not educationally qualified.
LORD BELPERsaid he had no wish to detain the Committee at any length, but the most rev. Primate had made an appeal to those who had had the onus of administering education, and though he did not pretend that he could voice with authority the opinions of others, yet he could state from a practical point of view the way in which local education authorities would look upon this matter when called upon to appoint a teacher under the circumstances of Clause 4. He thought

23
it was perfectly clear that they would recognise, in the first instance, that where a school had been set up with special facilities for special denominational instruction it would be desirable that there should be a teacher of that denomination placed in the school. But they would not be in a position them selves, or very seldom would be in a position, without inquiry, to know the teachers whose views would be in consonance with those of the parents of the children attending the school, and they would feel bound to consult those from whom they could best get the information. It had been laid down that there should be a parents' committee, and that committee would, at all events, represent the parents in the district, and presumably would also represent the feelings of those by whom the school was erected. He ventured to think that the local education authority, being responsible for the education given in the school, would take care, in appointing a teacher, that they had such information laid before them by the parents' committee or some other suitable body as would enable them to come to a wise judgment upon the question of his or her suitability. He could not for the moment recall the terms of Viscount St. Aldwyn's suggested Amendment, but before the noble Viscount rose he (Lord Belper) had prepared this provision, which he thought would meet the view of many noble Lords:
"The parents' committee may make recommendations to the local education authority in regard to the teachers to be appointed, and the local education authority shall, when making appointments, take such recommendations into consideration."
These words reserved the absolute authority of the local education authority in making the appointment, and they also ensured that the representations of the parents' committee would be taken into consideration. He had been very much exercised in mind, in listening to the discussion, as to what would be the position of the local authority with regard to the minor authorities set up under Clause 15. The provision in that clause as it stood would, he thought, lead to great confusion and difficulty. It would be much easier to retain the boards of management, with modifications in their powers, and to make the parents' committee a sub-committee of the board of managers, with the instruc-
24
tion that the managers should look to the committee for suggestions as to teachers. He hoped that the delegation question would be eventually solved in such a manner as to make the Bill workable.
LORD FITZMAURICEsaid he was grateful to the most rev. Prelate that in his speech introducing his Amendment he had expressed, not indeed for the first time, a general confidence in the local education authorities; and feared only that there might be, hero and there, a local authority which would be disposed to act unreasonably. But he must point out that this proposal of the most rev. Prelate, like other proposals that had been made, took a very different colour in the eyes of those who sat on the Government Benches from what they might have assumed had not Clause 4 been so considerably altered by noble Lords opposite. By the change of the number from four-fifths to a bare majority of parents, whose consent was to be a condition of bringing a special facilities school into existence, the number of teachers who would be affected had been enormously increased; and the Government, in considering the most rev. Prelate's proposal, could not overlook that unfortunate Amendment merely because of the opinion of the noble Viscount opposite that, if the Bill became law, Clause 4 would probably be found to be without it. He was glad to notice there was present in the minds of noble Lords the administrative aspect of this question. Apparently they were at last about to hail the appearance, however faintly on the distant horizon, of the subject of education in the real sense of the term, and apart from what was called the religious difficulty. One of the chief objections of the Government to the Amendment was that it would still further complicate the administrative machine. The county councils, who would have to administer the Act, were becoming more and more alarmed at the growing number of Amendments, which would add enormously to their labours. Their Lordships were placed in a difficult position by the number of Amendments now before them, especially as the proposal of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh had unfortunately dropped out of the notice Paper; and his suggestion was that the question of the duties of the parents' committee should be postponed until they

25
reached Clause 15, which dealt with schemes of delegation.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CAN-TERBURYsaid he was, perhaps, the last person in the Committee who wanted to stand upon the form in which a principle was asserted, provided that in any way they could obtain the security for which they sought. If the Government could hold out a hope that they would accept the words of the noble Viscount, even in some modified form, he would gladly substitute them for his own.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLKsaid it would not be possible for Catholics to accept the most rev. Prelate's proposal in the modified form suggested by the noble Viscount. They stood by the proposal of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. They thought that the most rev. Prelate's proposal, even in the form in which it was moved, would not work out satisfactorily. It would be a most invidious task to throw upon the parents' committee to inquire into a teacher's beliefs after his appointment, and then perhaps to declare to the world that he did not come up to their standard from the religious point of view. Such a proceeding would be grossly unfair to the teacher as well as to the parents' committee.
The proper course was that proposed by Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, that the parents' committee should submit to the local authority a list of candidates with whom they were content on religious grounds, and that the local authority should then select from the list one with whose qualifications as a teacher they were satisfied. They had to consider whether friction was likely to arise, and to provide- machinery to obviate it. He earnestly believed if they considered the two Amendments they would find his noble friend's was the more likely to achieve the desired object.
Undoubtedly they felt that this Amendment would safeguard the position of the religious teachers in their schools, which was very dear to them. He believed he might confidently appeal to the officials of the Board of Education to say that if those religious teachers were taken out of the schools it would be a distinct blow to the cause of education. What they were doing to this Bill could not be measured by the number of Amendments.
26
If two Amendments would safeguard their denominational schools, then two should be passed; but if twenty Amendments were necessary, let them not be satisfied with eighteen.
They were told that this was no longer the Bill of the Government, but the Bill of the House of Lords. It was no such thing; it still remained the Bill of the Government with the Amendments grafted on it by their Lordships, and he very much feared that Amendments grafted on that stock would not be afforded support and nourishment. He honestly feared that the dangers lurking in the original Bill were there still, and had not boon removed by their Amendments. They took upon themselves a very heavy responsibility indeed, when, as friends of religious education in the country, they allowed the Bill to pass its Second Reading, and he could not but feel that if they were asked to be satisfied with Amendments of such a shadowy kind as that which was now suggested by the most rev. Primate, when they came to the Third Reading of the Bill they must carefully consider it, as the same responsibility would confront them again in a more accentuated form. The Catholic Peers felt deeply that they could accept nothing less than his noble friend's Amendment, and he had been assured that the Jewish community were at one with them on this point.
VISCOUNT HALIFAXasked permission to quote from the writings of the late Archbishop Temple to show the opinion entertained by that authority. The late most rev. Primate had left it on record in his Life what his opinion was on this point. He said—
"Why do we attach so much importance to our denominational schools? Is it not because of their denominational character? The educational character of these schools mainly depends upon the appointment of the teachers. No rules—
and he would beg their Lordships' attention to this point——
"prescribing the kind of religious instruction, important as that instruction is, can he compared for a moment to the diameter of the teacher in determining what that school will be like. … There is not, and there cannot be, the same security for the character of the teacher if is is merely appointed by the local authority."
He (Viscount Halifax) was speaking with the most profound conviction when he

27
said that there were thousands and thousands of people all over the country who were looking to their Lordships' House to introduce Amendments which would really preserve the denominational character of Clause 4 schools; and that could not be done unless they preserved the denominational character of the teacher.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, your Lordships will, I cannot help thinking, be of opinion that the time has come when the sense of the Committee may be taken upon the Amendments before us. We have the Amendment of the noble Lord on the back benches and the Amendment of the most rev. Primate with the variant suggested by the noble Viscount behind me. The two Amendments differ, no doubt, in an important particular, but both of them are directed to the same purpose. The object of both the movers is to sue to it i that the 4th Clause of this Bill shall be a reality and not a sham. These 4th Clause schools are to be denominational schools. We have been told again and again that they are to be denominational schools; that their denominational character is to be retained; and that the old teaching is to go on. But, in our view, that is absolutely impossible unless precautions are taken at the outset to secure for them; teachers who shall be qualified to give the particular form of religions instruction desired in those schools. And may I be permitted to say that that argument appears to me to hold good whether these Clause 4 schools are more or less in number. It is quite true that in consequence of the Amendment carried by your Lordships' House the number of these schools may be increased, but whether the number is large or small we contend that you cannot have a denominational school unless you have a teacher selected on account of his fitness to give denominational instruction.
Let us see for one moment how it is proposed to obtain this security. The Lord President of the Council has given us an idea of the mode in which he would set to work. We understood from him that in his view no questions are to be asked on the initial appointment of the teacher; but he suggested to us, curiously enough, the other evening that,
28
although there were to be no questions, although it was not to be permissible to ask the teacher whether he was a Roman Catholic or a Jew, it was extremely likely that in most cases the local authority would have some means of finding out what a teacher was and would make the appointment on that knowledge.
THE EARL OF CREWE: May I tell the noble Marquess what I was thinking of? I meant that in the case of those schools their character would be generally known by those who wished to serve in them as teachers, and it is presumed that teachers of the kind acceptable to the particular denomination would apply and that others would not apply.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The process then is a sort of blindfold process of selection, but the noble Earl explains that a corner of the handkerchief will be raised so that it will be possible to see pretty distinctly what kind of person you have to deal with. Then there is the Amendment of the most rev. Primate. With that we entertain a great feeling of sympathy on this side of the House, although we are disposed to prefer the form of words suggested by the noble Viscount behind me, which seem rather loss peremptory in character, but at the same time to be well calculated to procure the desired result. We hold, with the most rev. Prelate, that you cannot exclude the parents' committee from a voice in the selection of teachers. You have already decided that that committee is to have control of, and to be responsible for, the religious instruction given in the school, and it is impossible that that control should be exercised or that responsibility assumed unless the committee is given a real voice in the selection of a teacher. Lord Clifford of Chudleigh proposes a somewhat different procedure. According to his Amendment it would be for the parents committee to nominate the teacher and for the local education authority to confirm or object to the appointment as the case might be. In our view it is better that the task of originally selecting a teacher should not be thrown upon the shoulders of the local education authority; and for that reason we prefer the Amendment of the most rev. Primate. But, as I said just now, we think the variant suggested by the noble Marquess behind me is an

29
improvement upon his wording. May I read the Amendment suggested by the noble Viscount, as the words are not on the Paper? They run—
"The local education authority shall consult with the parents' committee as to the appointment of any persons to be teachers in the school, and shall satisfy themselves that the persons so appointed are qualified and willing to give the religious instruction for which the extended facilities are afforded."
Those concluding words, remember, are the words which the Committee adopted when we were dealing with council schools, and it seems to me that for reasons of symmetry alone they should find a place in the clause. One word as to the suggestion that the final consideration of this matter should stand over till we get to Clause 15. I am not quite sure whether the Amendment would very fittingly find a place in Clause 15, which deals with the functions of the county councils, but it may be possible, when we come to Clause 15, to consider how far this scheme of the parents' committee can be fitted into any scheme of local administration which may be agreed upon under that clause. We do not however see any reason why the Committee should defer a decision until we get to Clause 15. I am afraid I must tell the noble Lord behind me (Lord Clifford of Chudleigh) that we cannot follow him into the Lobby, but we are prepared to support the Amendment of
the most rev. Primate as altered by the noble Viscount (Viscount St. Aldwyn).
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The question is "That all the words after 'Act' in the Archbishop of Canterbury's Amendment be deleted."
On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Amendment," resolved in the negative.
LORD STANMORE: May I ask the noble Earl the Lord Chairman what the effect of this vote is upon the Amendment moved by Lord Clifford of Chudleigh?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: It is competent for the Committee now to insert other words. The question now before the House is the proposal of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh to insert the words—"The appointment of teachers shall be made by the local education authority on the nomination of the parents' committee, whose nominee shall not be rejected except on educational grounds."
On Question, "That those words be there inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 49; Not-contents, 137.

CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Halifax, V. [Teller.]

Dormer, L.

Newcastle, D.

Hill, V.

Emly, L.

Northumberland, D.

Llandaff, V.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Somerset, D.

Gage, L. (F. Gage.)

Bangor, L. Bp.

Gerard, L.

Bute, M.

Birmingham, L. Bp.

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

Exeter, M.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Abingdon, E.

London, L. Bp.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Amherst, E.

Oxford, L. Bp

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Ashburnham, E.

Muncaster, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Abinger, L.

North, L.

De La Warr, E.

Armstrong, L.

Rothschild, L.

Denbigh, E.

Barnard, L.

Seaton, L.

Devon, E.

Braye, L.

Sherborne, L.

Feversham, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Stanmore, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L.

Harrowby, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L. [Teller.]

Stewart of Garlies, L (E. Galloway.)

Nelson, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Manchester, D.

Hertford, M.

York, L. Abp.

Ailesbury, M.

Lansdowne, M.

Crewe, E. (L. President.)

Bath, M.

Northampton, M.

Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Camden, M.

Winchester, M.

Albemarle, E.

Ridley, V.

Hastings, L.

Beauchamp, E.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Haversham, L.

Brownlow, E.

Headley, L.

Cadogan, E.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Hemphill, L.

Camperdown, E.

Chester, L. Bp.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Carnwath, E.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Kelvin, L.

Carrington, E.

Liverpool, L. Bp.

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

Cathcart, E.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Cawdor, E.

St. David's, L. Bp.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

Wakefield, L. Bp.

Kinnaird, L.

Chichester, E.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Knaresborough, L.

Craven, E.

Lawrence, L.

Dartrey, E.

Ampthill, L.

Llangattock, L.

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

Ardilaun, L.

Lyveden, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Macnaghten, L.

Guilford, E.

Ashcombe, L.

Manners, L.

Haddington, E.

Atkinson, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Hardwicke, E.

Barrymore, L.

Napier, L.

Kilmorey, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Lichfield, E.

Belper, L.

Pirrie, L.

Lindsey, E.

Blythswood, L.

Poltimore, L.

Londesborough, E.

Boston, L.

Rathmore, L.

Lytton, E.

Brassey, L.

Ravensworth, L.

Northbrook, E.

Burghclere, L.

Reay, L.

Northesk, E.

Calthorpe, L.

Redesdale, L.

Onslow, E.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Revelstoke, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Ribblesdale, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Clinton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee L.

Radnor, E.

Colchester, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Russell, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Saint Germans, E.

De Mauley, L.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Scarborough, E.

de Ros, L.

Stamford, E.

Denman, L.

Stalbridge, L.

Temple, E.

Digby, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

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

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Tennyson, L.

Yarborough, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Estcourt, L.

Waleran, L.

Cobham, V.

Eversley, L.

Wandsworth, L.

Cross, V.

Faber, L.

Weardale, L.

Falkland, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Welby, L.

Falmouth, V.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Wolverton, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Fitzmaurice, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Glantawe, L.

Knutsford, V.

Harris, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The question I now have to put is that the words proposed by Viscount St. Aldwyn be inserted, viz.: "The local education authority shall consult with the parents' committee as to the appointment of any persons to be teachers in the school, and shall satisfy themselves that the persons so appointed are qualified and willing to give the religious instruction for which the extended facilities are afforded."
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, before the noble Earl in the Chair puts that question, I think perhaps it is as well that I should say one or two words on the manner in which it is regarded by His Majesty's Government. I think noble Lords opposite will agree that it is scarcely reasonable to expect us to give a definite opinion about this Amend-
32
ment, in view of the fact that we have not actually seen it in writing, and have only heard it read. The House must also remember that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Belper) stated that a somewhat similar suggestion had occurred to him, and he read out some words which I am not able actually to remember, but the general purport of which I think the Committee will recollect, dealing with the same subject. We were unable, as I stated, to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite, and as regards this one, I am not able at this stage to do more than say that the whole question, in the light of these two Amendments, will have our consideration. It is impossible for me to accept the words of the noble Viscount at this stage. And when I say "consideration." I mean consideration, because on one or two previous occasions when I have used that phrase I

33
have been told by noble Lords opposite that I have accepted the idea. I mean "consideration." His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the arguments which have been used by the noble Viscount; and I was very glad that, in the course of his remarks, the noble Viscount saw the force of some of the objections which we raised against the Amendment as introduced by the most rev. Primate. Therefore, we are quite prepared to take the question into full consideration, but I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment as described by the noble Viscount, or even as modified by the noble Lord opposite.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he could quite understand the position taken up by the noble Earl on behalf of His Majesty's Government. It was perfectly true that he had not the wording of the proposed Amendment before him, and it was only natural that he should desire not to give any pledge on the subject. He hoped, however, that their Lordships would insert the words in the Bill. They would be open to reconsideration at a future state.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought the words suggested by Lord Belper were more satisfactory than those before the Committee, and they might form the basis of a settlement. He hoped Lord Belper would put his words on the Paper in plenty of time before the Report stage.
LORD BELPERexplained that he had not moved an Amendment. He had suggested some words, but the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount met his view.
On Question, ''That those words be there inserted," resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid that the Amendment standing in his name was considered on Clause 4 and postponed until now, the Committee being of opinion that it could be better dealt with at this point. The provisions in the Amendment did not require any further explanation, and the only
34
question was whether this was the proper place to insert it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 8, after the word ' worship,' to insert the words 'The religious instruction given in the school shall as regards its character be in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed (if any) relating to the school; and nothing in this section shall affect any provision in the 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 school house at all times. Vacancies in the parents' committee caused by death, resignation, or otherwise, shall be filled by election by the parents attending the school or by nomination in the same manner as the original appointment was made. In all schools in which facilities are afforded under Clause 3 of this Act, in State-aided schools and schools used by the local education authority under Clause 11 of this Act, there shall be a parents' committee elected and nominated as provided in sub-section (4) of Clause 4 of this Act, and all the provisions above enacted shall apply to such committee.'" —(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: The Amendment of the noble Lord covers a certain amount of ground part of which has been covered already. The first Amendment is, I think, covered by the words which have been inserted at the beginning of Clause 4, to the effect that the local education authority shall afford extended facilities for religious instruction of some special character and in accordance with the trust deed, if any, of the school. Therefore, from the noble Lord's point of view it is, unnecessary to insert those words. As regards the latter put of the paragraph, that nothing in tin's section shall affect any provision in the trust deed giving to any ecclesiastical or denominational authority the power of deciding, that I think has already been effected in repealing the Kenyon-Slaney clause of the Act of 1902. The effect of that repeal is to restore the state of things to what it was before that Act, and I conceive that what the noble Lord wishes to provide for in the latter part of this section dealing with ecclesiastical or denominational authority is that the law should be as it stood before that Act. As to the parents' committee having access to the school at all times, we could not agree to that. The parents' committee, as constituted, is to have control of, and

35
be responsible for, the religious instruction given in the schools. I think that local authorities would resent the perpetual intrusion of these people during the time of secular education, with which they almost explicitly have nothing to do; and, therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment on that point. As regards the last paragraph, I am not quite sure whether the wording of the noble Lord's Amendment would not go a great deal further than I take it he means to go. If he means that ordinary schools under Clause 3 should have a parents' committee to manage the religious instruction, we take no exception to that, but it should only be the facilities instruction which they should manage. It clearly should not be the Cowper-Temple instruction, whereas, as the noble Lord's words stand at present, they possibly would apply to that. I I think the words "all the provisions above enacted" applying to such a committee might cover more ground than the noble Lord intends. I do not take it that he really means anything more than this, that in State-aided schools, in schools under Clause XL, and in ordinary facilities schools there should be a parents' committee to manage the religious instruction; but I am afraid his words go a great deal further than that and we cannot agree to them.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNpointed out that the clause under discussion was a teachers' clause pure and simple, and that the Amendment referred to many other matters and not particularly to teachers. He hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFcould not see any other place where the Amendment could be put in except here. The noble Earl the Lord President had expressed the opinion that Clause 4 rendered the first section of his noble friend's Amendment unnecessary, but Clause 4 only bound the local education authority. They wanted also to bind the parents' committee, who had the control of the actual giving of religious instruction. Words were necessary to be inserted to compel them to comply with the conditions in the trust deed. He therefore thought the words in the Amendment were not unnecessary. That the parents' committee should have access to the schoolhouse at
36
all times the noble Earl had suggested was unreasonable. He (Viscount Llandaff) did not suppose that parents would wish to intrude during the time of secular education, and he had no doubt his noble friend would limit the Amendment by inserting the words "at all times when religious instruction is being given." The next clause about vacancies, he thought, was necessary. They must have some provision for filling up vacancies. The last paragraph in the Amendment raised a question to which he had called attention the other night. In a State-aided school and in a temporarily occupied school they would have under the Bill no managers, and, therefore, no means of appointing teachers. As the noble Earl the Lord President had said, they had repealed the section of the Act of 1902 which created the foundation managers, and those managers would no longer remain in existence. The noble Earl had also suggested that the Board of Education would have some power to create a body of managers who would appoint the teachers. With great respect to the noble Earl, he did not think that was so. He was not aware of any section in any Act of Parliament which gave the Board of Education power to constitute managers, Managers had always been appointed by statute. Some provision for the appointment of teachers in these schools was absolutely necessary. He thought the noble Earl would agree that in Clause 3 schools, as in Clause 4 schools, the Amendment of Viscount St. Aldwyn would apply equally. It seemed to him that all the paragraphs contained in his noble friend's Amendment were necessary and consistent with what the Committee had already done.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: These provisions dealing with vacancies in the parents' committee and other matters seem to me hardly germane to the clause your Lordships have under consideration. They no doubt might very properly be raised on Report when we are dealing with Clause 4, or later when we come to Clause 15, which deals generally with the administration of schools.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFreminded the Committee that the inconvenience caused was not the fault of his noble friend because he proposed the Amendment

37
on Clause 4, to which these matters, were germane, only to be asked by; the Leaders on both sides of the Committee to postpone it until the teachers' clause was reached. His noble friend accordingly postponed the Amendment until they reached the present clause, and it was very hard that he should now be shunted off to Clause 15.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that in Clause 4 it was enacted that the parents' committee should be responsible for, and have control of, the religious instruction. Now it was said that owing to the Kenyon-Slaney clause having been repeated the schools would be relegated to their old trust deeds. He took that to mean as to the character of the instruction—not that they were to be thrown back on every condition of the trust deeds. It was well known that in a great number of trust deeds of the National Society the whole control was left to the clergyman of the parish. He wished to ask whether the repeal of the Clause in question would affect the control of the instruction.
The EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: A question of order has been raised by the noble Earl the Lord Chairman, and surely we ought to decide that before discussing further questions.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I withdraw the Amendment for the present, on the understanding that at a later stage I shall have the opportunity of again moving it.
LORD BARNARDdrew attention to the fact that one point dealing with teachers was partly covered in this clause and partly in Clause 27. He asked His Majesty's Government whether they would be prepared at a future stage to consider a proposal for either putting Clause 27 into this clause or moving the latter two sub-sections of this clause to Clause 27.
The EARL OF CREWE: I will give full consideration to the question raised by the noble Lord. I am afraid I cannot answer it at this moment. As regards the point raised by Lord Stanley of
38
Alderley, I have always regarded this as very much a matter for the Committee to settle. The form of the Bill as it came up, your Lordships will remember, left the provision of all special denominational instruction out of school hours to be provided and paid for by the members of the denominations, and under those circumstances it seemed to be most reasonable to us that the manner in which that instruction should be conducted, and the terms on which it should be conducted, were really matters for the denominations themselves and for Parliament to decide. We had no very distinct wishes on the subject one way or the other, and I think remembering the form in which the Bill was introduced, that that was a reasonable course to take. My noble friend behind me will remember that, as the Bill was introduced, these schools were placed in a very different position from the present voluntary schools under the Kenyon-Slaney Clause. The Kenyon-Slaney Clause was, as many of us thought, a valuable addition to the Act of 1902, but the conditions in these schools, as we intended them to be, were so entirely different that we did not consider it reasonable or necessary to apply that clause. The question whether this religious instruction should be in accordance with the trust deed or whether the committee of parents should have a very distinct say as to its character and the manner in which it was conducted, is one for the denominations themselves, and on which the Committee could, if it desired, express an opinion. Before I sit down there is one other point on which I wish to make myself perfectly clear with reference to the Amendment moved by Viscount St. Aldwyn. We were not able, as the noble Viscount quite admitted, to express a definite opinion as to its merits, but of the two suggestions, I confess I preferred the words of the noble Lord below the gangway (Lord Belper). It certainly seemed to me, so far as I could gather them, that the words in the noble Viscount's Amendment contravened the provisions of sub-section (2) of Clause 8, whereas the phrase suggested by Lord Belper apparently did not, and, for that reason, so far as I could catch the purport of what he said, I preferred his words. But the noble Viscount and the Committee will understand that we are not

39
bound to the acceptance of the principle that there should be anything like a preliminary inquiry by the local education authority into the religious belief of the teacher.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he did not intend, in the words that he drew up, to contravene anything in Clause 8, any more than it had been contravened— and he did not believe it had been contravened at all—by the words which their Lordships had agreed to yesterday with regard to council schools. The matter was, of course, open to further consideration.
House resumed, and to be again in Committee this evening.
The sitting was then suspended, after the House agreeing, on the Motion of the MARQUESS OF RIPON, to give precedence on resuming to a question by the Archbishop of Canterbury relating to the Chinese in the Transvaal.

THE CHINESE IN THE TRANSVAAL.
On resuming at 9 o'clock—
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid: I rise to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to furnish any information respecting the result of investigations as to the prevalence of vice in the compounds occupied by Chinese coolies in the Transvaal. I shrink somewhat from Opening in your Lordships' House a discussion upon a subject so painful and even terrible as that to which my Question alludes, but I feel bound in consistency to raise the question again at the earliest possible moment. Your Lordships may remember that two years ago, I think it was in February, 1904, † when the first discussion in this House took place on the subject of Chinese labour in the Transvaal, I ventured to call attention to what I thought was a branch of the subject which had been strangely overlooked, I mean the moral question involved in the arrangements which
† See (4) Debates, cxxix., 1001.
40
were then in contemplation, and I received at that time assurances that the obvious difficulties had not been ignored, that those perils were being in some way or other guarded against; and alike from the then representatives of the Colonial Office and from other noble Lords, and more especially from Lord Grey who is now in Canada, but who has been closely connected with South Africa and its work, the House received assurances that this matter would certainly be kept under careful surveillance, so that if possible the evils which I ventured to foreshadow might be averted. Mow that is quite two and a half years ago, and from that time until now I have hardly ceased to make, indeed, I have not ceased to make, constant inquiries upon this subject in South Africa and from other sources where it seemed to me that information was likely to be, or ought to be, available. In the files of the Colonial Office will be found not one or two, but many more letters of an unofficial kind from me on this subject, and my further inquiries have extended to travellers in South Africa who have made a special study of the Chinese problem, and from residents in South Africa who have had opportunities of looking into this question, and who are likely to take an unprejudiced view. I have also made inquiries from the clergy and ministers of different denominations with whom I have been in correspondence as to what is happening in the Chinese compounds. I have further endeavoured, by frequent communications with those who are familiar with Chinese work elsewhere, especially in the Malay Peninsula and other places, to ascertain what is likely to be the South African peril in this respect if an inference may be drawn from what has happened elsewhere. The result of all these inquiries is that I know no subject upon which the conflict of evidence, where evidence exists, or the absence of evidence where it might have been expected to exist, has been so marked. I have had assurances that this dreaded evil had been either averted or the peril had been over-rated, and I have had assurances on the other side that the mischief was of the gravest possible kind at this hour, and I have never been able to obtain any certain first-hand assurances from one side or the other which seemed to me sufficiently trustworthy to justify one in taking any public action, or joining in

41
a public demonstration upon this subject. It is not surprising that this subject is one upon which it is difficult to obtain accurate evidence. The very nature of the question at once suggests to any thinking man how difficult it must be to obtain really independent, trustworthy and first-hand information about it. But, my Lords, within the last week or two there has appeared in the Press a statement that official information has been procured and collected in South Africa, and that such information is now in the possession of the Colonial Office. As soon as I learned that this was so, or rather received the statement that this was so, I ventured to put a Question upon the Paper of your Lordships' House, and that Question would have been asked some little time ago but for the request of the noble Marquess the Lender of the House—and I am not complaining in the least degree of his action—who suggested that it might be well to wait until we had got on a little further with the Education Bill. Of course, I at once acceded to that request, but when I found that feeling was growing stronger upon this question I ventured to press that I might be allowed to ask the Question to-night rather than postpone it any longer. I want to thank the noble Marquess for the courtesy which he has shown me throughout on this matter. I feel bound to bring the question forward now to ascertain whether or not we are at least within reach of something that will enable us to judge from reliable evidence instead of from reports which may be discredited, because they are supposed to be biassed in one direction or another. I hope at last we are in a position to got some trustworthy information upon a matter so grave, not merely in its direct and immediate effect upon the surroundings in which the mischief takes place, but also in its possible indirect effects upon other populations than those of the Chinamen, a very terrible effect which would tarnish the honour and good name not only of England, but of her Colonies. That is all I have got to say. I ask this Question simply for information, and with no desire to embarrass the Government in difficulties which must be very great, and simply because I want to know whether anything is being done and whether there is any way in which we, in connection with these matters,
42
whether by influencing public opinion or otherwise, can support or strengthen any efforts which may be necessary to put down this evil if the evil is found to be as grave as some people fear.
LORD COLERIDGE: I thank the most rev. Primate for bringing this subject under the attention of the House, and I think I have some right to say a few words before the noble Earl replies to the Question. From first to last I, along with others who then sat on the other side of the House, have opposed and fought against the importation of Chinamen under this. Ordinance, not only for other reasons connected with their importation, but also mainly for the grave risks which the most rev. Primate has urged against the system this evening. From the very first Lord Stanmore, whom I am sorry is not here, pointed out the vital difference between the conditions of this Ordinance and the conditions of all hitherto known Ordinances as they existed in the Empire. The main difference was that the Chinamen were allowed to come into the imported country as bachelors and were not accompanied by their wives and children. I remember in this House when we raised this question the noble Lord who is now High Commissioner in South Africa, Lord Selborne, indignantly pointed out to us the terms of this Ordinance, and exclaimed, "What could the Government do more?" I regret to say that in the contests which we have waged against this Ordinance for the last two years we have not had the open support of the most rev. Primate. He knew, as he told us in the speech he delivered upon this question more than two years ago, that the Chinaman would go into the Transvaal alone without being accompanied by any of the opposite sex. At that time I appealed and Lord Carrington and others also appealed to the most rev. Primate on more than one occasion to speak out in bold, clear, and unqualified terms of condemnation in regard to this traffic, and I believe such is the recognised weight which the most rev. Primate deservedly holds in the counsels of the country that if he had spoken the right word, and spoken it in time, the Chinamen would never have been imported, and these evils would never have arisen. I doubt not from reasons which were conclusive to him,

43
but from reasons which I should Think he now regrets, he hesitated on those occasions, and the result is what unfortunately we know to-day. This House disregarded and set aside our arguments, and the noble Duke of Marlborough, who then represented the Colonies in this House, finally had to admit that out of the 50,000 Chinese only two women had ultimately been imported. I know we had golden pictures drawn of the Chinamen in the compound. I remember the noble Karl Grey, now the Governor-General of Canada, went so far as to mention the words "garden city" in alluding to the Chinese compound. Lord Halifax, who spent some time in the country, told mo that he had visited the compounds in South Africa, and that he was not able to find any one who had noticed any of the moral objections against the Chinese which had been brought forward in England. All I can say with regard to the noble Viscount's statement is that when he went on his tour in the Chinese compounds it must have been a very specially conducted tour. I know the Government are in great difficulties because they have never had a High Commissioner who disapproved of the importation of the Chinese. First we had Lord Milner, the fons et origo of the system, and I do not know whether noble Lords would be ready to sanction a continuation of his policy in South Africa. He was succeeded by Lord Selborne who was also, for reasons amply sufficient to himself, an advocate, and an ardent advocate, of the Chinese labour importation system. But now at last the truth is out, and I venture to think there is not a noble Lord in this House who will contradict what I say when I declare that the whole system is doomed. I make no extreme demands upon the Government; I do not ask them to do the impossible. I do not suggest that they can in a moment, with the wave of a wand, repatriate 50,000 or 60,000 China men, but I do wish to ask one or two questions on this subject. First of all I ask the Government who knew of it? Where was the superintendent of labour? Where were his inspectors, all of them officials of the Government administration? Where were the compound managers who have been vouched for again and again in this House as such admirable administrators within the Chinese compound?
44
Where were the recruiters who, if the tales be true, recruited from China into South Africa a class for the purpose of immorality? Did they know, and if they knew, did they tell, and if they did not tell, why did they not tell? I do not think the country will be satisfied with a mere half measure; they will want to bring home to somebody—and I do not care how high that somebody is—the responsibility for this state of things. That responsibility must be brought home to somebody. Although I do not ask for impossibilities I do urge upon the Colonial Secretary that nothing but a drastic remedy will do anything to appease the wholesome and very proper indignation which these revelations have produced.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: I want to do what I can to emphasise the points raised in the most rev. Primate's Question. I have always unwillingly taken a great interest in this question owing to something which was told me at the very beginning of its discussion in this country. I thought that this Question was not going to be asked until next week, and then I should not have been able to be in the House, but as I am here I should like to add a few words upon the subject. When the importation of Chinese coolies was first under discussion, a layman who knew what he was talking about very well told me plainly that wherever Chinese were imported in largo numbers, exclusively male, there unnatural vice followed as something not sporadic or occasional, but as something normal. I have never taken any part in decrying the importation of Chinese labour into South Africa on such grounds as the fear that they would be cruelly treated. I never thought that there was any bottom in such charges, and I have always dissociated myself from them. But exclusively on the moral ground I have always felt that the reasons why they should not be allowed, in the beginnings of a young community more particularly, were overwhelmingly strong, if such representations as were made to me were true. After that first information I was at pains to get all the information I could from various quarters, and like the most rev. Primate I have found it rather contradictory. Curiously enough, it seemed to me that the clergy

45
were generally optimistic and the laity were almost uniformly of the opposite mind. We know that with regard to all such painful moral questions we find the same difficulties, namely, that it is the official guardians of morality who are the most blind as to what is going on. Again and again I have been told things so extraordinary about the prevalence of this vice amongst the Chinese under such conditions, that they have left on my mind the impression that it was very difficult to believe that such statements were true. We were told that the Chinese would have full liberty of being accompanied by their wives, and that they were to be established under normal conditions of family life. We were told almost simultaneously, by those who knew, that that was a mere matter of empty words, and that there was not the remotest chance of the Chinamen being accompanied by their wives, and that has turned out to be the case. The question continues to be agitated. On all moral matters it is notoriously difficult to get convincing evidence, because there is, as we all unhappily know, upon such questions a large conspiracy of silence. We know what the accusation is, and I want to make it as pointed and definite as I can. It is said that such vice exists in almost all communities, but that as a rule it exists as a sporadic but not as a normal vice. I believe that where this kind of vice becomes not sporadic but normal there it threatens fundamentally the moral well-being of a community, and I believe that to allow in the midst of any community, and most of all in the midst of a young and yet unformed community, any society in which this vice is known to be normal is to do that which is most fatally contrary to the progress of any young rising generation. I believe that although the society in which this vice normally exists is a comparatively small one and one which is separated from the rest of the community in a distinct manner, yet, as I should expect and as I have been informed, the state of morality in this distinctive community is well known. It is a continual subject of condemnation and discussion in the communities outside that this is what the Chinese do. Therefore, it not only means that there is something foul in itself in the midst of the community, but it also means that it spreads contamination around. I remember that this Question was asked some
46
time ago in the House of Commons, and at that time Mr. Winston Churchill, with the Prime Minister sitting beside him, gave a most explicit Answer and a most explicit promise. He said that as these charges were made the Government would send out a Committee of Inquiry to South Africa, and if they found the charges were true, then during the temporary period during which the Chinese were still to be allowed in South Africa they would fundamentally revise their policy. I have heard that Question and that Answer read out in another place a few moments ago, so that I am sure that what I am quoting represents substantially, though I cannot pretend that it represents verbally, the Answer of His Majesty's Government, or the Answer of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies who represents the Government. The inquiry was made by the Government. It was made by Mr. Bucknill, and he has returned to this country and reported upon the subject. It is not my duty to inquire as to the conditions under which information or supposed information has become widespread, but your Lordships probably know how widespread and how different the statements are with regard to the evils complained of. I think your Lordships probably do not read what I think is one of the best and certainly one of the most influential of the religious organs of this country, I mean The British Weekly. If any of your Lordships do read that remarkable organ you will know how very wide the area of moral feeling must be which is profoundly deeply stirred about this question. In that perturbation I most profoundly share. I think it is one of those tremendous questions which a nation cannot evade, and I do not think that any kind of commercial necessity can justify a country in allowing the normal prevalence of that kind of vice in any community of which can possibly rid itself. It is with that belief that I earnestly ask His Majesty's Government to let us know what they intend to do with reference to the very definite undertaking given last August by the Undersecretary for the Colonies with regard to an inquiry into this question and the results of that inquiry.
LORD REDESDALE: I have probably had more experience of the Chinese than

47
any Member of your Lordships' House. I have lived with them in their own country, and in other countries, and I have lived with them in the Colonies, and I can only say that when the right rev. Prelate who has just sat down talks about these vices being normal and not sporadic amongst the Chinese, he does the Chinese an injustice which I am sure he would be the first to deplore. That there are vicious Chinese just as there are vicious Europeans is a certainty, but the great majority of the Chinese would view with horror not unlike that which the right rev. Prelate has so eloquently expressed, the existence of such crimes and vices amongst them. If it had not been for the Chinese many parts of the world which are now rich and thriving would not have been prosperous at all. In California and in the far Western States of America, without the Chinese the railroads could not have been built, the great cities could not have sprung up, and the state of prosperity which is the envy of the world could not have been brought into existence at all. The Chinaman is a frugal and industrious man and, at his best, is one of the very best citizens that I know anywhere. That there are bad Chinamen is a certainty, but to say that nameless vices are not sporadic but normal among them—and the right rev. Prelate repeated the word more than once in the course of his remarks—is a most unjust and unworthy accusation, and it is only fair that a man who has lived amongst them should get up and repudiate the charge to the best of his ability.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: I make no complaint that the most rev. Primate has put to me this Question, although it has imposed upon me a very disagreeable duty, and I hope I may ask your Lordships' forbearance while I endeavour to discharge it. At the end of the summer sittings certain evidence was tendered to me of such a character that in any Court in this kingdom it would have been treated with closed doors. Therefore, of necessity, I treated it as confidential. That is the footing on which I communicated with the High Commissioner, and it is the footing on which the inquiry was instituted. It is right to say, particularly in view of the remarks of the noble Lord behind me, that the High
48
Commissioner lost not a moment in instituting this inquiry. He entrusted it to one of his best officers, a gentleman with legal training which enabled him to take and sift the evidence which came before him. The Government remain of opinion that Mr. Bucknill's report and the evidence taken at the inquiry which he held must remain confidential. The right rev. Prelate has referred to what I suppose is an undoubted fact, that portions of this document have become public property. Those of us who have had to deal with confidential documents are not unacquainted with accidents of this kind, and all I can say upon that point is that it can only have become public from a misuse of a confidential document. The fact that we consider that it is necessary to treat these papers as confidential necessitates my making a statement to your Lordships, and what is still more onerous, I have had to examine the papers myself. I think I can say that the inquiry has been of an exhaustive character. Twenty-six witnesses were orally examined, and there was a great mass of documentary evidence, including fifteen reports from medical officers. The charges which were tendered to Mr. Bucknill may be summarised as follows—(1) That there were malpractices which were widespread, open, and scandalous; (2) that there were consequently demoralisation and disease; (3) that this state of things had been tolerated by the police and mine managers; and (4) that the natives of Africa were contaminated. It is obvious that I cannot say all that could be said upon all these topics without entering upon unmentionable details, but it is my duty to say that the Report states, and I am obliged from a survey of the evidence to concur, that the evidence goes to show that the offence prevails at most, if not all, of the compounds. That is a serious matter, but I do not suppose that anyone who, like the most rev. Prelate, had studied the question before could be entirely unprepared for it. Many on my side of the House always had a dread of this occurrence in our minds when we opposed the system. I can certainly say that that was so in my own case. I admit at once that this Report, making every allowance for certain qualifications which it contains, and which I will refer to immediately, does in my judgment

49
strengthen the view that the permanent adoption of this system is impossible, and perhaps we are justified in calling upon the most rev. Primate and those who think with him to join us in that declaration.
But, my Lord, having said that, I am bound to add, and I gladly do so, that the grosser part of the accusations which the charges as tendered to me involved are not substantiated by the evidence. I say this on my own responsibility, and I am willing to stand by it. Having examined the Papers independently and the Report, that is the conclusion to which I have come. It is clear that one of the main difficulties which arose in checking this practice is the secrecy with which it is conducted, and that is a point to which the most rev. Prelate referred. Accordingly the estimates of the amount of crime vary greatly among those whoso knowledge of the coolies both in China and South Africa is the largest. I rejoice to add that so far as my examination has gone I have found no single witness who came forward to say of his own knowledge that there were the open scandalous malpractices; which were alleged. I admit at once that that would have been a reflection upon the public service and others concerned with the management of the mines which, so far as I am concerned, I am convinced that they do not deserve. Lord Coleridge asked me, I think, to throw the responsibility on some of those officials. I can only answer that if I thought it was the proper thing to do I should not hesitate to do it, but so far as my study of the evidence has gone, the result is what I have stated.
But further—and I am sure this will be satisfactory to your Lordships— I am glad to say that as regards the question of the contamination of the South African natives the Report states that the witnesses were practically unanimous in their view, and Mr. Bucknill himself was convinced, that this statement was without foundation. But even as it is, with these qualifications, the position is serious enough, and I can assure your Lordships that neither His Majesty's Government nor the High Commissioner—for I have had communication with him, and I think I can speak for him in this matter—underrate
50
the urgency of the matter and the necessity for prompt action. I think I can say that the view which Lord Selborne takes of this matter is that, although certain charges may have been disproved, it is none the less the duty of the Government to stamp out the evil whenever and wherever it is found. The Prime Minister in another place has stated that the matters disclosed were engaging the most serious attention of the Government, who will adopt without delay such steps as may seem to them necessary to deal with the case. I think it will be evident from what I have said that there is no divergence whatever in the views of His Majesty's Government and His Majesty's representatives on the spot, or in the standard which we have set before ourselves. I had hoped that this Question would not have been asked for a few days, and that in that time I might have had further communication with the noble Lord the High Commissioner. As the matter now stands, I can only say that we shall use every means in our power to act upon any reasonable suspicion, and repatriate, as we are entitled to do under the Ordinance, any persons addicted to this practice. I mention this because there seems to be some doubt upon the matter. Of course the penalty which the law provides for the punishment of offences actually committed and detected will be rigorously enforced. I apologise to the House for inflicting upon it what has been to me, and what cannot fail to be to your Lordships, a painful statement, but we are anxious to conceal nothing which can be published with due regard to public decency, and I only hope that your Lordships, as the most rev. Primate has promised, will support His Majesty's Government in any action, however energetic, which they think the circumstances may call upon them to pursue.
LORD HARRIS: I have had some experience on the subject of labour in South Africa, and perhaps it will be expected that I should say a few words upon this subject, however distasteful it may be to have to open one's mouth upon it. Although I have no direct authority to speak for either of the groups of mining houses in South Africa, I am perfectly certain that I can speak on their behalf as well as on behalf of the

51
mining interests which I control, and I have no hesitation in saying that in every effort that the High Commissioner may make on the instructions of the noble Earl to stamp out this enormity, he will have the most cordial assistance of everyone connected with the mining industry. I think the noble Earl need not regret that he has been rather prematurely called upon to make this statement to-night, for although, of course, we accept implicitly his explanation that this Report is absolutely confidential, and that if anyone outside confidential circles has become apprised of its contents it must have been by a misuse of confidence, but it is a fact nevertheless, and it is unfortunate for the noble Earl, that certain newspapers representing his own Party allege that they have got copies of the Report, and upon the strength of that allegation they are making statements injurious to persons in positions of responsibility in South Africa. The allegations include the assertion that this crime is organised, systematised, and that perhaps what I may most shortly describe as "the professionals" are dressed in a particular way, and that they are moved about from mine to mine for the purpose. The last allegation I imagine must be untrue, because the Ordinance provides that these labourers cannot be moved about indiscriminately, and I take it from the noble Earl's statement to-night that these specific allegations which have been given such great publicity are incorrect. The Report tells us that the crime is so secret that it has been difficult to obtain the clear evidence, and therefore these allegations as regards the publicity of the crime are very improbable. One would hope that that immoral contamination which would flow from publicity has not yet been spread These are the inferences that one may draw from the statement that the noble Earl has made to-night. I join in every word of indignation that has been expressed in this House to-night, and most strongly emphasise the statement that it is impossible that such a state of things should be allowed to exist. Unfortunately one knows that it does exist wherever large communities of young men are brought together and where females are not present. The noble Earl always apprehended that this state of things might be discovered in the case of the Chinese in South Africa. I imagine that one might be apprehensive of finding it existing in
52
any very large community of young men in any part of the world, but I think it is a satisfaction to know that the noble Earl can say on the careful perusal of the Report that even amongst the Chinese themselves the crime is so shameful that it is kept as secret as possible. That I should hope bears out what Lord Redesdale said just now in support of the character of the Chinese as a nation. I hope that that means that it will be possible to enlist the proper feeling and right-mindedness of by far the greater part of that community in stamping out the evil, and that it will be possible to exclude absolutely from their ranks any portion of the contamination that exists.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: We are placed in some difficulty with regard to the discussion which has taken place in consequence of the interpellation of the most rev. Primate, for the facts which we are now discussing are not yet before us. We have heard this evening references to revelations which have lately been made. Of those revelations we, on this side of the House, are not aware. At the same time I am bound to say that when the noble Earl, the Secretary for the Colonies comes here and gives us his summary of the information before him, knowing his high character and sincerity, we accept that summary as being a correct and truthful account of the facts as he is aware of them. I gather from that summary that he is satisfied that this evil undoubtedly exists amongst the Chinese coolies. I heard him say, and I was glad to hear him say it, that some of the worst charges which had been made had not been substantiated. I think the expression he used was that the more scandalous of the malpractices had not been proved. We have been told that we who are now sitting on the Opposition benches and who were in favour of importing Chinese labour into Smith Africa ought to have anticipated that all these results would occur. As to that, all I have to say is that so far as we had any trustworthy data before us, they by no means justified that anticipation. Let me remind the House that there was— I cannot recall the exact date, for I was not prepared for this discussion, I think somewhere in the eighties—a Commission which inquired into the employment of Chinese labour in the province

53
of British Columbia. That inquiry was undertaken in consequence of assertions which had been freely made with regard to the conduct of Chinamen. I think I am right in saying—and the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong—that that Commission found that the Chinese coolies in British Columbia were, upon the whole, a more moral and better conducted community than the European workmen employed in the same circumstances. I must say that I was glad when I heard Lord Redesdale get up and bear witness to the many high and valuable qualities for which the Chinese race are distinguished. Like my noble friend I have seen something of Chinamen in different parts of the world, and I have no hesitation in saying that as a general rule the Chinaman is a hard-working, frugal, and well-conducted citizen, and there are many British provinces which would not be in the splendid position they are in to-day if it had not been for the presence of Chinese labour in their midst. Of course, to speak quite frankly, we must have been aware that where a great number of celibate labourers—I do not care whether they are Chinamen or belonging to any other nationality—are gathered together there will be a certain amount of vice and immorality. But we had no reason whatever for supposing that that vice and immorality would be of the character which is now imputed to the Chinese community. Let me also remind the House that when this question was referred to in the debate on the Address at the beginning of the present session, and when His Majesty's Government had had therefore something like three months during which they might have considered the question, the attitude which they then assumed towards it was this: that the question of the employment of Chinese labour was one which might well be left to be dealt with by the responsible Government which was about to be accorded to the two Colonies. That shows that up to that point, at any rate, His Majesty's Government had no reason to believe that these imputations wore well founded. We now understand that there has been an inquiry conducted by a trusted officer appointed by Lord Selborne for that purpose; that that inquiry has disclosed the very grave condition of things to which the noble Earl has called attention. All we can
54
say is that if that is so we shall certainly, as far as our opportunities permit, give our support to His Majesty's Government in dealing energetically with this evil wherever it can be shown to exist. I hope I do not misunderstand the noble Earl when I gather that he told us that there had been no connivance on the part of the local officials. Is that so?
THE EARL OF ELGIN: I do not think that is imputed in the evidence.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am glad to hear that, because in the Reports which had been circulated on this subject it has been stated that there was evidence to show that there had been connivance upon the part of the officials. All I can say is that if any connivance could be brought home to them, I could conceive no measures too severe to deal with such a grave dereliction of duty. We shall so far as we can support His Majesty's Government in their efforts to stamp out this evil, wherever it can be found, and to that extent I am entirely in accord with what fell from the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
House again in Committee (according to order).
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 9:—
VISCOUNT LLANDAFF VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved to leave out the word "charitable" in the first sub-section and insert the word "educational." He said that Clause 9 enabled the local education authority to apply to the Commission established by this Bill if they desired to turn into a provided school any elementary school held under a charitable trust. Their Lordships were aware that the term "charitable trusts" was a very wide one, covering not only a trust for public elementary education but trusts for a great many other objects of public utility, such as public worship, Sunday instruction, the relief of the poor, and a vast number of other trusts of that sort. There were in the country a great many elementary schools, the trustees of which had an alternative

55
in their trusts. They might use the buildings and endowment either for a public elementary school or for other purposes such as Sunday schools or religious observances, or they might turn their buildings into almshouses and apply their funds to that purpose. Those alternative trusts were all charitable trusts, and therefore under this clause as it stood, trustees who had such an alternative trust could be brought before and be dealt with by the Commission. It was perfectly true that His Majesty's Government had more than once expressed clearly the view that trustees with an alternative trust ought not to have their endowments or buildings or school houses interfered with by the Commission. He would just read to the Committee a passage from one of Mr. Birrell's speeches—
"I thought I had made it plain that under the scope of this clause, only those schools could be compelled to permit the use of their premises for the purpose of a public elementary school when it was quite plain that that was the only way in which they could discharge their trust."
No language could be clearer than that. He also said that in the case of private owners and trustees, where there was an alternative trust, so far as the Bill was concerned, they would be free agents. Therefore, it was quite clear that in the mind of the Government, if those trustees were brought before the Commission, they ought to be set free, and be told that as they had an alternative trust their endowments could not be touched. If that was to be the result of bringing them before the Commission, why bring them before that tribunal at all? They might be trustees in Northumberland and Durham who were not provided with the means of locomotion, and why put them to the cost of making this defence? Surely it was only a sensible view that they should not use words in the Bill that would enable anybody to bring before the Commission trustees who were not liable to have their funds alienated and their school turned into a public elementary school. Therefore he thought this clause should be confined to educational trusts. If a trust gave the trustees no option but to supply elementary education, then they were proper subjects for the Commission to deal with. But it seemed to him a little cruel to expose to this liability trustees who had an alternative trust.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 29. to leave out the word 'charitable' and insert the word 'educational.'"—(Viscount Llandaff.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONsaid he was desirous of obtaining more information about this clause from the Lord President of the Council. He wanted to know if his interpretation of the process which he and others who had built schools within the last eight or ten years in the slums of London would have to go through under this clause was correct or not. First of all, he understood that he would have to be taken before the Commission of three in case he did not wish to transfer his school. He then understood that if he wished to keep it as an elementary school he would have to give a guarantee for continuing that school for five years. He put it to their Lordships whether he had not a grievance in regard to that provision? To take a concrete instance of a perfectly new and very beautiful Church school which a few years ago out of their poverty they had built the middle of Bethnal Green for £8,000. Supposing he did not wish to transfer that school? He would be asked, first of all, to give a five years guarantee that he would be able to carry it on as a public elementary school. In a place like London a guarantee of that sort was a very serious thing indeed in a poor district. Even if he did give the five years guarantee the Commission, on looking into the matter, had power to say to him, "Well, on the whole, whether you like it or not, we consider your trust can be best carried out as a provided school"—in other words, that it must cease to be a Church school. In that case the large expenditure to which they had been put would be diverted to another purpose against his will. It might be said that they would be given rent for the school, but he would reply that they did not find that £8,000 to produce rent. If they had wanted a building to produce rent they would have selected a building suitable for a rubber or a boot factory, or spent their £8,000 upon something that would have brought them in a substantial monetary return. Then he looked about to see what rent he was going to get for that brand now school, and he found that the things which the Commission had to look to were four in number, all of which

57
were on the side of the local education authority and not on his side at all. The matters which the Commission had to have regard to were—
"(i) The grants or assistance, if any, received from public funds towards the building, enlargement, or improvement, or fitting up of the school-house;
"(ii) The limited nature of the user thereof by the local education authority;
"(iii) The facilities given therein for special religions instruction and the performance of the original trusts;
"(iv) The cost of maintenance and repair."
There was nothing to say that the Commissioners should consider in any way the fact that £8,000 had been spent on that school by a number of very poor people. It might be said, "Yes, but you will get facilities upon two days and perhaps more." But they did not build that school for facilities. They built it to have a school with a religious atmosphere in the middle of that large slum district, and it was an atmosphere that was so popular that the school was crowded with children from the first and had been crowded over since. His contention was that unless he had interpreted this clause wrongly that school, against the will of the owner, would be dragged down from being a Church school into being a provided school, and as far as he could see the owners would have no redress. That school was under a trust deed. He only gave it as an illustration, but there were thousands of similar cases all over the country. They had been encouraged by the Government to build those schools, and they had been told that if they erected them their maintenance would be placed upon public funds. He thought in the case of a school like the one he had mentioned they had a great grievance. In such cases there was a double trust, namely, the educational trust and a trust for teaching the children in the tenets of the Church of England. If the State made them break the religious part of the trust, was it right that they should make such educational use of it as they thought fit? Those beautiful schools were to be taken from them against their will. His grievance under the clause was that they were not permitted to keep such schools for the purposes for which they were built. If the clause was under consideration on
58
Monday, he should move the insertion of these words—
"Without prejudice to the exercise by the trustees of any discretion vested in them as to the application of the schoolhouse to some other charitable purpose."
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the right rev. Prelate seemed to have passed on in his remarks to a later part of the clause. When they came to discuss the other portions he had two or three points which he would like to state. In the meantime the Amendment was to omit the word "charitable" and insert the word "educational." What he thought they were anxious to know from the Government was why they had chosen a wide word like "charitable," which included a great deal more than "educational," when, in reality, the schoolhouses had reference only to education. As they understood it, this Commission was to be established for the purpose of dealing with trusts connected with education, and education only.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Spointed out that what had been called alternative trusts were, in another place, called open trusts. The Minister for Education had said that alternative trusts referred to such oases as the Wesleyan schools, and he went on to say—
"He did not suppose that they would be brought before the Commission at all."
But the Attorney-General went further than that, and said—
"Open trusts, where there were large discretionary powers, would not, he should think, come within the scope of the clause."
He was sure the noble Earl would be glad to have an opportunity to explain this point upon which there seemed to have been some misunderstanding in regard to the statement made by one of the Law Officers of the Crown. He wished to know whether they were to take it that alternative and open trusts were not trusts at all. He did not venture to suggest the course the noble Earl and the Government should take, but he thought their Lordships would agree with him that it would be well if that matter were cleared up, because from what had been said in another place the point was by no means clear at present.
LORD BARNARDsaid he was sorry to differ from the Earl of Camperdown and Viscount Llandaff upon this point. The term "charitable trusts" was used very deliberately. It was a term well understood in law, and even if the clause was limited to "educational trusts," they would still remain "charitable trusts." It should not be forgotten that this Bill dealt only with schoolhouses and property subject to educational trusts. If the property which Viscount Llandaff alluded to was not subject to a trust for education at all, it would not come within the purview of the Bill, and therefore it could not be treated as an alternative trust. That was a matter, however, which had better be dealt with later in the clause. He was not altogether in accord with His Majesty's Government upon the Bill, but on this point he felt quite clear that the words "charitable trusts" were used correctly and ought to be retained in the Bill.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I have to ask your Lordships' indulgence in dealing with a point which in the main is really a point of law. When I alluded to certain legal aspects of this measure on the Second Reading, the noble Earl was not in his place, but the late Lord Chancellor twitted me with having rather rashly stepped within those precincts. I can assure you that I approach those dreadful precincts on tiptoe, and I am prepared to run away whenever any learned and noble Earl raises an intricate legal point. But after all, these matters have to be dealt with by the votes of laymen, and laymen will have to play a considerable part in the administration of this clause. Consequently although in a very crude and imperfect manner, I hope I may be able to excite in the minds of those who are as ignorant as I am some perceptions of a kindred nature. The single point raised by the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord on the cross benches is that we have used the term "charitable trusts" instead of "educational trusts." But Lord Barnard has indicated in the main the reasons which induced the Government to insert the word "charitable" instead of "educational." So far as this clause is concerned, it may be the case that the word actually used does not very greatly matter. The
60
Bishop of London has asked me to indicate what the process would be when a school came before the Commission. What happens is this. Under Clause 1 any school which is not a provided school receives neither rate nor grant. Therefore, every school which is subject to a charitable trust has to consider whether its trust can be carried on or not. It may be carried on as the right rev. Prelate indicated by being turned into a certified efficient school, but I will not attempt to deal with the reason which induced us to say that a five years guarantee would be necessary for that purpose. Consequently, owing to the provisions of the Bill, all schools subject to trusts are liable to go before the Commission. If it is found that the trust is of an alternative character, and of the kind mentioned by the noble Viscount, the Commission will be able to declare that fact and authorise the trustees to carry out their trusts in an alternative way. When the right rev. Prelate complains that the Commission may have to consider what is the best mode of giving effect to the trust, and expresses the fear that it might always mean the turning of the school into a provided school, I must ask him to look at the top of the same page of the Bill where he will find it stated that—
"The Commission shall act in accordance with the principles followed by the High Court in exercising as the successors of the Court of Chancery the ordinary jurisdiction as to charities inherent in that Court."
It is perfectly obvious that if there is really an alternative the Commission would give the trustees the option of exercising that trust as a matter of course and acting on behalf of the Court of Chancery. Consequently, when "the best mode" is spoken of it means the best mode subject to the principles of the Court of Chancery. Viscount Llandaff said it was a hardship that these people should go before the Commissioners at all, but they must go before somebody unless they are prepared to carry on their school as a certified efficient school without public funds.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: But they have an alternative trust?
THE EARL OF CREWE: But surely someone must approve a scheme on which an alternative trust can be exercised, or otherwise anyone could bring the

61
trustees before the Court for not exercising their trust in a proper manner.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: They might make an arrangement under Clause 2.
THE EARL OF CREWE: That is perfectly true. I would, however, draw attention to the first words of the clause, which state—
"Where the school house of an existing voluntary school is held under charitable trusts and no arrangement has been made with respect to schoolhouse under this Act."
If no arrangement has been made the school cannot be carried on. It has been said that these parties should appear before the Commission and have their trusts examined in order to see if they are of an alternative nature, and then they would be free to carry them out. These trusts are of a most various character, and they contain all manner of provisions. There are a number of Roman Catholic trusts which allow alienation from educational to other purposes. Those will be dismissed by the Commissioners if the trustees choose to carry out their trusts in another way. On the other hand, there are declaratory trusts, where a declaration of trust has been made in quite recent years after a long-continued user of the schools as elementary schools. That applies where the schools are now declared primarily to exist as Roman Catholic elementary schools, and secondly, for charitable purposes. Whether those schools would be allowed to go free and select the other alternative would, of course, be a matter which the Commission would have to decide.
As to mixed trusts as distinct from alternative trusts, and where the purpose for which each part of the trust is to be used is clear, I do not know what the noble Viscount would suggest; but I ask whether it would not be a convenience if mixed trusts could be dealt with as a whole by the Commission in one scheme, instead of obliging the trustees to come before the Commission, and probably before the Charity Commissioners or the Court, to got a fresh scheme for the other part. That would be a convenience for the trustees. There is nothing in the Bill which would prevent the Commission from making a complete
62
scheme for the whole trust if the trustees desired it. No one suggests, I should imagine, that the Commission would do anything of this kind against the will of the trustees. I think the question of the interference of the Court of Chancery arises on a later Amendment, and therefore I will not attempt to deal with it now. As regards the insertion of the word "educational" instead of ''charitable," we adhere to our belief that the word "charitable" is the better word to use. I do not think that the insertion of the word "educational" would make any practical difference so far as Clause 9 is concerned, although I might have something to say on a later clause upon which the noble Viscount again wishes to make a change. I hope the Committee will take the opinion of Lord Barnard on these matters in addition to the opinion of His Majesty's Government, and I appeal to the noble Viscount to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid it appeared to him that the noble Earl had not confined himself to the first Amendment, but had dealt more or less with the general scheme of the clause. The first suggestion made by his noble friend was that "charitable" was not the proper word to use, and that a better word would be "educational." He looked upon that as a complement to the scheme of the Bill, because the words used in Clause 2 were "charitable trusts." They started with the words "charitable trusts," and they gave the owners of a schoolhouse with charitable trusts the power of making an arrangement. This clause was the complement of that proposal, and it provided that where a schoolhouse, subject to such a trust, had not made an arrangement, then the Commissioners would come in and deal with the school which had not been dealt with in the way laid down under Clause 2. He would prefer that, on the Report stage, that that idea should be considered in reference to the two clauses. It would be convenient to deal with the point upon a later clause, and he hoped his noble friend would allow that part of his Amendment to stand over until the next stage of the Bill.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Sgathered from the noble Earl's reply that

63
the statement made by the Attorney- General was not the view taken by the noble Earl himself. The Attorney-General had said that an alternative trust would not come before the Commission at all, but he gathered from the reply which had just been given that that was not so. He understood that where there was an alternative trust the trustees had a discretion, but it appeared to him that this proviso took away that discretion from the trustees and vested it in the Commission of Three.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division, but he would like the noble Earl to consider seriously whether this provision was not inflicting a hardship on trustees who had an alternative trust. Supposing in the case of a mixed trust part of the funds had to be devoted to public elementary education and part to providing almshouses for old people: under this Bill they might bring those trustees before the Commission and the whole endowment might be devoted to the purposes of public elementary education, which would clearly be wrong. His view was that they took the educational trusts and the trusts that were not educational, and turned the schools held under both into public elementary schools, and he thought that was a hardship.
THE EARL OF CREWE: There is no reason why the Commission should do that any more than the Court of Chancery or the Charity Commissioners.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid he thought the Commission would be quite free from the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFF VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved to insert words giving power to "the owners of the school-house," as well as the local authority, to apply to the Commission to make a scheme with respect to the mode in which effect is to be given to the trusts of the schoolhouse in the future.
Amendment moved—
"In page, 7 line 31, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words 'or the owners of the schoolhouse.'"—(Viscount Llandaff.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I regard the Amendment as consequential on what your Lordships have done in an earlier part of the Bill, and I offer no opposition, but I guard myself from being supposed to be an assenting party to the whole scheme of which the present Amendment is a part.
LORD ASHBOURNEpointed out that this was not a consequential Amendment. It might be that the owners were unable to make an arrangement because the local education authority would not meet them in a way which they thought reasonable. The Amendment would allow the owners to appeal to the Commission for a fair arrangement.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, but it is more or less consequential upon what has been done earlier in the Bill.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFF VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved the omission of paragraph (a) from sub-section 2. He said that nothing was more emphatically asserted in the House of Commons than that this Commission was going to act upon the principles of the Court of Chancery. That was the answer made whenever the large powers of the Commission were complained of. It was said that the Commission was to be instituted because the Court of Chancery would not have time to deal with the large number of voluntary schools which would have to be dealt with, and so the Government said they would appoint some eminent men to act as a kind of chapel-at-ease to the Court of Chancery, and it was stated distinctly that they would be guided by the principles of the Court of Chancery. Nothing could be more satisfactory than that, but those words were now followed by other provisos which introduced matters quite contrary to the principles of the Court of Chancery. There was the requirement that the owners of a school should give a guarantee for its effective continuance during the period of at least five years. He did nut think any noble and learned Lord would assert that that was one of the principles upon which the Court of Chancery would ever dream of acting; they never would impose upon trustees conducting public elementary schools as a going concern a condition that they should give a guarantee

65
for the effective continuance of a school for five years. Such a principle was unknown in the Court of Chancery. What had happened in this Bill was that a broad principle had been laid down, and then it was followed by exceptions which completely destroyed the Bill, Paragraph (b) was still more contrary to the principles of the Court of Chancery. The effect of that sub-section would be to enable the Commissioners to take a school of which the trust was denominational, and which had been built for the very object of carrying on denominational teaching of a certain kind, and make a scheme which they considered would be the best mode of giving effect to the trust. They might take such a school and twist it into a Cowper-Temple school unless the trustees were prepared to give a guarantee to maintain the school for five years. To whom the guarantee was to be given he did not know, neither did he know what shape it was to take because the question was left vague and at the good pleasure of the Court. How were they going to get the humble subscribers to the right rev. Prelate's school in Bethnal Green, which cost £8,000, subscribed in half-crowns and sovereigns, to give a guarantee that they would continue their subscriptions for five years? He contended that the requirement of such a guarantee was a thing unknown to the Court of Chancery, and he begged to move the omission of paragraph (a).
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 4, to leave out from the word 'Court' to the end of paragraph (a) of sub-section (2)."—(Viscount Llandaff.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in supporting the Amendment, said the case was much stronger than had been made out by the noble Viscount. The Act laid down that the Commissioners—
"Shall not treat a proposal to carry on an elementary school as a proper mode of giving effect to the trusts of the school-house unless sufficient guarantee is given for the effective continuance of the school for a period of at least five years."
It did not even say that if the guarantee were given they could carry on the school. Whether they gave the guarantee or not it did not follow that the school would be carried on; at least that was his conclusion after reading paragraph (b).
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Sthought a good deal of significance attached to the word "but." It did not appear to him that paragraph (a) under sub-section (2) was in accordance with the principles of the Court of Chancery. Why should trustees who desired to carry on their trusts not be allowed to do so, even if they were willing—simply because they could not give an undertaking to carry on the school for five years? Sir Henry Craik, who spoke with great authority upon this Bill, had said deliberately that this condition was one which it was impossible for trustees to fulfil. Therefore he hoped the noble Earl would be able to tell them that this was a point to which His Majesty's Government were prepared to give further consideration. A very strong feeling had been raised by it, and he looked upon it as a proposal which violated the very rudiments of liberty. He hoped the noble Earl would be able to assure the Committee on this point, because a great many people considered it most objectionable and inequitable.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELDsaid there were one or two points which had not been made quite clear to the Committee. He wished to know what kind of schools could be carried on under this guarantee. Would it include a certified efficient school or a State-aided school? He wished to know what was the exact meaning of "a sufficient guarantee." Did it mean that the trustees would be obliged to produce a guarantee to provide a certain amount of funds for five years, or would the assurance of certain persons be considered sufficient without laying down a certain sum of money? It was important they should know these things before voting for this clause, because it seemed a very cruel thing that schools should be abruptly stopped from carrying out their trusts.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I want to ask why it is that His Majesty's government are not content to leave the Commission to be guided by the principles of the Court of Chancery? What they do in effect is that they begin by laying down that the Commission is to follow the principles of the Court of Chancery, and then they proceed to enumerate a number of considerations which the

67
Commission is to take into account. With regard to those considerations, it occurs to me that most of them are considerations which, without any special guidance, would be present to the minds of the Commission; and, in the next place, the considerations singled out are of a one-sided character, and all of them adverse to the owners, while no other considerations which conceivably might have operated in another direction find a place in the clause.
THE EARL OF CREWE: This proposal has evidently caused a considerable degree of criticism on the part of noble Lords opposite and many right rev. Prelates. Perhaps my best plan is to state briefly what the position of a school under these circumstances is. This is a trust school, and if the educational character of the charity is proved, unless it is made the subject of an arrangement, it loses the whole of its State support both from the rates and from grants. Noble Lords may say that that is a scandalous thing to do, and that we have no right to treat schools in this way. That, however, is a semi-political question, and I only mention it to make it clear that that is what legally would occur under the Bill. The right rev. Prelate says that that is a great shame, because the school has been carried on with the aid of grants, but I would remind the right rev. Prelate that it is not a one-sided arrangement. It is at least equally true to say that the grants were allowed by the State on the payment of subscriptions, and that when the subscriptions were not adequate the bargain failed. Suppose the school having lost its rates and grants is penniless and it comes before the Commission in that form. I respect the opinion of the noble Viscount, but I should certainly have thought that if a school in that condition was going before the Court of Chancery for a scheme, which is what it would have to do, a mere statement that it was going to be carried on as a certified efficient school would not have been enough for any Court, and they would have said when a scheme was asked for, "You must show us how you are going to carry on the school as a certified efficient school." A general statement that the owners were going to carry on a school by private funds would certainly not be taken as the groundwork of a scheme which the Court would have to
68
prepare. The Bishop of Wakefield asked me whether such a school could become a State-aided school. The answer to that is "Certainly not," because if the right rev. Prelate looks at the Bill he will see that various processes have to be gone through before schools can become Stateaided schools, and it would be impossible for the trustees to foresee those conditions and to prophesy that the school would fulfil the conditions required of a State-aided school. What is meant by this is a certified efficient school. Then it is said that it is a monstrous hardship to require that it should be carried on under a guarantee for five years. Apparently it has not occurred to noble Lords and right rev. Prelates what the obvious reason of this provision is. It seems to be assumed that it is due to some sort of animosity against the religiously conducted schools. What has been in the mind of the Government is a consideration which, unluckily, we have not heard as much of as we ought to have heard during the last few days, owing to the necessities of the case. What was in the mind of the Government is a purely educational consideration. It is obvious that, if people are tempted by a desire to keep these schools going, they may hold a vain hope that they might be able to carry them on as certified efficient schools without rate or grant. That would happen in proportion to the fervour and keenness of those interested in the schools, and the enthusiastic and hopeful would try to persuade themselves and others that the money would be found. Perhaps it would not be found, and the school would necessarily go down. It would then be badly conducted, the children would suffer, and, after all, probably they would have to come for a scheme. That is the simple reason why this provision has been inserted; and if it is struck out I should consider that the Bill suffered severely. The question of the guarantee will be left to the Commissioners to decide. I think it is evident that they would demand something more than a mere friendly assurance that the money would be found; they would demand some distinct assurance that the subscriptions would be forthcoming for the term of five years.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid their Lordships would realise what an extraordinary and difficult

69
thing it would be to give a guarantee for five years in a poor district with a shifting population, and he could not see why anything like a period of five years should be required at all. It did not take five years to make the necessary changes, and this guarantee would be prohibitory in many cases. He protested against the noble Earl's assertion that subscriptions had fallen off. As a matter of fact they had doubled, while the expense of education had increased something like four or five times. It would be an almost intolerable thing to expect that the subscriptions should be maintained in proportion to the constantly rising cost of education.
EARL CAWDORsaid that the clause provided that the Commission should abide by the rules of the Court of Chancery, and he could not understand why these one-sided conditions had been inserted. The noble Earl said it was necessary that the guarantee should be for five years, but surely that was a point which the Court of Chancery ought to take into consideration? It appeared to him that the more reasonable course would be to leave the Commission to abide by the rules of the Court of Chancery.
LORD FITZMAURICEthought noble Lords had forgotten the interests of the ratepayers and of the local authority. There must be some security for what the local authority might be called upon to undertake in the future, and it was surely a rational thing that a period should be laid down within which the guarantee was to operate. As to the increase of subscriptions, he did not underrate the efforts made either in the past or now by sincere Churchmen, but he asked how it had come about that since 1902 the whole annual maintenance of Church schools had been thrown upon the county or borough funds? He failed to see under those circumstances how there could be any call upon Church subscribers for the upkeep of those schools. He knew they had to keep up the structural repair of the schools, but they had to do that before.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid the argument of the Lord President of the Council was that the whole circumstances had changed by the falling off of the subscriptions. He was speaking of what had happened during
70
the last decade, and he was speaking in general terms. The position had been affected very much since 1902, but it was quite a misapprehension, and a common one outside, to take simply the percentage of the proportion of the cost of education as a whole and then say that the Church subscriptions had fallen off. It was true that the subscriptions were bearing a smaller proportion to the cost of education than they used to, but they were very much larger in amount, and wore not smaller than in the decade immediately preceding.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYpointed out that these schools must be certified efficient schools. He thought it would be better if the clause ran "unless the proprietors give an undertaking to conduct their school as a certified efficient school." The great mass of Church of England schools were held under the trust deeds of the National Society, which provided for the education of the children in the principles of the Church of England. He thought it was only fair that whore there was a wish to keep on the school they should have the right to do so, and they would be giving complete effect to the trust if they undertook to maintain their school as a certified efficient school. If the words he suggested were put in the people who undertook to manage a school would do so at their own risk, and the local authority would have a prompt remedy if they did not fulfil their trust, because the school would have to be inspected by the Government Inspector.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNhoped that the Government would consider the suggestion which had been thrown out by the noble Lord opposite. The five years guarantee was a serious matter, but to undertake to maintain the school as a certified efficient school was quite a different thing, and one which, he thought, might fairly be considered by the Government.
THE EARL OF CREWE: As regards this suggestion, I do not know whether it has occurred to my noble friend that the practical difficulty which we have to meet is not overcome by his suggestion. There would be nothing to prevent a large number of schools declaring their

71
intention to become certified efficient schools and not remaining efficient long, and that, of course, would not carry out the object of the Bill.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that surely the Government could trust their own Commission in this matter not to allow a school to continue unless the conditions were reasonable. They called
House resumed, and to be again in Committee on Monday next.
a Commission into existence and gave it great powers, and then they fettered the Commissioners all through with conditions as to how they should carry out those powers.
On Question, "That paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) stand part of the clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 30; Not-contents, 91.

CONTENTS.

Crewe, E. (L. President.)

Temple, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Lyveden, L.

Manchester, D.

Brassey, L.

Reay, L.

Burghclere, L.

Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

Coleridge, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Carrington, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Chesterfield, E.

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

Tweedmouth, L.

Chichester, E.

Wandsworth, L

Craven, E.

Fitzmaurice, L.

Weardale, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Haversham, L.

Welby, L.

Russell, E.

Headley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Radnor, E.

Barrymore, L.

Stamford, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Stanhope, E.

Blythswood, L.

Newcastle, D.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Braye, L.

Northumberland, D.

Wharncliffe, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Yarborough, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Somerset, D.

Clinton, L.

Cobham, V.

Colchester, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Colville of Culross, V.

De Mauley, L.

Bath, M.

Falkland, V.

Estcourt, L.

Camden, M.

Falmouth, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Exeter, M.

Halifax, V.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Hertford, M.

Hill, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Lansdowne, M.

Llandaff, V.

Harris, L.

Winchester, M.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Hastings, L.

Hylton, L.

Abingdon, E.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Camperdown, E.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Cathcart, E.

Birmingham, L. Bp.

Knaresborough, L.

Cawdor, E.

Chester, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

Dartrey, E.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Denbigh, E.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Devon, E.

London, L. Bp.

Newton, L.

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

Oxford, L. Bp.

North, L.

St. David's, L. Bp.

Rathmore, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Redesdale, L.

Guilford, E.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Seaton, L.

Haddington, E.

Stalbridge, L.

Kilmorey, E.

Abinger, L.

Waleran, L.

Lichfield, E.

Addington, L.

Wolverton, L.

Londesborough, E.

Ampthill, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Onslow, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Barnard, L.

House adjourned at half-past Eleven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.